Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss551-600

Text File | 1991-08-02 | 873KB | 21,728 lines

Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15841;
          20 Jul 91 6:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32202;
          20 Jul 91 4:25 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16633;
          20 Jul 91 3:20 CDT
Date:     Sat, 20 Jul 91 3:04:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #551
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Jul 91 03:04:31 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 551

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Getting Off a Party Line [B.J. Herbison]
    Re: Getting Off a Party Line [Mark Terrible]
    Re: Information Wanted on Portable Faxes and Fax Boards [Rick Farris]
    Re: More Automated Paging [Mike Molleck]
    Re: PacTel Information Wanted [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Dave Mausner]
    Re: RJ11, 12,13 [Stephen Tell]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem - The Solution [Dale Gass]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem [Jonathan Mark]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Bob Frankston]
    Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Steve Thornton]
    Anyone Know Mr. ZZYZZYXY? [Rick Broadhead]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 14:11:57 PDT
From: "B.J.  18-Jul-1991 1708" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line


[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?)

If they order a second line, will that be a party line as well?  If
not, order a second line and, once it works, cancel the first line.
The drawback of this is changing your phone number.


B.J.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 01:11:31 -0400
From: mole-end![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line


> 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?

Or get an `extra' ordinary line, but continue to eavesdrop (NOT talk)
on the party line ... which should cure the neighbors.


(This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end                Mark Terribile

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

From: Rick Farris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Portable Faxes and Fax Boards
Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 18:00:30 GMT


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

> 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.

The August {Unixworld} (just now appearing on the newsstands) has a
roundup review of fax products.  It doesn't answer all the questions
you asked, but it does hit some of them.


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

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

Date: 18 Jul 91 16:02:33 EDT
From: Mike Molleck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Automated Paging


A while back, there was a discussion of using modems to dial out to
paging services.  I've written my own LAN monitoring software for
MasterCard, and I'm trying to get it to page me when something needs
attention; can you all stand a few more questions on this subject?

I remembered reading in TELECOM Digest that many paging services offer
a dial-in port specifically for modems, so I called CyberTel Paging
and (after a little run-around, this isn't the kind of call they're
used to receiving) spoke at length with an engineer there.

Apparently this is more complicated than it was made to sound here.
Rather than having a prompt-and-response system, CyberTel depends on
the remote system building a text file according to something called
the "IXO protocol" and sending that when it dials in.

Does anyone have a copy of that protocol spec that they'd be willing
to send to [e-mail], CompuServe [76376,1274], AppleLink
B0186, fax [phone], voice 314-275-3645, or SnailMail to Brad
Hicks, MasterCard International, 12115 Lackland Rd., St. Louis, MO
63146?  (Please don't recommend anonymous FTP or any other form of
Internet file transfer; my only Internet connection is through email
services.)  Failing that, where would I look for such a thing?

The CyberTel tech also tried pushing me towards software or hardware
that is specifically designed for alpha-numeric paging ... but
admitted that I'd have a nightmarish time trying to control either one
from another piece of software.

One further note for anybody else who's thinking about doing this: the
engineer at CyberTel also insisted before telling me anything that if
I'm going to write my own software to the IXO protocol, I coordinate
my test with their technicians ... apparently, if you build the
packets wrong, it can have a severe impact on the system.


J. Brad Hicks   Senior Macintosh Specialist    MasterCard International

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

From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PacTel Information Wanted
Date: 18 Jul 91 23:33:43 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matt Simpson)
writes:

> 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.
 ...
> cordless phone, or where I could look for more info?

Next time try the 800 directory (1-800-555-1212).
PacTel Products - [phone]


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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1991 11:11:22 CDT
From: "Dave Mausner, X4450" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals


> Moderator's Musings:

[musings deleted]

I doubt, for the moment, that IBT will be required to file because the
establishment hates drug dealing in poor neighborhoods and this is
easy, clean, and makes good press. As for the other LATA, etc
considerations, it's doubtful that local users (other than drug
dealers) will be affected.


Dave Mausner, Sr Tech Consultant / Datalogics Inc / Chicago IL / 312-266-4450
                        [e-mail]
                              NU TI 74

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

From: Stephen Tell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ11, 12,13
Date: 19 Jul 91 19:32:51 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Alain Fontaine) 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'.

Strictly speaking, I believe that "RJ11" means a six-position modular
plug with only two pins actually used -- pins three and four for a
standard POTS phone line.  I'm not sure which is supposed to be Tip
and which Ring, and it doesn't much matter since most phones are
polarity insensitive anyway.

As near as I can tell, the "RJ" designations refer to a combination of
a particular physical plug and electrical assignent of the pins.

RJ12 adds two more wires in addition to the phone line of RJ11; pins
two and five of the six position modular plug are used for the "A" and
"A1" signals.

"A" and "A1" are for an auxiliary contact closure made by the phone
(or modem) when it goes off-hook.  It is used to interface a
single-line instrument to a "1A2" or equivilent key system so that the
indicator lights on multi-line phones light properly when the
single-line set or modem is in use.

> 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.

I suppose it is possible to do this; probably the device senses loop
current in the phone line to activate the contact closure.  The
prefered way is to use another relay controlled by the modem's
microcontroller.  You can't just use a double-pole relay to take the
modem off hook and close A/A1 because you don't want the A/A1 signal
to chatter while pulse dialing.

> 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.

Just last night I modified my Supra modem to support an RJ12 jack so
it will light the indicators on the little key system I've put
together out of surplus ITT parts.  It is a very easy modification to
make to any modem using the Intel 89024 chip set; the digital section
has an output pin to control the A/A1 relay.  The AT&j command then
controls whether the A/A1 relay closes when the modem goes off hook.
I'll be writing up the modification for the Digest.

There are lots of other uses for the A/A1 contact closure besides key
system control.  Two that come to mind are: (1) setting up a
phone-line in use indicator without resorting to the several
voltage-sensing circuits recently posted here, very few of which will
work properly under all conditions. (2) using that relay to activate
another relay that cuts off all of the other phones in the house when
the modem is in use.  These are both low-tech, simple, reliable
solutions to problems that can also be solved in other ways as well.
Like the 1A2 key system, they use simple technology, but a lot of
copper wire!


Steve Tell       [e-mail]    H: [phone]   #5L Estes Park apts
UNC Chapel Hill Computer Science    W: [phone]   Carrboro NC 27510

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

From: Dale Gass <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem - The Solution
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Atlantic Canada Branch
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1991 20:34:16 -0300


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

>> 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

> 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.

Not being an engineering type, this question may have no validity, but
here goes:

I have a similar problem, but am curious as to what effect a choke
would have on high speed modem throughput, where the modem is
squeezing all it can out of the line.  While certainly acceptable for
voice, would chokes affect the useful throughput of a phone line for
modulated data?  Or are the frequencies they affect strictly out of
the normal range used by modems.

(I believe that my particular problem is due to a cheapie phone, since
I've tried other phone which work fine, but I am still curious as to
whether or not a choke would affect data throughput.)

> 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,

(BTW: Our phone company in Nova Scotia, Maritime Tel & Tel, said that
their phones have some form of filter built-in to help reduce radio
interfere in areas of our city that are prone to it.)


            Dale Gass
      Mortice Kern Systems
     Atlantic Canada Branch
   Business: [e-mail]
Pleasure: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jonathan MARK)
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem
Date: 18 Jul 91 16:29:15 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jonathan MARK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA


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

> I've just moved to a hill upon which a radio transmitter is located...
> I can often hear a particular radio station very strongly over the
> phone ...

Certainly call the FCC -- they will send you a complaint form to fill
out.  The radio station may be required to take measures to clean up
their signal.  I get the impression that the FCC is pretty tough about
this sort of thing.


Jonathan Mark    uunet!microsoft!jonm    [not speaking for my employer]

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

From: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Date: 19 July 1991 22:19 -0400


The esteemed Moderator sounds like a telephone operator when saying
that you cannot place free calls from oversees because you cannot
place free calls from overseas.  But the question was why, if the
caller IS willing to pay, is there no mechanism.  Sounds like a great
revenue opportunity for a telco.  In fact, this is needed domestically
when DA gives out an unreachable 800 number.

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

From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z
Date: 19 Jul 91 01:58:28 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

>This year, in San Jose and Santa Clara, "A" is listed as being at:

The only 'A' in the Huntsville telephone directory is:

A TO Fraternity

I assume the ATOs listed it that way on purpose to move it from AT to
A.


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 16:21:15 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z


OK, I can play this game too. The '91 Boston directory, including Brookline,
Cambridge, and Somerville, starts off with 16 entries under "A", beginning
with

         A  Beacon Bos...........
         A  Boston MA............
         A  437 Boyl Bos.........
         A  419 Boylston Bos.....
         A  Cambridge MA.........

which suggests that they sort by the second _word_ first (Beacon is a
street, Boston is a city, Boylston is a street) and then the number,
even if the number comes first, which is wierd. The last entry is
Zzyzzy Aaron, which beats Chicago and San Jose, at least.


Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / [phone]
[e-mail] / [e-mail]


[Moderator's Amusement: Not so! 'Beacon' with a lack of street number
in Boston sorts before 'Boston' with a lack of street name.
Furthermore, 'Boyl' as a short form of Boylston sorts before
'Boylston' as the full form of the street name. Here, there was just
some arbitrary decision by a data entry clerk somewhere. Had the first
'Boyl' been expanded to its full spelling, then it (being an identical
name on an identical street) would have sorted *after* the 419 entry.
In the process of sorting, 'Boyl' is not the same as 'Boylston', which
would come later.  And 'Cambridge' with a lack of street name sorts
after 'Boston' with a lack of street name and both 'Boyl' and
'Boylston'. The sorting always goes as shown below and continues to
the point where something is not identical to other similar entries:

last/first/middle/street name/number on street/phone number     PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 20:32:50 EDT
From: Rick Broadhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anyone Know Mr. ZZYZZYXY?


In TELECOM Digest #543, the 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.

I own and treasure a copy of Dmitri Borgmann's {Language on Vacation}
[Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965].

Mr. Borgmann, who was an authority on the oddities and curiosities of
the English language, noted the following in his chapter on letters
and letter patterns:

"Ripley, of "Believe It Or Not" fame, once located the surname ZZYZZ
in Los Angeles.  We regarded this palindrome as most noteworthy until
we discovered that the current (1964-65) Chicago telephone directory
lists the surname ZZYZZYXY.  Appropriately, the first name of the
individual listed is ZYZZY!"

I believe that tops the Moderator's "Mr. Zzyzx."

Pat, are you sure Isadore Zzyzx has held the record for the last thirty
years?


Rick Broadhead    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I honestly can't remember if he has been *last* all
those years -- he certainly has otherwise been next to last.  :)  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #551
******************************





ISSUES 552 - 560 ARRIVED IN MIXED UP ORDER. ALL ARE PRESENT BELOW.





Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11462;
          21 Jul 91 5:07 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29542;
          21 Jul 91 3:35 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04847;
          21 Jul 91 2:28 CDT
Date:     Sun, 21 Jul 91 2:13:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #552
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Jul 91 02:13:15 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 552

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Jess Anderson]
    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Chris Boaro]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Stuart Lynne]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem [Doctor Math]
    Re: The Big Losers [Doctor Math]
    Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices [H. Silbiger]
    Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Brian Cuthie]
    Re: More Automated Paging [Bob Frankston]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem [Andrew Payne]
    Re: Schematic for Model 500 Phone [Bob Hale]
    Statistics on Bell's Breakup [Harper's Magazine via [e-mail]]
    How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? [Phydeaux]
    Simple Computer / Phone Link Wanted [Jerry Leichter]
    ONA and Europe's Open Service Architecture [Jose Diaz-Gonzalez]
    No More 301-826 Accident Exchange? [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jess Anderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 09:22:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> samsung!athenanet.com!
[e-mail] (Ken Abrams) writes:

> 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).

One pure dumb luck story, coming up.

My phone stopped working one night about a month ago after a
particularly loud crack of thunder.  The phone people were out the
next day, and sure enough there was a dead short on my wire, one pole
over from the one in the corner of my back yard, where I'm attached.
That's about 130 feet from my demark.  Like a fool, I stayed online
when this storm rolled up, though I did reach over and switch my Unix
box off, in other words, not much of a step.

What the lineman found was that lightning had struck that pole, and
the only damage done to the cable was to fuse one pair of wires: mine.
Upon fixing that, he immediately discovered yet another dead short on
my pair, one more pole in the direction away from my house.  The wire
was melted and fused at that spot too.

He figured the lightning bolt had struck one pole (he thought it was
the nearer one), traveled along the wire and exited at the next pole.
So I got away with it that time.  I'm not looking a gift horse in the
mouth, however, and am definitely shopping for high-grade protection
for both power and communications lines.  On this occasion, I'm just
very glad that Thor decided to take the road less traveled than the
one to my house.


Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: [e-mail] <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: [e-mail]  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone [phone]

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

From: Chris Boaro <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems
Organization: SCS/Compute, Inc.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 19:18:10 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Linc
Madison) writes:

> 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?

Ha! You think that's bad ... we lost 12 out of 13 US Robitics HSTs in
a single electrical storm a few weeks back! It was interesting that
only the HSTs got fried, even tho we have 60 or so generic 2400 baud
modems. It was also obvious that the surge came from the phone lines,
since two of the modems weren't even plugged into the power, just the
phone!! It was especially amusing when we called the phone company to
complain, and they STILL tried to tell us it was a power problem.

> 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.

Could you post Direct Micro's phone number if you have it? (I do not
yet have a reliable e-mail address). We are probably going to buy a
large box from "Black Box" that can provide protection for about 50
lines. It's a patch board kinda thing and pretty pricey at $650.


Chris

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

From: Stuart Lynne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: Wimsey Associates
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1991 07:51:58 GMT


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

> 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]

Hmmm ... when did Canada join the US :-)

As of the early 1980's 800 service was extended across the US Canada
border. Subject to the same economic considerations of course. It is
more expensive than just offerring within the US (or within Canada) so
not that many companies offer.

It is one of the first things I look for when deciding if I want to do
business with a US supplier. Does their 800 number work in Canada? For
example AT&T has an 800 number for ordering books, it is a different
number up here, but does (the last time I tried it) terminate down in
the US. The operator that answered my call did not know I was calling
from Canada. SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) has one common 800 number that
works in both the US and Canada for sales.


Stuart Lynne    Computer Signal Corporation, Canada
        ...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7785 604-937-7718(fax) [e-mail]

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

From: Doctor Math <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 00:40:49 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> 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

Reminds me of an old blurb (seventies?) in Popular Electronics about a
guy who lived next to a radio tower where the signals were so strong
that they would excite flourescent tubes. When asked what he did about
it to sleep at night, he replied, "Oh, I just stick them in the closet,
man.".

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

From: Doctor Math <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Big Losers
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 00:21:06 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> 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.

Judge Greene is dead! Long live Judge Greene!

Uh, yeah.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 08:17:19 EDT
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Patt Bromberger) writes:

> 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.

I think you can keep your AT&T credit card if it is one of the new
ones which are not tied to your telephone number.  Then you could use
it to make your calls to the US.


Herman Silbiger

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

From: Brian Cuthie <umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals
Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1991 13:36:03 GMT


> [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]

Geesh!  Pat, what portion of the world do *you* live in ?  If it was
this easy for the average shopkeeper, or citizen for that matter, to
expell the drug dealers from their premises, do you think that we
would have to resort to any of these whacko ideas ?

The police are busy enough as it is that they are not going to come
running every ten minutes when Norman the shopkeeper calls to complain
about the aledged drug dealers hanging around his pay phone.

BUT: I think the IBT idea is almost as rediculous.  Like many others
that have posted here, the plan to limit coin usage is not going to
deter the drug dealers at all.  It will only make them come up with
some other plan.  Stealing calling cards is certainly an obvious one.
There are many others, I'm sure.

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

From: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: Re: More Automated Paging
Date: 20 July 1991 09:45 -0400


IXO protocol?  There was a small handheld terminal from the 80's (84?)
called the IXO.  It had a 16 character display.  I wonder if the "IXO"
protocol is its legacy.

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Payne)
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1991 13:16:33 GMT


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

>> I've just moved to a hill upon which a radio transmitter is located...
>> I can often hear a particular radio station very strongly over the
>> phone ...

> Certainly call the FCC -- they will send you a complaint form to fill
> out.  The radio station may be required to take measures to clean up
> their signal.  I get the impression that the FCC is pretty tough about
> this sort of thing.

    No, no, no!  As a first step, do NOT contact the FCC!  This is
akin to slapping your neighbor with a lawsuit because she's playing
her radio too loud.  Instead, try to resolve it yourself first (as has
been discussed).  If that fails, try contacting the radio station:
their engineer has probably heard many complaints similar to yours and
should have some suggestions.

    Finally (and ONLY finally), contact the FCC.  But you will
probably be disappointed: it may take the better part of a year to get
a response to your inquiry.  And when you do get a response, you may
be evn more suprised.  For many people in your situation (e.g. "I live
next door to a broadcast transmitter"), the FCC often considers the
problem yours.  Why?  Transmitters are rarely at fault (as has been
pointed out), especially broadcast transmitters that have been on for
years and weathered a storm of complaints already.  The problem is
most likely in your phone.  Consumer electronics often aren't happy in
a high-RF environment.  Lack of shielding, bypassing, and filtering
and you've got a phone that picks up am 870 as well as your pocket
radio.


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

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

From: Bob Hale <btree![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Schematic For Model 500 Phone
Organization: Brooktree Corporation
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 15:05:07 GMT


I've had a number of requests for the schematic of the model 500
telephone.  Unfortunately, I haven't been able to respond to some of
you because the mailer here won't take a path with an @ in it; I can
only mail to bang paths such as uunet!<somesystem>!<someuser>.

The schematic is a hand drawn one; if you are interested then send me
an SASE at the address below and I'll return a copy of it.


Bob Hale                        ...!ucsd!btree!hale
Brooktree Corporation           ...!btree![e-mail]
9950 Barnes Canyon Road        San Diego, CA  92121

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 17:45:27 EST
From: Operator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Statistics on Bell's Breakup


Item in {Information Week}, reprinted from {Harper's}, July 1991 p.60:

After Ma Bell became seven regional holding companies (RHCs) in 1984,
customers expected full competition from their local phone carriers.
Instead, customers have seen seven regulated phone monopolies and
unregulated corporations serving RHC shareholders. Not convinced?
While new technology was expected to cut costs, the average local
phone bill has risen 56% more than inflation since 1984. However, long
distance rates have *dropped* 31% over the same period.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 13:50:15 PDT
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps?


I'd like to find out where the cell sites are for Cellular
One/Chicago.  They refuse to help me with dropped calls except to say
"check your antenna, there are lots of cells in your area." ...  Does
anyone know how to go about this?

Besides the dropped calls, I'm also curious about where they placed
them.


*-=#= 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: Thu, 18 Jul 91 07:04:40 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Simple Computer / Phone Link Wanted


I'd like to be able to have my system send me Email (at a known,
remote location) informing me when someone called and left a message.
I could then call in and check the message.

There are certainly plenty of fancy PC-based voicemail systems and
such like things that could do the trick, but that's a fairly
expensive way to go.  Can anyone think of a good, quick hack to
accomplish this?  (Just a simple way to send some information down an
RS-232 line when the answering machine has recorded a call would be
sufficient.)

Not expecting much, but trying to be cheap ...


Jerry

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

From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez <[e-mail]>
Subject: ONA and Europe's Open Service Architecture
Date: 18 Jul 91 15:25:19 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated, Waltham MA


Hi there,

The subject line says most of it.  I am looking for specific documents
that detail what COMPUTER III is and what is the expected architecture
of ONA.  Also, I have read ("A New Network Architecture for ONA and
ONP" Salles, J.M., Telecommunications, Vol. 23, No. 7, 1989) that the
Europeans are ellaborating a general service model (along the lines of
OSI layers/dimensions) that is called the Open Service Architecture.
Does anyone have pointers to information on any of these?  Cheers,


Jose

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 9:57:49 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: No More 301-826 Accident Exchange?


I just got to a library which had the (June) 1990 and 1991 editions of
the Garrett County (Maryland) phone book by C&P.  That's the
westernmost county in Maryland; I was looking it up because I received
an inquiry regarding the absence of 301-826 Accident exchange.

The call guide lists the various calling areas, including Accident and
Friendsville (the Friendsville exchange is 301-746), which apparently
have the same calling area.  It's my GUESS that 826 was closed down
and its subscribers put on 746, because I am seeing 746 printed for
both Accident and Friendsville.


[Moderator's Muse: Maybe they misprinted it by accident.   :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #552
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15149;
          21 Jul 91 7:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20454;
          21 Jul 91 5:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29491;
          21 Jul 91 4:36 CDT
Date:     Sun, 21 Jul 91 3:32:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #553
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Jul 91 03:31:54 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 553

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers [Mark Miller]
    Sprint Plus Change Letter [Ken Jongsma]
    MCI Bill Insert [Sean Williams]
    Oops ... Not a Telemarketer [Bill Parrish]
    Long Distance Operator Dialing Techniques [mission![e-mail]]
    Being Charged by Third Carrier [Walter Morales]
    LD Carriers: Which is Best and Least Expensive? [[e-mail]]
    Church 900 Hotline Program [Dave Leibold]
    New FCC Cable Rules - Copy Wanted [Jack Powers]
    Calling Party Lines / Ringback [mission![e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mark Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 19:11:55 EDT


Well, Sprint is finally informing it's customers of it's changes to
it's Sprint Plus plan.  In the mailbox I just got a letter from the
"President, Consumer Services Group", whose full text is attached.

The most humorous part is the second paragraph:

    You are our number one priority.  For this reason, when
    we make changes at Sprint that may affect you, I want to
    make sure you receive the information quickly and
    directly.

Does anyone out there think that this notice was received "quickly and
directly??"  Not me.

To be fair, I think that Sprint realized their error, perhaps they got
a lot of heat, since they are taking a very gratuitous tone in the
letter, and accompanying brochures.

Also, they included a "no-strings-attached" $5.00 gift certificate!
(No need to worry about what to cross out or not to sign it :-)) That
will at least appease me for the time being.

 --- Full text of letter - typos mine - line breaks/formatting Sprint's ---

Dear Customer,

I'd like to take this opportunity to personally thank you for being a
valued Sprint customer.

You are our number one priority.  For this reason, when we make
changes at Sprint that may affect you, I want to make sure you receive
the information quickly and directly.

We recently restructured our rates for your service, Sprint PLUS(sm).
This adjustment includes a modest increase for some customers' rates
(an average of less that three percent). It allows us to offer you
larger discounts at lower spending levels, providing significant
savings. In addition, you pay no minimums and there are no
restrictions whatsoever. Best of all, these discounts apply around the
clock and around the country for all your direct-dial state-to-state
calls.

The accompanying brochure and SPRINTLINE(sm) newsletter explain Sprint
PLUS in detail and introduce you to the personalized benefits of our
new Sprint Priority(sm) Customer Program. Please take a moment to read
this information.

Let me say in closing that we appreciate your loyalty to Sprint and
care about you as a customer. With that in mind, we are enclosing a
$5.00 gift certificate. good for free long distance. We look forward
to satisfying your long-distance needs with the best quality, service
and value in the telecommunications industry.

            Sincerely,

            Dave Schmeig
            President
            Consumer Services Group

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

Mark T. Miller   [e-mail]   uunet!xyzzy!miller

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

Subject: Sprint Plus Change Letter
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 13:38:26 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


It would appear that Sprint has been getting quite a bit a reaction to
their changes to Sprint Plus. Basically, they deleted the provision
for billing evening and night calls at the same rate, increased and
extended the volume discounts slightly, and effectively raised rates
about 3%.

Anyway, today I received a form letter from the president of Sprint's
Consumer Services Group. He acknowledges the rate change, thanks me
for being a customer and included a check good for a $5 credit on my
next phone bill.

He mentions my affiliation with USAA, so I'm not sure if this letter
is going to everyone, or just USAA members.


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


[Moderator's Note: It sounds like there were slightly different
versions of the letter (depending on certain special affiliations,
etc) all of which said about the same thing.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 19:52 GMT
From: Sean Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Bill Insert


 From the latest MCI Bill:

Effective August 1, 1991, MCI is making changes which will affect long
distance bill.

* The per minute rate for MCI Card calls using the 950-1022 access
will be reduced by 3.4%, and the 950-1022 access surcharge will
increase to $0.75.

* Volume Discounts for intrastate Dial 1, Card, and Operator Service
calls are being eliminated, and the price of each intrastate call will
be rounded down to the nearest cent.

* The Around Town feature will be eliminated for intrastate MCI Card
calls.

* These changes are subject to the approval of the Pennsylvania PUC.

 ... Just thought you'd like to know!


Sean E. Williams        |  [e-mail]
Spectrum Telecommunications     |  Have a Nice Day!
PO Box 227                      |  <<No Disclaimer Needed>>
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227        |  voicemail [phone]

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

Subject: Oops ... Not a Telemarketer
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 13:46:21 PDT
From: bparrish <[e-mail]>


Yesterday morning, we got a call, asking for my wife or myself by name
from "MCI INTERNATIONAL"... saying they had a telegram for us.  Well,
we have had so many crazy telemarketing calls recently, my wife handed
me the phone, and I said in a not-so-pleasant voice "Is this some sort
of telemarketing gimmick?".  The voice at the other end said "No, it's
a telegram, can I read it to you?".

I still wasn't convinced, so in a rather sour voice, I said "OK, read
it to me"... as I was preparing to read the guy the riot act.  Well ...
it was a real telegram from a friend in Switzerland saying they were
coming to visit.

I apologized to the guy, and said I'd had an awful lot of screwy
telemarketing calls recently, including some from MCI.  He was real
nice about the whole thing, considering my prior tone of voice.  His
comment "yeah, I know ... I always hang up on 'em".


Bill Parrish ([e-mail])  HP Roseville CA

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

From: mission![e-mail]
Subject: Long Distance Operator Dialing Techniques
Date: Fri Jul 19 14:43:18 1991


I really enjoyed PAT's story about how long distance was done in the old
days.  It reminded me that I haven't had trouble reaching a long distance
number in years, but it used to be fairly common.  I'd dial a number and
hear something funny (like an odd busy signal).

I'd call the operator and explain.  With me on the line, she'd try the
number (I'd hear the familiar "beepa-boopa-beepa-boppa" signalling)
and get the same response.  Then she'd ring another operator, who
answered with something I forget.  My operator would say "Yes,
operator, routing for <number>, please."  The second operator would
reply something like "23+".  My operator would then call another
operator and give her the number.  (I always thought it was funny that
the operators addressed each other as "Operator" -- very formal and
polite).  At this point, I would usually be connected and my operator
would stay on the line long enough to verify that I'd gotten through.

I assume from PAT's story that my operator was finding out how to call
the local operator for where I was calling?  What is the "+" all
about?


[Moderator's Note: She was trying to find out how to call the local
(or 'inward') operator in the place you wanted. The route would have
been something like this: '213 plus 057 plus 121 for operator, 213
plus 057 plus for number'. I do not remember the exact terminology.
The route consisted of the area code, a special three digit number to
get into the exchange, and a code to reach the operator there. As
often as not, 121 got the operator, and 141 got directory assistance.
There were (are) other codes: I think 181 gets the operator who
handles toll stations and/or manual ring-down places in that area
code, etc. This dialing information for the operator came from the
Rate and Route Bureau in Morris, IL, itself something like 815 plus
131 to reach the clerks who looked up the routing, all of which is now
computerized and available directly to the operator.  PAT]

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

From: Walter Morales <[e-mail]>
Subject: Being Charged by Third Carrier
Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1991 03:53:32 GMT


Hi,

A while back ago I asked for help to get my money back when I was sure
I used my AT&T card and my bill showed another company's charge, about
four times what it should have been.

After five months, and writing to the FCC, the company finally reimbursed
me for the charges.  Thanks a lot for the people that helped me.


Walter Morales


[Moderator's Note: Only five months? Gee, did they give you priority
service, or what?  You'd have been better off simply not paying in the
first place, and notifying your local telco (assuming they handled the
billing) why not. Then they (local telco) would have had to carry it
in their inter-company chargebacks for five months instead of you
messing around with it. I suspect they would have gotten the credit
faster anyway.  PAT]

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

Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Saturday, 20 Jul 1991 17:14:40 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: LD Carriers: Which is Best and Least Expensive?


OK, this should start some controversy:

Which is the best and most inexpensive LD carrier for residence
customers?  Has anyone actually looked at this for the average
customer and calling pattern. What comparisons have you seen on this?
Also, which is the cheapest calling card or travel card.


[Moderator's Note: This has never been resolved. It is purely an
applications thing, based on your personal calling patterns. There is
no 'average customer'. We have published chart after chart, and
comparison after comparison here. What did we prove?   PAT]

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

Subject: Church 900 Hotline Program
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 17:47:02 EDT
Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL


{The Door} magazine (formerly titled {The Wittenburg Door}) is printed
by California-based Youth Specialties, and has a regular feature
entitled "Loser of the Month", also known as the "Green Weenie".  This
is awarded to dubious achievements such as the one featured in the
May/June, 1991 issue (#117).

In that issue, the award went ot a "Church 900 Hotline" program.  A
memo was addresses to "Church Leaders Looking for Revenue-Generating
Opportunities" from one "Betty A. Douglas" representing a company that
wasn't specified. One clue was that they gave a demonstration number
to call: 1 900 535 %%%% extension 700, presumably on a Sprint 900
number if the 535 prefix is as mentioned in a recent table (this does
not necessarily mean that Sprint itself was involved in this
promotion, other than possibly providing network to the hotlines).  It
is unclear as to whether this is a church service organisation or just
an opportunistic secular 900 reseller trying to work a market.

The idea was that churches could sign up at no cost to them for what
seems to be a voice mail 900 number. Each call to this number gets a
recorded message that would be updated by the church. Cost to dial
this number is $2, $1 of which goes to the church, the other dollar is
pocketed by the company handling the promotion. Why have a collection
plate with a revenue efficiency of 100% when you can settle for 50%
instead??

Some of the bizarre advantages to such a service include (as quoted
from the memo):

"Sing a hymn and encourage the caller to sing along."

"Allows congregants greater contact with the Pastor and church on a 24
hour basis (especially beneficial during times of personal crises,
depression, etc)." --- to which {The Door} comments in sarcastic mode:
"(Oh, absolutely. A 900 number allows greater contact with the pastor?
From a tape recording on a 900 number?  ***Especially beneficial
during times of personal crises and depression???*** Nothing cheers a
person up more than a tape recording of a generic message by a
pastor.)"

{The Door} announces the award as follows: "To the Church 900 Hotline
Program, we would like to reach out and present our toll-free Green
Weenie for finding yet another way to make folks believe that people
in the Church have their minds permanently off the hook. For further
information, dial 1 800 xxxx LOSER"

[The 800 number is censored since it actually reaches some collision/
auto wrecking number ... a not-so-good move on the part of {The Door}
here...]

All in all, a good old answering machine or local access voice mail
service would be better choices for such services ...


[e-mail]   [e-mail]  shark.cs.fau.edu!bnw!djcl


[Moderator's Note: In fact it was a church in New York State which
first started the 'Dial-A-You Name It' concept back about 1954. Other
than recorded weather forecasts, they were first with the concept of
subscriber (rather than telco) maintained recorded announcements. For
many years, recorded announcements were purely religious in nature. In
the late 1960's, others started using this method to deliver
information to the public, including Sherman Skolnik's 'news' program
on 312-731-1100, which continues today. By the middle 1970's there
were all sorts of these things running, always on free lines. Premium
charges to 976 started in the late 1970's I think, and many of the
non-religious information lines migrated over about that time.  An
article in TELECOM Digest in 1989 noted the 35th anniversary of
recorded announcement programs.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: New FCC Cable TV Rules - Copy Wanted
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1991 00:00:00 GMT


I see from the trade papers that the Federal Communications Commission
has made new rules placing some cable systems (based on amount of
local competition) back under municipal regulation. I would very much
like to get the text of these new rules (ascii or paper) as soon as
possible. Any help with that would be very much appreciated.


Jack Powers
[e-mail] phone [phone] fax [phone]

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

From: mission![e-mail]
Subject: Calling Party Lines / Ringback
Date: Fri Jul 19 14:27:14 1991


Recently, I asked about the easy ringback on my GTE-supplied phone
service, and was told it was for party lines (a GTE staple, it seems).

Pardon my ignorance, but just how does one call party line
subscribers?  Does everyone share the same phone number, but with
their own number of rings, with the caller having to dial the number,
count the rings, hang up, and then call back?  Or is it more
automatic?

Never having experienced party lines, I'm curious.  Thanks.


[Moderator's Note: In old manual systems, the number was the same and
had a letter at the end. Your number was 123-R, another person on the
party line was 123-J, and someone else was 123-M. On automatic
exchanges, the number was usually the same except for the final digit,
so that you had 555-2368, the other guy had 555-2369, etc. Under the
manual system, when the operator queried 'number please' you responded
by saying, "party line, 123-M'. You had to advise the operator, since
otherwise when she took the tip of the cord and 'tested' (something
the operator had to do if the switchboard was multipled to several
positions) it would naturally be busy and she would respond 'line is
engaged' and disconnect. With automated dialing, you dialed a special
code to indicate you wished to call someone on the party line. In both
cases, after dialing or passing the number you wished to call you
would replace the receiver, so the line could be rung. In the manual
systems, when the party answered, the operator would advise them to
hold for a call. In the automated systems, you were expected to read
the phone book and realize that once the ringing had stopped you were
to pick up the receiver right away and start talking to get the other
person's attention before they hung up.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #553
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17248;
          21 Jul 91 8:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03847;
          21 Jul 91 6:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20454;
          21 Jul 91 5:42 CDT
Date:     Sun, 21 Jul 91 4:52:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #554
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Jul 91 04:52:44 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 554

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Oops ... Not a Telemarketer [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem [John Higdon]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem - The Solution [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Al L. Varney]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Brendan Jones]
    Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 4:14:41 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Oops ... Not a Telemarketer


In issue 553 of the Digest, Bill Parrish talks about receiving a phone
call and assuming incorrectly that a telemarketer was calling. He
responded in a suspicious way, expecting that the caller was trying to
trick him.

Making assumptions like this, and responding rudely to the caller
without knowing for certain what the call is about can have serious
consequences depending on *who* is calling, and why. Consider a recent
experience of mine:

In my full time employment, I work for a group of attornies. Actually,
the majority of my work is for the chairman of the firm, but that is
not too relevant here. I had in my possession an NSF check for about
$24,000.00 which a company had tendered to a client of our firm in
exchange for merchandise which had been sent COD (Cash on Delivery).
No fools, our client had not wanted to extend open account credit to
the firm in particular, since they did not feel safe in doing do.

The merchandise was delivered, then the check bounced. Prior to
advising the client to file suit against the president of that company
personally for treble damages (since the law in that state allows for
judgment of three times the amount of the worthless utterance, and
allows that officers of corporations can sometimes be held personally
responsible for bad checks, depending on circumstances), I thought I
would call the company and see what was going on.

I asked for the president by name, and got his secretary. *She* was
not going to put the call through until *she* learned everything about
my business. Usually I do not speak with secretaries of presidents,
etc. I talk only to the person(s) who can correct whatever complaints
I have. I don't go through public relations departments, account
payable departments, bookkeepers, etc.

"What are you selling?" she demanded to know.

"I don't sell anything. I wish to speak to Mr. Jones. Now. He is
there, the switchboard told me he was there."

"Well, what is this about?"

"Frankly madam, it is none of your business. If the president tells me
to discuss it and work it out with you I will be doing so."

"He is not going to talk to you. He does not want to buy anything, and
will only hang the phone up on you."

"Is that right?  You know madam, you have really lousy telephone
habits. A really terrible attitude. Your boss doesn't want to buy
anything? Tell him you bought him a lawsuit. Tell him your arrogant
and rude way of handling phone calls has caused him to get sued. Have
a nice day lady."   (I hung up.)

A quick check of the corporate records file with the appropriate
government authority in that state produced the name of the registered
agent, the person authorized and obligated to accept process of
service in legal matters. Typically, that person is an attorney, and
that was true in this case also.

I called him, introduced myself and after detirmining that he did
indeed represent the company as their active legal counsel told him
the problem at hand, and asked if he could intervene with his client
to get the matter resolved. I told him I had been unable to get
through to Mr. Jones, because his secretary refuses to put calls
through.

He said he would look into it for me ... and sure enough, about twenty
minutes later, Mr. Jones personally called me. Actually, first his
secretary called me, with a 'hold on for Mr. Jones' message. I told
her I did not have time to hold on, and hung up!  :)  Within a minute
or two the phone rang again, and Mr. I'm-to-special-to-answer-the-phone-
and-risk-that-it-might-be-a-telemarketer was on in person.

We chatted awhile and he asked for a couple hours to look into the
problem and get a wire transfer off to me to redeem the check. I told
him I'd call back later in the afternoon to get the details, and we
set a time for our next conversation.  When I called back later, the
secretary again answered the call. But this time there was no delay in
putting the call through; no back-talk from her at all. No surprise to
me!

So, two lessons here: Be careful who you get rude with on the phone
until you know you can afford to be rude with them, and when it is the
other way around and you have complaints with a company, don't let an
underling put you through your paces. Go right to the person who can
change things the way you want them changed.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 10:00 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem


[e-mail] (Jonathan MARK) writes:

> Certainly call the FCC -- they will send you a complaint form to fill
> out.  The radio station may be required to take measures to clean up
> their signal.  I get the impression that the FCC is pretty tough about
> this sort of thing.

The FCC will send you the standard sheet on how to RF-proof your
equipment. The assumption (and rightfully so) is that the station
involved is operating quite legally, within the terms of its license.
If you move into the near field of a station, it is NOT the station's
responsibility to redesign your substandard equipment so that it does
not receive RF. The FCC does not get "tough" with stations that are
simply carrying out their public trust.

There is a rule that requires NEW stations that begin or change
operations to solve "blanketing" problems within a one-mile radius of
the transmitter. They are required to do this for one year following
the commencement of operation. But existing stations are not required
to solve any and all RFI problems that occur every time someone new
moves into the near field.

A word of advice: many chief engineers are so bored with their jobs
that it would be a welcome challenge to help someone RF-proof some
equipment. This help could be invaluable and you should seek it out.
You will NOT get it if you come on as though the station "owes" it to
you. And more likely than not, a complaint to the FCC will not even be
forwarded to the station. If it is, then you may kiss off any free
help you might have received.


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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 20:34:23 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem - The Solution


Dale Gass <[e-mail]> writes:

> I have a similar problem [RFI], but am curious as to what effect a choke
> would have on high speed modem throughput, where the modem is
> squeezing all it can out of the line.  While certainly acceptable for
> voice, would chokes affect the useful throughput of a phone line for
> modulated data?  Or are the frequencies they affect strictly out of
> the normal range used by modems.

First, the choke is only effective in attenuating RF frequencies.  The
impedence of a choke is proportional to the frequency.  Thus they can
be very effictive at AM broadcast band frequencies (500+ kHz) while
passing low frequency signals such as audio (100 to 3000 Hz for us non
audiophiles).  While I don't know the bandwith of the modem, it must
fall in or near these frequencies to be passed on telco POTS lines.
Regardless, you will not add any more high frequency attenuatation
than exists from the load coils already on your line (assuming you
live a half mile or more from the CO).

The problem with AM signals is their ease of demodulation.  The AM
signal is a high frequency sine wave whose amplitude is the audio
signal.  All that is needed to demodulate the signal is a diode to
rectify the signal and some capacitance to ride the peaks of the
rectifed signal.  This is the way crystal radios work.  In addition to
the broadcast band, AM is used in the shortwave, CB, and VHF aircraft
bands.

As long as the RFI hasn't been demodulated the choke should work.  I
would assume this is the case since a higher quality phone worked
fine.

Disclaimer: I have no connection to Auburn University Telcom/ETV, I just
use their phones.


Patton Turner           KB4GRZ           [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 21:25:09 CDT
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

  [Takes PAT to task for an incorrect answer on international 800.]

> 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.

That's Service Access Code (I think).  It doesn't have an AREA.

> - 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.

   It was an administrative nightmare, and switch developers had/have
lots of kludges in the ESS(tm) code to make it work.  Terminating
INWATS should be dead, but the effects linger on.  You can't eliminate
the code because folks have found un-documented ways of using every
kludge ever made.  There's probably still some lingering AMA processing
code sitting in every Accounting Center computer ....

> There is no syntactic way of telling if an 800 number is in
> Canada or the USA or Bermuda.

> 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.

Well, lets just add some "technology" issues yet unmentioned:

1. Because there are some users of 800 numbers with very small
customer regions, it is common to re-use that 800 number many times
throughout the country.  For example, Blue Cross of Kansas has an 800
number (good only in Kansas), but the number may well be reused in the
Southwest USA by a local PBS station and in Maine by a dairy coop.  So
the basic problem here is that 1 800 number can lead to many
destinations.

2.  Even with a "national" or "international" 800 number, the customer
can elect to have attempts turned on for only selected hours.  Outside
these hours, the carrier's 800-database will route you to an
announcement, computer, answering system, etc.  But if you called the
"real" number, you would get "no answer".  It is not uncommon for the
database to return different numbers based on call volume, time-of-day,
holiday schedules, and of course caller location.

So even with a "special" access method into the North American area,
how would an automated system know how to present an incoming call to
the telephone network?  Would it use some pre-set "calling party" and
LATA numbers to determine how to translate the 800 number to its
"real" number?  How would you select Blue Cross of Kansas from the
others?

It seems that what is really needed is some "Information Service" that
can give you the "listed" number of any business, service, etc.  Then
you can call them in the normal manner.  Does such a system exist, if
I only know the NAME of a company, not the city/state?  Maybe the
800-555-1212 service should also list such numbers???  And I agree
that any business with ANY international market should advertise a
non-800 number as well.


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

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

Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 11:55:27 +1000
From: [e-mail]


In comp.dcom.telecom [e-mail] (Tom Reingold) wrote:

> Suppose the company with the 800 number is willing to accept
> international calls.  Can it?

I'm in Australia, and once I dialed Fred Pryor Seminars in the USA to
book a place in a seminar they were having here in Sydney.  Fred Pryor
has no offices in Australia, so they run it from the USA using their
800 toll free number in the USA, coupled with international toll free
access.

I dialed 0014 (Australia's international toll-free access number)
followed by their 800 number.  The call went through without a hitch,
and was answered by a fellow with a nice American accent :-) The call
from my end was *free*.

So, yes, 800 numbers can be dialed from overseas if the company also
wants to pay for international toll free 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


[Moderator's Note: But the catch is, you dialed 0014 to get the
process started -- not 800. Numbers (in the USA/Canada) beginning
with '800' are limited to calls originating in the USA/Canada. It is
true there is nothing to prevent a US company from setting up a deal
with the telco in Australia to assign a number beginning 0014 which
will then be forwarded here collect. It's just that 800 is not the way
it works.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 13:28 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today


Paul Wexelblat <samsung!ulowell!.ULowell.EDU![e-mail]> writes:

> 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??

It may not even be true with NYNEX. For some reason, certain reps
decide what can and cannot be done regarding special requests related
to telephone service -- decisions which do not necessarily reflect
regulations or even general practices. For instance, many Pac*Bell
reps will still tell you that you must pay for an unlisted number even
though you have other service at the residence or business. And they
will be most insistent on the matter.

Pac*Bell, for one, will gladly do what you suggest. I had a number
listed in a bogus name for some time. The name in the listing and the
name in the billing are completely separate issues. My suggestion is
to go for it again and speak to a supervisor. If that fails, get a
quote from chapter and verse of the appropriate regulation. If it is a
rule, it is written down somewhere.

I have a friend who has a voice BBS. At one point, because of
complaints from some irate parents, Pac*Bell attempted to regrade his
service from residence to business. After many exchanges with various
people at Pac*Bell (who were not willing to give an inch), he called
an executive and, with tariff in hand, went over each point that
defines business vs residence service. It turned out that Pac*Bell did
not have a regulatory leg to stand on and the matter was dropped.

Do not let a lowly business office representative become the last word
on your telephone service. You may indeed be out of luck, but make
sure that eventuality comes from a hard and fast regulation and not
from some rep's laziness when faced with the prospect of having to
learn how to fill out some new form.

> 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.

Huh? Once listed in the "bogus" name, it is no longer an unlisted/
unpublished number, is it? Maybe your problem was that of semantics.
Say, "I want a listed number. Here is how the listing should read...".

> They did not think I was just trying to avoid the unlisted/unpublished
> number charges, I offered to pay them.

Why? Once listed, it is not unlisted anymore. Do not offer ANYTHING!
And make them back up EVERYTHING with documented regulations!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #554
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08178;
          22 Jul 91 5:57 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28041;
          21 Jul 91 22:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17323;
          21 Jul 91 21:52 CDT
Date:     Sun, 21 Jul 91 21:18:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #555
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Jul 91 21:18:24 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 555

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves [Dave Leibold]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [F. Davidson]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [David Lesher]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Robert Lindh]
    The Point is, GIVEN it is Not Possible to Call 800 Numbers [Nigel Roberts]
    Toll-Free Access in Various Countries [Dave Leibold]
    Re: Sprint Rate Change [Doctor Math]
    Re: Getting Off a Party Line [John Palmer]
    Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup [Barry Margolin]
    Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices [John Higdon]
    Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Brandon S. Allbery]
    MCI Can't Connect Me [Daniel M. Rosenberg]
    MCI to Get New Customer Service Computers [Bill Huttig]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 00:06:47 EDT
Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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.

Not many callers get on the air on his show for that matter ... as for
tight budgets, there seemed to be no threat of bankruptcy when LK
announced an alternate Atlanta number earlier this week. The 404
number was for people who had difficulty in reaching the usual
Washington DC number.

As for 800, a talk show in Canada some years back said they didn't go
to an 800 number because they claimed that the phone company would get
overloaded with calls, and that more meaningful results happened if
people had a financial stake in what they were about to say over the
air.

Rogers Cable in Toronto had a practice of taking phone numbers of
callers to their talk shows. Just before a caller was to go on air,
Rogers would phone the caller back, and they would be on air shortly
thereafter.


[e-mail], [e-mail]  etc. etc....

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1991 11:12:48 GMT


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

> It seems that what is really needed is some "Information Service" that
> can give you the "listed" number of any business, service, etc.  Then
> you can call them in the normal manner.  Does such a system exist, if
> I only know the NAME of a company, not the city/state?  Maybe the
> 800-555-1212 service should also list such numbers???  And I agree
> that any business with ANY international market should advertise a
> non-800 number as well.

I don't know if this could be done, but how about a number translation
service.  You give information the 800 number you want to contact,
they give you a "real" number that can be dialed.  With SS7 the database
lookup is easy (was with SS6 too).

With regional numbers it would be necessary to know the location of
the the terminating line, and there would also have to be "unlisted"
numbers.  Hmmm.  Guess that answers that question ... too much trouble
unless someone pays for it.

(Until relatively recent times very few 800 numbers were dialable from
Alaska.  I just wouldn't do business with companies that didn't
advertize with numbers that I could dial, and my preference was being
able to dial an 800 number.)


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: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 11:24:14 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


I've reported before and will reiteriate:

Several people in Latin American countries such as El Salvador and
Costa Rica have told me that they have used USA Direct to reach
domestic INWATS numbers. They've been charged some fee of several
dollars for doing so.

Others have said, but I have not confirmed, that this only works for
ATT's 800 numbers, not other carriers.


[e-mail]    (305) 255-RTFM

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 18:34:05 +0200
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
From: Robert Lindh <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB


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.

> Why is that so?

I think that some US companies have ordered 020-numbers in Sweden for
Swedish customers to use when the customer want to reach them without
any cost for the customer. (020 is the prefix used in Sweden when the
called party is to pay the costs of the call.)

If I remember correctly, I saw an advertisment on cable TV that among
other things told the 020-number to be used in Sweden to be connected
to an AT&T operator. I have no idea about the physical location of
this AT&T operator, he/she could be in Sweden or in the US, I guess.
The service was called 'US Direct' or something similiar.

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

From: N Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Point is, GIVEN it is Not Possible to Call 800 Numbers
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1991 17:40:01 GMT


So why are most U.S. companies so insular as to only give out their
800 number?? Don't they wan't overseas business?

Hats off to software marketeer Express Technology of Arizona who
advertise in the British magazines and provide an 0800 number for us
to call free of charge from the U.K. to Arizona.


Automatic Disclaimer:
The views expressed above are those of the author alone and may not
represent the views of the IBM PC User Group.

Nigel Roberts; P. O. Box 49; MANNINGTREE; Essex; CO11 2SZ; United Kingdom
Tel: [phone] or [phone] (cellular). Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
aka G4IJF (no, I'm NOT on packet radio!)

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

Subject: Toll-Free Access in Various Countries
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 00:11:40 EDT
Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL


I'm interested in collecting toll-free access codes used in various
countries. If there are any additions or corrections to this list,
please send *net-mail* to [e-mail] (perhaps the best
return path at this point). An updated list can be posted when
enough entries are collected.

North America     1 800 NXX XXXX
Sweden            020 ...
UK                0800 XXX XXX  [also 0345 XXX XXX charged local rate]
Mexico            91 800 ...
Australia         008 ???

This list isn't giant, and there should be plenty more of these; in
any responses, please include how the call is dialed domestically,
and if possible how many digits are in the toll free numbers ...


[e-mail]  (and other accounts...)

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

From: Doctor Math <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 18:04:52 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Subject: Re: Sprint Rate Change


In today's mail came an envelope marked "IMPORTANT RATE INFORMATION".
It was from Sprint. Inside there was a lovely form letter which
started off by "personally" thanking me for being a "valued Sprint
customer".  The second paragraph was even better:

"You are our number one priority. For this reason, when we make
changes at Sprint that may affect you, I want to make sure you receive
the information quickly and directly."

It goes on to describe how "we recently restructured our rates" and
how such adjustment "includes a modest increase for some customers'
rates", which will allow them to provide "signifigant savings".

Nowhere do they actually tell me what the new rates ARE, which leads
me to think that I am getting a snow job. If they want to make sure
that I receive the information "quickly and directly", why are they
telling me after the fact? According to some readers in this group,
the rate increase was effective around the first of June. Now, almost
two months later, I am being notified of the changes.

The last paragraph reads, in part, "Let me say in closing that we
appreciate your loyalty to Sprint and care about you as a customer.
With that in mind, we are enclosing a $5.00 gift certificate, good for
free long distance."  Somehow this sounds like gentle persuasion to
make sure that I remain a "valued Sprint customer". I'm not using the
word "bribe" because, as we all know, a multi-million dollar company
would never bribe anybody. ;-) :-(

I thought about switching to AT&T when I first picked up the thread
about the new rate increases. Now, it's gonna happen first thing
Monday morning.

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

From: [e-mail] (John Palmer)
Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 22:24:41 GMT


Party lines are still common. My grandmother in Roseville, MI (a
suburb of Detroit, exchange 313-774) is still on one. No one from
Michigan Bell has ever called and offered to take her off of it.  (I
mention this since I heard that the BOC's were trying to get rid of
all party lines). Looking at my "Initial BSE and CNS Availability
Within the AOC's Deployment Areas" document, I see that her switch is
a #1AESS. Maybe its still economical to provide such services with an
older switch like that.


CAT-TALK Conferencing System  | E-MAIL:
[phone] (USR HST)     | [e-mail]
[phone] (TELEBIT PEP)
********EIGHT NODES***********

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

From: Barry Margolin <think![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup
Reply-To: think![e-mail]
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 21:53:40 GMT


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

> Item in {Information Week}, reprinted from {Harper's}, July 1991 p.60:
 ...

> While new technology was expected to cut costs, the average local
> phone bill has risen 56% more than inflation since 1984. However, long
> distance rates have *dropped* 31% over the same period.

This was to be expected.  It was well known at the time of the
divestiture that AT&T was subsidizing local phone rates by inflating
long distance rates.  After the breakup, both of them were adjusted to
be closer to their actual costs (note that I said "closer", not
"close").  My guess is that much of that 56% local rate increase was
shortly after the breakup, during this adjustment period.


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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 15:52 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes:

> Customer service number [phone]?  Is this something like those
> business-office numbers in California which cannot be reached from
> outside of California?

No, because an area code is required for call completion. Presumably,
if you dial the full ten-digit number from anywhere your call will go
through. The Pac*Bell 811-XXXX system uses no area code or special
area code. You dial the seven digits, period. For instance, 811-5000
is the number for the billing office in San Jose. I can dial that
number from my home telephone (408), or from a friend's telephone in
415, or from a business associate's telephone in 619, or anywhere else
in the state by dialing the seven-digit number. There is no area code
associated with it, even though the number physically terminates in
the 408 area.

That is why it cannot be reached from anywhere that does not support
this system (which would be anywhere outside of California and parts
of Nevada). Technically, it should not be reachable from any telephone
not served by Pac*Bell since it is Pac*Bell's internal arrangement.
But PB wields sufficient influence in these parts that it became
easier for GTE, Contel, and a host of others to just carry the traffic
rather than deal with all of the "trouble" reports that would be
generated by the incompletion of calls.


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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 15:36:42 -0400
From: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by NETWRK@harvarda.
harvard.edu (Steve Thornton):

> OK, I can play this game too. The '91 Boston directory, including Brookline,
> Cambridge, and Somerville, starts off with 16 entries under "A", beginning
> with

>          A  Beacon Bos...........
>          A  Boston MA............
>          A  437 Boyl Bos.........
>          A  419 Boylston Bos.....
>          A  Cambridge MA.........

The Cleveland, OH business white pages (the residences are in front
and are fairly bland) starts with 36 A's grouped together (and
subgrouped by east or west side), then a single A following, then:

    A Aa A Aa AaAABACA Plumbing Co

(!)  Someone evidently wanted to be certain....

The Lake County business WP starts similarly, but with three grouped
entries for A (in the same format as the Cleveland one: individual
entries are labeled as "Mentor Av. Area", etc.  I suspect it's all the
same organization, and may be Ohio Bell itself), then with

    A Aaaaaron Maximum Security Corp.

Not real imaginative, that one....

The last Z's in the various directories/sections are:

    ZZYBO L (Cle. Res.)
    ZYMLER DAVID P DC (Cle. Bus.)
    ZYROMSKI Robt N (LC Res.)
    Zurn Industries, Inc. (LC Bus.)

I guess being the *last* entry in the book has no appeal here.  :-)


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: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Can't Connect Me
Organization: World Otherness Ministries
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1991 17:14:35 GMT


A friend of mine left his number in Ventura County, California; area
code 805 exchange 987 (name-place Camarillo, which our dial-1 carrier,
MCI, managed to provide).

Dialing the number however, resulted in a few clicking noises, then
disconnect.  The MCI operator couldn't make heads or tails of it, and
transferred me to customer service. Customer service had me an "All
our representatives are busy" hold with some truly rancid muzak (a new
song every fifteen seconds, followed by silence, including an oboe
version of "Bye Bye Miss American Pie"). After about five minutes on
hold, customer service disconnected me.

10288-1-805-987-xxxx worked (instantly) I might add, immediately
afterwards.

Does MCI just not bother to establish continuity to some places? I
don't get it.


# (NeXT)Mail: [e-mail]     [e-mail]
# Stanford Metapage Project

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI to Get New Customer Service Computers
Date: 21 Jul 91 17:47:28 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I was speaking to a MCI rep in GA a couple days ago and she metioned
that they were going to be getting new computers in the CS office.
She did not know if it would affect the billing computer but she said
it should provide information quicker. Maybe they are going to be
converting over to the TELECOM*USA type computers where they can
provide call history within 24 - 48 hrs.


Bill

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #555
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17820;
          23 Jul 91 2:04 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12421;
          23 Jul 91 0:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07758;
          22 Jul 91 23:22 CDT
Date:     Mon, 22 Jul 91 22:17:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #557
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 22 Jul 91 22:17:46 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 557

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Getting Off a Party Line [John Higdon]
    Re: Getting Off a Party Line [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Mark Linimon]
    Re: Church 900 Hotline Program [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [A. Kandappan]
    Re: MCI Can't Connect Me [John Higdon]
    Telephone Codes in Berlin, Germany (was Former West Berlin) [Richard Budd]
    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Doctor Math]
    ATC's New Billing System: Carriers With More Than One PIC [Bill Huttig]
    First GSM Network Delivered [Robert Lindh]
    Calling USA Toll Free From Abroad [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Retraction, re GTE Seattle Switches [David Barts]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 00:08 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line


[e-mail] (John Palmer) writes:

> Within the AOC's Deployment Areas" document, I see that her switch is
> a #1AESS. Maybe its still economical to provide such services with an
> older switch like that.

An older switch like that, indeed. The first 1A processors went
on-line in 1976. That makes it fifteen years old, tops. Big deal.

An era is about to come to an end for me. The switch that serves my
home, a #5 crossbar, will no longer exist in about a month. It will be
replaced with a #5ESS.

The central office was built to serve the (then) very southern
outskirts of San Jose. The year was 1956. Suddenly the orchard
farmers, country dwellers, and the dennizens of "New Almaden" had a
state-of-the-art telephone system. The new office sported DDD, an
almost unheard of thing in 1956. Not only could a subscriber dial
calls around the Bay Area, but to locations all over the country. And
unlike other areas of the country to have DDD introduced, there were
no "access codes", "circle digits", or any other nonsense to deal
with.  The rest of San Jose was to wait until 1961 for that
capability.

This is the equipment that I grew up with. In my travels around the
country, I have had telephones served by every conceivable CO switch,
but the benchmark has always been the crossbar that I knew as a kid
(and never really left). The devices and gadgets that I built over the
years were tested and perfected on this very CO.

So after thirty-five years, it is about to go away forever. Readers of
this forum have endured my railings about the backwardness of Pac*Bell
largly due to the continuance of this equipment in daily service. Yet,
now that it is scheduled for replacement, there is this little
nostalgic reaction that has crept in. I look forward to the new
services, features, and capabilities that will be available shortly,
but I will miss, in a small way, hearing those familiar sounds that
have been for me a lifetime of telephone service.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 10:01 PDT
Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line


The poster tells of being unable to obtain private line service,
unless THE OTHER PARTY is willing to convert as well.

Some tariff checking may be in order here.  You might inquire as to
under what tariffs the telco is allowed to deny private line service.
It may well be a wiring issue, if your "partner" and you share a long
line out of town or something, but then the issue should be wiring
charges, not monthly charges.  As John Higdon frequently points out,
the various companies don't always follow the rules unless called on
them.

You know, it's unclear why the telco wouldn't want to convert you.
After all, at least YOU would be paying a higher rate.  They could
probably pair your partner up with the next person who wants to
convert, and if he has to have de facto private line service for a
while, the expense wouldn't be that great.

I recall a story published here in the Digest a while ago, about a
local telco that used to pair (actually quad) people up with old
busybodies, in order to encourage the people to convert to private
service.  When they did, the busybody would be reassigned to another
party line to continue the company's incentive program for private
line service :-)  I recall a title like "Party Line Ladies From Hell."
We could probably be amused by a repost of that, if anybody has it
handy.


edg

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 12:00:36 CDT
From: Mark Linimon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals


> More than 50 payphones in the 8th and 37th wards will no longer accept
> coins between 6 PM and 6 AM. [or similar hours]

All the previous discussion has ignored the plight of people who do
not work the first shift.  I would imagine in the area described that
there would be quite a population of second and third shift workers.


Disclaimer: I'm just on loan to Tandem.  They have no opinion in
this matter, as far as I know.


Mark Linimon


[Moderator's Note: IBT has since modified the hours the phones will
operate coinless to be 7:30 PM to 4:00 AM I believe.   PAT]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Church 900 Hotline Program
Date: 22 Jul 91 18:37:17 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


    I noticed recently that during the recent general convention
of the Episcopal Church in Phoenix, the church operated a 900 number
for curious Episcopalians who wanted the latest lowdown on what was
going on on the convention floor.

    The charge was $0.50/minute; I have no information as to the
identity of the carrier or the quality of the information.


Jeff Carroll    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Arun Kandappan)
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp., Tinton Falls, NJ
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 18:29:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> frankston!Bob_Frankston@
world.std.com writes:

> The esteemed Moderator sounds like a telephone operator when saying
> that you cannot place free calls from oversees because you cannot
> place free calls from overseas.  But the question was why, if the
> caller IS willing to pay, is there no mechanism.  Sounds like a great
> revenue opportunity for a telco.  In fact, this is needed domestically
> when DA gives out an unreachable 800 number.

    I just saw an article about calling 800 numbers from India. I
do not know the tariff or if the caller has to pay the international
portion of the call. However, it is not available in all parts of
India, but only from one city.


arun

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 23:42 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: MCI Can't Connect Me


"Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Does MCI just not bother to establish continuity to some places? I
> don't get it.

My primary complaint against the OCCs in the early days was that these
companies treated long distance service with about the same seriousness
as pizza delivery. If it all broke down, so what? You (the customer)
could always use AT&T, right?

It appears that this is still the case. Frustratingly bad customer
service, slipshod switch programming (which is what you experienced
above), and other chronic problems that are insoluble have repeatedly
sent me back to AT&T.

Now, I am about to enter into a brave new world. I have ordered a T1
from Sprint that will have a host of services: WATS, 800, etc. Let us
how Sprint does with industrial-style services after screwing up my
home long distance service royally.


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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 09:15:45 EDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Codes in Berlin, Germany (was Former West Berlin)


Carl Moore writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #475:

> 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.

And the Moderator notes:

> Moderator's Note: Prior to the unification, (or now for that matter)
> how were 'local' calls between East and West Berlin dialed?   PAT"

The answer to your question, Pat, is both before unification and now,
you dial a '9' to reach East Berlin from West Berlin and vice versa.
However, you do need to dial the country and city code if calling from
the former West Germany to East Berlin or the former East Germany into
West Berlin.

The country code for West Berlin was 49, the same as West Germany's
code before reunification, while the city code remains 30.  The former
German Democratic Republic's code was 37 and it is still being used
for the time being until the Deutsche Bundespost renumbers the area
codes throughout reunited Germany.  The former East Berlin has a city
code of 2, which is dialed from the former West Germany and all of the
former East Germany outside of Berlin.

However, from West Berlin, to dial East Berlin you dial '9' instead of
the country and city codes.  I believe this was because of Berlin's
pre-unification status and because East Germany's telephone company
controlled West Berlin's telephone service.  I do remember well having
to dial '9' from the only opportunity I ever had to telephone between
West and East Berlin, in 1982.  (I got through, too.)  I never had a
chance to find out how it worked from East Berlin to West, but a
nineteen year old apprentice working in Berlin who took advantage of
the fall of the Berlin wall to rent an apartment in the East for only
a third of what he was spending in West Berlin tells me its the same
way from East to West.

Because a telephone call between West and East Germany is still an
international call, an extra '0' must be inserted at the beginning.
Another zero is added to the city code when calling into another city
code in the former West Germany, but not from the former East Germany.

A chart might explain it better.

                                   Calling To

Calling From        West Berlin           |      East Berlin

West Berlin         <number>              |      9+<number>

East Berlin         9+<number>(?)         |      <number>

Former W. Germany   030+<number>          |      0/037/2+<number>

Former E. Germany   0/049/30+<number>     |      2+<number>


TELECOM Digest has talked about 12 countries who use Country Code 1.
Germany is the only country as far as I know that has more than one
country code (37 and 49).  Whether this anamoly remains depends on how
the telephone systems of the two Germanys are reunified.  According to
the {New York Times}, the Deutsche Bundespost is planning to
accomplish that in early 1992.


Richard Budd             Internet: [e-mail]
VM Systems Programmer         Bitnet: [e-mail]
IBM - Sterling Forest            Phone: [phone]

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

From: Doctor Math <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 04:15:29 EST


samsung!athenanet.com![e-mail] (Ken Abrams) writes:

> 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).

A friend of mine tells me that a military-surplus SOLA 5KVA line
conditioner will protect equipment from such spikes. The dimensions of
the unit are something like two feet square and four feet high.  I'd
really like to get my hands on one of these and put it in my basement,
on stilts and on its own branch circuit with a large breaker and some
very heavy wiring.

Pointers (like where to get one) appreciated.

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATC's New Billing System: Carriers With More Than One PIC
Date: 21 Jul 91 18:00:08 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I have four different accounts with ATC because of the mergers in the
past couple years.  I was wondering how this is going to effect
billing when they get all the accounts on the system. I have a account
with the old MicroTel which has already been converted (both lines)
one with the old TELUS (both lines) and two with the old SouthTel
different calling plans. (A six-second billing for short distance
calls and Ring America for calling my aunt).

Currently they have several PIC's: The 789 MicroTel PIC and the 824
Transcall Am PIC is billing on the new computer. Do customers who are
assigned the 789 PIC and dial 824 get billed through ATC or does the
charge show up on the local bill?

What happens when they add the other PIC's (031 TELUS and 002 Americall)
which bill together from TELUS's system?

Also Biz-Tel and Phone One uses them as the carrier ... (700 555 4141
responds when using 606 or 751 (I think) as ATC. Where will these
calls bill without BIZ-TEL and Phone One accounts but an ATC account?

Will all these calls show up on the same account or will they just
show up randomly ... or will the PIC's determine which account?

This leads me to the question of why do the some of the carriers keep
more than one PIC. MCI kept all the SBS Skyline PIC's but US Sprint
only kept United Telecom's. Why?

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 18:06:35 +0200
From: [e-mail]
Subject: First GSM Network Delivered


A quote from a press release from Ericsson:

"Today, July 1st ... the first networks have now been delivered on
time, by Ericsson. In the pioneering countries, Sweden, Finland and
Denmark, the first GSM networks are now operational."

I work for Ericsson, yes, but I do not know anything more about it. I
am just quoting the press release.

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 20:40:24 PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling USA Toll Free From Abroad


We, (Interop, Inc.) had toll-free numbers in England, France, Germany
and Italy last year for about eight months. All the numbers (0800 in
UK, I forget the rest) "terminated in" (forwarded to) our main number
in the US. The service was hideously expensive and did not get used
much, so we had it disconnected at the end of eight months. (We were
hosting some public tutorials in London on a one-time basis and were
trying to attract attendees from the continent).

Since toll-free numbers aren't that common in Europe (even the old
"Freephone" system in the UK did not seem to be very popular) we
concluded that people just weren't "into" this 800 business.

Here is a thought: You currently cannot call regular 800 numbers in
the US from abroad. The way I understand 800 service to work is that
domestically the *called* office does not return answer supervision,
hence the call is free. Would it not be possible for the "entering
point" (the office which receives the international trunk) to return
answer supervision for 800 calls dialled from abroad and then the
"domestic portion" would be "free" as before? In other words, the
international caller would pay for a call to the US, the business
would pay for any remaining toll charges incurred domestically. Sounds
simple, but it probably isn't ??


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

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

From: polari![e-mail]
Subject: Retraction, re GTE Seattle Switches
Date: Sat Jul 20 22:44:26 1991


Mmph muh mmm mmmph!

(That's the sound of me trying to talk with my foot in my mouth.)  I
recently submitted something stating that all GTE NW switches in the
Seattle area were 5ESS.  An acquaintance that works at GTE just send
me E-mail saying that only the Bothell CO is 5ESS; all the others are
GTD-5.


David Barts  N5JRN
[e-mail]    ...!uunet!apex!camco!ars2!polari!davidb

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #557
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18780;
          23 Jul 91 2:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12421;
          23 Jul 91 0:32 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07758;
          22 Jul 91 23:22 CDT
Date:     Mon, 22 Jul 91 23:09:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #558
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 22 Jul 91 23:09:21 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 558

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    RJ12 Jacks, A & A1 Signals, Modems and Bell Phones [Nelson Bolyard]
    Credit Card Surcharges - Any Reason For These? [David Leibold]
    Bellcore Acronyms - Help Needed [Brendan Jones]
    Leasing Satellite Channels [Mohan Palat]
    US Sprint Providing One-Way Service [Eric T. Kiser]
    MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! [Christopher Phish]
    Operation Telephone 1965 [Popular Electronics, 9/61 Issue via Doctor Math]
    How Many With Touchtone? [Larry Rachman]
    International 800 Calling [Ed Hopper]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nelson Bolyard <[e-mail]>
Subject: RJ12 Jacks, A & A1 Signals, Modems and Bell Phones
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 20:00:34 GMT


There's been some discussion of the role of the A and A1 signals, and
their various uses recently, and even an offer to distribute copies of
the schematic of old Bell desktop phones.  There are several aspects
of those signals that I haven't seen mentioned yet, that might not be
apparent from the old phone schematics, that might be important to
people who intend to devise gizmos that implement/use those signals.

The old Bell desktop phones had leaf switches under the phone cradle
(the "hook switch").  One switch connected the tip-ring circuit to
either the bell or the sound circuit.  The second leaf switch was
normally left unattached in normal residential installations, but
anyone with a screwdriver and the ability to trace the wires could
hook it up.  The second switch was used for various purposes, usually
in conjunction with the A-A1 pair of wires.  In some offices, the
switch was used to connect a message-waiting light to the A-A1 pair
when the phone was on-hook.  In other installations, the switch was
used to merely short the A-A1 wires when the phone was off-hook.

These leaf switches were designed so that as one put the receiver in
the cradle, the A-A1 switch opened BEFORE the tip-ring circuit opened,
by at least a few milliseconds.  This timing was crucial for use with
multi-line phone systems (e.g. the 1A2 system).  In 1A2 systems, if
the A-A1 circuit was still closed when the tip-ring circuit went open,
this meant that the call was going on hold, and the 1A2 system would
not release the call.  The red or black Hold button worked by shorting
the A-A1 signals while the tip-ring connection opened.

The other use of the A-A1 pair that I haven't seen mentioned was by
genuine Bell 212A modems (and possibly other Bell modems) that had no
built-in out-dialing capability.  Bell 212A modems generated a small
current on the A-A1 pair, to sense if they were shorted together or
not.  Since these modems had no built-in dialing facility, out-dialing
was achieved by connecting a telephone and the modem in parallel on
the line.  To place an out-dialed call, one lifted the handset, dialed
the number, and when the modem on the other end answered, one pressed
the "data" button on the phone, and held it down until the local modem
began to send carrier.  This data button looked remarkably like the
hold button, and worked in much the same way.  It shorted the A-A1
signals together, thereby telling the modem that it should "originate"
the data path if a carrier signal was being received, or "answer" the
call (generate a carrier) if none was being received.

Some of these modems came with a little plastic box with a three
position switch that you could stick onto the side of an ordinary
phone.  This switch acted as a substitute for the data mode switch,
and was wired to the A-A1 signals.  The switch could be left closed
(for auto-answer), left open (for voice), and had a third momentary
contact position for going into data mode after outdialing a call.

As I recall (it's been about nine years since I had one of these old
modems), phones that had been wired with the leaf switch on the A-A1
pair wouldn't work with Bell 212A modems, because the modem would go
into data mode as soon as the phone was taken off hook.  If I've
mis-remembered any of the details of how the old Bell modems used
A-A1, I'm sure some of the Digest's readers will gently correct me  ;-).


Nelson Bolyard [e-mail] {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson
Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my
employer.

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

Subject: Credit Card Surcharges - Any Reason For These?
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 19:59:13 EDT
Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL


I wonder why carriers are surcharging for calls made with credit
cards? This seems to be a holdover from the days when operator
assistance was required to take down a card number (and thus a rate
higher than DDD was applied). It seems that card numbers can be
handled directly by the carrier, while direct dial requires some
interaction with a local telco, so it might seem that card calls are
actually cheaper to process than direct dial; but that could be a
tariff or carrier-telco matter.

Perhaps the reasons that card calls are 75c or more expensive than a
similar DDD call might be similar to those reasons why touch tone
service incurs extra charges from many telcos ... value and convenience
of service ... (?)


[e-mail]   [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Bellcore Acronyms - Help Needed
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 10:07:52 +1000
From: [e-mail]


I have been looking at a diagram called "Bellcore's Standard
Interfaces" (Figure 8-3) in a Bellcore book called "The Impact of
Evolving Communications Technologies".  The diagram essentially shows
the Bellcore standards adopted between various telecoms network
elements and the use of CCS7.

The problem is, not all of the acronyms used in the figure are
explained in the book.  Would some Bellcore guru know what the
following acronyms are?

    BCR        RUSI        SSP
    FCIF        SCCS        TOP
    LUSI        SEAS        UPL
    NMA        SOP        USL

Please reply via email.  Any info appreciated!


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

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

From: Mohan Palat <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Leasing Satellite Channels
Date: 22 Jul 91 17:13:46 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


A local organization wants to provide a live feed of a specific event
(TV program) in Asia. I guess the commercial satellite agencies in the
US have to be contacted for this.  Can anyone provide any leads or
info on this - i.e, whom to contact, leasing rates, etc.  Thanks for
any info.


Mohan Palat    email: uunet!motcid!palat

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

From: Eric T. Kiser <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Sprint Providing One-Way Service
Date: July 22, 1991
Organization: Wright Patterson AFB, OH


I have been a US Sprint customer for a few years now, and have never
experienced any real problems with them -- until recently.

For about the last six months, a fair amount of calls placed from
Dayton, OH to Huntington, WV result in the Huntington to Dayton link
becoming severely attenuated (about 60 db down) a few minutes into the
call, while the other direction is unaffected.

There is never any warning, never any noise or other signal anomalies
prior to the failure.  Of course the call remains in progress, and the
other link is still active, but it is **very** weak.

This problem has never occured in the other direction, nor has it ever
happened to both sides of the conversation at the same time.  In fact,
I have never noticed the problem while calling any destination other
than Huntington.

I've not wasted any of my time contacting Sprint about this. Instead I
thought I would pose the problem to the Digest to obtain a more
intelligent response.  Any comments/theories ???

In Sprint's pin-drop commercial, they never claim that you can hear
the pin drop in *both* directions! :-)


Eric T. Kiser / WPAFB, OH     [e-mail]
CI$: 71241,661                [phone] <=> [phone]

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

From: "The Squire, Phish" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone!
Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business.
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 02:26:24 GMT


You've heard MCI's Friends and Family promotion: If you're an MCI
customer, and you list your friends and family, you get n% off when
you call them at certain times. And if they're not an MCI customer,
you can give them their name and phone number, and they'll call and
sign them up! Great?  Nope!

I've received a few valid calls, each time telling me that [name of
relative] wants me to sign up for MCI. I politely tell them that I'm
an AT&T customer, quite happy, and no thanks. Each time. Then I
started getting calls saying that [name of random individual] wants me
to sign up for MCI. Apparently, they'll just call the numbers given,
even if they're wrong.

So I called MCI and asked that they not contact me again. They said
that they have no way to guarantee this, but would fill out a
complaint report after taking my name, address, and phone number. You
can bet that I'll be calling my friendly service identification number
often :-)


More to follow (or not, and I hope not...)


Christopher(The Squire, Phish);   [phone]/H
[e-mail] (129.65.62.35)   756-2005/W
AIX System Administrator, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.


[Moderator's Note: You know what you need to do is contact that
Bulmash fellow, and have him add MCI to the list of offensive
telemarketers.  Maybe he could staighten them out.    PAT]

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

From: Doctor Math <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 05:13:14 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Subject: Operation Telephone 1965


Found this gem in {Popular Electronics} V15 #3 (Sept. 1961),
pp41-44,98-100.  By Ken Gilmore. Words his, typos mine:

   The time: a day in 1965. You're planning to spend the afternoon at
a friend's house. But you're also expecting an important telephone
call.  You pick up your phone, dial first a special code number, then
your friend's number. This done, you leave for his house, knowing that
all calls to your number will be automatically switched to his. When
you return home that evening, you dial another code number and
incoming calls are once again routed to your own phone.

   This special service -- and dozens of others just as advanced --
will soon be available to you. Already, a prototype all-electronic
telephone central office is in operation in Morris, Illinois. And it's
delighting subscribers with services which make present-day systems
seem as obsolete as a hand-crank on an old-fashioned wall telephone.

SPECIAL SERVICES: Within a few years -- as versatile all-electronic
equipment replaces the present relay-switching systems -- your phone
will perform such tricks as these:

  o  You're talking to a friend about a new stereo amplifier you're
  planning to buy. But you need more information. So without either of
  you hanging up, you simply dial your dealer's number. A few seconds
  later he is connected into the circuit, and all three of you can
  discuss the amplifier at will. You can even continue calling additional
  numbers -- as many as you like -- and all will be connected so that
  everybody can talk to everyone else.

  o  There are several numbers you call regularly. A word to the central
  office, and each of these "regulars" is assigned a special two-number
  code. Then, instead of having to dial the usual seven-digit number each
  time, you simply dial "12" when you want your office, "13" for the corner
  drugstore, "14" for a friend you call often, and so on.

  o  You run a small business and don't want to miss any incoming calls.
  You make the proper arrangements, and if your office line is busy when
  someone dials it, your home phone rings automatically. If your home
  phone is busy, too, a third number -- perhaps an answering service --
  will ring, and so on for as many alternate numbers as you wish.

These are just a few of the scores of special services you'll enjoy
when electronics takes over completely. With the new system, switching
and routing of call -- now done by relatively slow-moving relays --
will be accomplished with no moving parts at all. Hordes of electrons
rushing through transistors, diodes, and glass tubes will do the job,
and they'll do it within *millionths* of a second. Thus, the
all-electronic system will be able to perform thousands of different
operations, carrying out extremely complex switching operations
impossible with present equipment.

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

It goes on to describe how these new marvels of technology work.  If
there is sufficient interest, I would be willing to tackle punching in
the rest of the article, sans diagrams and photographs. This copy of
the magazine also has a SPECIAL: Editors Report on the RADAR SPEED
TRAP DETECTOR, pictured on the cover (in color, no less!). It is small
enough to be held in the hand and is labeled "RADAR SENTRY" by
Radatron, Inc. (patent pending).


[Moderator's Note: This reminds me of how much fun it is to go back
and re-read Orwell's "1984" from time to time. Written many years
earlier, it was either very prophetic and way off base, depending on
your viewpoint.   PAT]

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

Date: 22 Jul 91 13:18:50 EDT
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Many With Touchtone?


I'm working on a proposal that requires some statistics on what
percentage of the population of the United States is Touchtone
equipped, on both a total and city-by-city (especially northeast)
basis.

Does anyone have this information available, or know where I can find
it?

Reply either directly, or here.


Lawrence Rachman, WA2BUX    [e-mail]     FAX:[phone]

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

Subject: International 800 Calling
From: ED HOPPER <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon 22 Jul 91 10:01:14 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575


There has been a lot of discussion about this issues and I'd like to
offer a few insights based on what I know about the issue.

I think that in this case, like a lot of these problems, various
people make decisions about how a product is structured based upon
their best estimate of how things are going to used by customers.  I
think this is the case here.

Consider the following:

1. 800 service is sold by AT&T (and I am sure by the other carriers)
based upon the desired area to be covered.  If you want, say, just
Texas, you get just Texas.  If you want the US, you get the US.  If
you want the US + Canada, you get that and so on.  In addition, AT&T
(and again, I believe the other major carriers) offer 800 service on
an international, country-by-country basis.  If you, as an 800 number
customer, want coverage of Sweden, you can buy it.  If you don't want
coverage of Sweden, you don't get it.

2.  It is an objective (at least, I believe of AT&T) that 800 = Free
Call.  Of course, COCOT's and AOS sleaze have tarnished that, but
AT&T's objective, at least when I was selling the service, was for
that to be the case.  They never wanted a customer coming to them and
saying "How come I was charged $8.00 to call 1-800-555-XXXX???".

3.  It is AT&T's assumption that the customer (i.e., the recipient of
the 800 number calls) will be smart enough to tailor his advertising
to accomodate the 800 service he is ordering.  In other words, don't
advertise a domestic US 800 number in Sweden.

Now let's bounce these assumptions against this situation:

1.  800 toll free service, dialable from Sweden is available.  The
company our Swedish friend wanted to call didn't choose to buy it.

2.  AT&T and the other relevant telcos and PTT's don't want to
engineer the network to complete 800 calls to the US for a fee in
order to comply with item number two above (800=Toll Free) and taking
into account that the incidents of demand for this should be low due
to items one and three.

I would suggest that those people who find themselves in this
situation go and pound on the 800 customer to comply with common-sense
and provide a dialable number in his advertising.  That's the answer,
not re-engineering the network to accomodate stupidity on the part of
advertisers.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #558
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03645;
          23 Jul 91 4:14 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17274;
          23 Jul 91 2:41 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15220;
          23 Jul 91 1:33 CDT
Date:     Tue, 23 Jul 91 1:13:57 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #560
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 Jul 91 01:13:48 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 560

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: New Archives Files / How to Use Archives [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Simple Computer / Phone Link Wanted [Jon Sreekanth]
    Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup [Tarl Neustaedter]
    Re: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers [Mark Miller]
    Re: Infamous Quotes About the Telephone [Brett G. Person]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem [Jonathan Mark]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old One Still Works? [Steve Forrette]
    Re: International 800 Calling [Armando P. Stettner]
    Plain Old Telephones [Olin Sibert]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 0:40:49 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: New Archives Files / How to Use Archives


Digest participant Bill Huttig has edited and submitted two new files
for the Telecom Archives which will be uploaded and available for
review later this week.

One file is a revision of the 800 exchange list which identifies
carriers by the exchanges they use. This will replace an earlier
version of the list in the archives.

The other file is an updated list of 10xxx codes, also intended to
replace the older version currently available.  I will be working in
the archives later this week as time permits and will put these files
up for your use.

Just as a reminder, the Telecom Archives is available by anonymous ftp
from lcs.mit.edu:

        ftp lcs.mit.edu
        login anonymous  give [e-mail] for password
        cd telecom-archives

The archives can also be accessed using a mail-ftp server, and the one
suggested for your use is described in the help file below:


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Command: send index

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

Mailing addresses:

  [e-mail]:      The mail server itself

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

  [e-mail]:                         My address.


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

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


doug
(Mon May 27 1991)

                            ----------

Pat again:

If you have not visited the archives recently, you really should get a
copy of the current index of files available, and you can do so by
following the instructions given above.

Thanks to Bill Huttig for the work involved in the updates. Look for
them probably Wednesday or later in the week.


PAT

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Simple Computer / Phone Link Wanted
Organization: The World
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 04:35:17 GMT


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

> I'd like to be able to have my system send me Email (at a known,
> remote location) informing me when someone called and left a message.
> I could then call in and check the message.

> There are certainly plenty of fancy PC-based voicemail systems and
> such like things that could do the trick, but that's a fairly
> expensive way to go.  Can anyone think of a good, quick hack to
> accomplish this?  (Just a simple way to send some information down an
> RS-232 line when the answering machine has recorded a call would be
> sufficient.)

If you have a modem, then put the modem in parallel with your phone
and answering machine. Use the modem's ring detect to figure out that
four rings happened (or whatever number the answering machine picks
up at).

You have no way of knowing if the caller left a message or just hung
up when your answering machine picked up the call, but it's a
beginning.


Regards,

Jon Sreekanth
Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc.           |  Fax and PC products
346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752     |  [phone]
[e-mail]                      |

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 22:04:32 cst
From: Jack Winslade <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today
Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs![e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


For several years, the last listing in the Manhattan white pages was
the surname Zzzyandottie [sic].  Yes, three 'z's.  At the time (early
70's) there was speculation by certain phone 'enthusiasts' that it was
a ringer name to thwart crank calls by kids picking the last one in
the listing.

(Uh, hello, Mr. Zzzyyandottie, is your refrigerator running ??) <grin>


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)

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

From: Tarl Neustaedter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup
Date: 23 Jul 91 04:08:29 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.


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

> I don't know but my basic local phone bill went from about $22 to $28
> in the past two years.

There is something wrong here. My data line (including touch-tone (tm)
for additional charge) is $16.93/month, and we are both covered by the
same Mass. Public Utilities Commission.

You probably have some expensive services you aren't aware of.


         Tarl Neustaedter    [e-mail]
         Marlboro, Mass.    Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

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

From: Mark Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 10:36:08 EDT


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Miller received replies in his mail
from people who read his article in issue 553 of the Digest. He
responded to those people in mail, and sent a copy here.  PAT]

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

> Also, they included a "no-strings-attached" $5.00 gift certificate!

All three of you said you you did not get the gift certificate.  I
don't know why I got it (no complaints though :-)), I did make a
fairly angry call one night, after reading about this in
misc.consumers, I stopped just short of canceling out. I told them to
send me the new rate sheet, and then I would consider not cancelling
after I looked it over. Did that make any difference, who knows ...
Carol said she sent a polite letter, and didn't get the gift
certificate.  Perhaps there is still some use for unbridled anger :-)


Regards,

Mark T. Miller     [e-mail]      ...uunet!xyzzy!miller

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

From: Brett G Person <plains![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Infamous Quotes About the Telephone
Date: 23 Jul 91 05:20:36 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND


I don't have the exact quote, but I think Mark Twain declined the
invitation of Bell to invest in the telephone by saying that he
couldn't imagine that people would pay to chatter to each other over
wires.

I think I got this from that stupid infomercial for wire-less cable.


Brett G. Person  North Dakota State University
uunet!plains!person | [e-mail] | [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jonathan MARK)
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem
Date: 23 Jul 91 03:55:58 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jonathan MARK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA


I've definitely been persuaded that I gave bad advice -- one shouldn't
immediately call the FCC about an RFI problem.  I should have realized
that it's only decent to try to resolve problems person-to-person (or
person-to-corporation) before complaining to any part of the
government.  This would apply especially strongly to government
agencies known for strong enforcement, when you are not even certain
that any rules are being broken (the consumer equipment may be poorly
designed).

Thanks for your very polite responses,


Jonathan Mark    [e-mail]    [not speaking for my employer]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 20:19:40 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


> Hey! Don't forget Canada. We can call most US 800 numbers from here!

For those of you keeping track, the Cable & Wireless 800 service
($10/month for the basic service + $10 more if you want to be able to
reprogram the destination number on the fly) has a Canadian option for
$15/month extra.  This enables your same number to be accessed from
Canada as well as the US.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 20:13:47 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old One Still Works?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> 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 think that one of the main advantages to LEC billing is the
incentive the customer has to paying the long distance bill on time --
the penalty for being too late is disconnection of LOCAL service.  The
way it is now, the worst that MCI or Sprint can do is threaten you
with a collection agency, and block your long distance service, the
latter of which 10XXX can take care of right away.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: "Armando P. Stettner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International 800 Calling
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 05:55:43 GMT


The 800 (toll free) numbers are implemented using a data base look up
using the called number, the calling number (probably the area code
and exchange), time of day, and for some services, the congestion or
load or presure (as you like) at the called number.  A packet
containing the calling number and called number is routed within a
CCS7 packet (implemented in the original CCIS or CCS6) to a database
server (known in AT&T as an NCP for network control point).  This
database server takes into account all the factors described in the
above listed information (along with some other stuff, depending upon
the services subscribed to by the called party) and does the proper
mapping.

This architecture is essentially the same for MCI and Sprint, though
differing in implementation.

Some of the LEC's also have their own mapping capabilities, using a
similar architecture or structure.  This explaines why some calls work
only with in a state or some less-than-national geography.  [Note that
not all LEC's/RBOC's use CCS7 (out-of-band signaling) to communicate
call routing/billing instructions with the IXC's (AT&T, MCI, Sprint,
etc.); some of these LEC's actually convert back to in-band signaling
(those old DTMF tones) for the signaling and the IXC converts back to
OOB at their point-of-presence (POP)!]

The main reason, as I understand it, for not being able to dial 800
numbers from outside the country is because of the lack of support for
CCS7 and/or NCP access from across the borders.

For some of the international things that do work, such as the 0800's
from England and the like, I would assume that there is an
international mapping made by an English resident database server or
``number mapper.''

Hope this sheds some light on the issue.

    Armando Stettner
    Now-a-private-consultant....

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

From: Olin Sibert <oxford![e-mail]>
Subject: Plain Old Telephones
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Olin Sibert)
Organization: Oxford Systems, Inc.  Arlington, MA
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 03:42:49 GMT


I am looking for some Plain Old Telephones.  Can anyone here suggest
where I might be able to purchase some?

Specifically, I'm looking for a few Princess model phones, in white
(or, if all else fails, black, but no other colors), with 12-button
touchtone pads, either incandescent or LED dial illumination, and real
bells that go "brrr...ing" instead of "bleat, bleat".

I'm also looking for an old Bell small office keysystem, around eight
stations plus dial intercom.  Phones should be 2500 desk model,
12-button touchtone, four lines plus intercom plus hold.  I'd also
like to find one or two wall-mount six button units, but that's not as
important.  Again, white preferred, black acceptable, but no other
colors.

I imagine new/reconditioned is out of the question, so anything used
that doesn't show serious signs of wear is fine.  A good supply (or
better yet, manufacturer/distributor, if any still exist) of spare
parts, great hulking cables and connectors, etc. would also be
valuable.

I figure there must have been millions of these not too many years
ago.  They can't all have been melted down for scrap, can they?

Or, failing all that, what recommendations might y'all have for fancy
modern telephones that do basically the same thing as the old ones
(but likely with more buttons)?

Please reply to me directly; I do not read this list regularly.  Thanks.


Olin Sibert           |Internet: [e-mail]
Oxford Systems, Inc.  |UUCP:     uunet!oxford!sibert

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #560
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08442;
          23 Jul 91 6:13 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae20808; 23 Jul 91 5:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07758;
          22 Jul 91 23:22 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04899;
          22 Jul 91 22:09 CDT
Date:     Mon, 22 Jul 91 21:25:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #556
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 22 Jul 91 21:25:38 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 556

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Jim Graham]
    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [John Higdon]
    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? [Dave Leibold]
    Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup [Daniel R. Guilderson]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem [Jack Decker]
    Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Douglas Martin]
    Re: Swedish Televerket Changes Policy on AXE Services [Al Donaldson]
    Re: County Seat Phone Numbers [Mickey Ferguson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems
Organization: Amoco Corporation, Telecommunications Network Design
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1991 15:25:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> samsung!athenanet.com!
[e-mail] (Ken Abrams) writes:

> [....] when those wires take a direct hit within a
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
I've been following this thread with great interest (the modem I'm
using even as I type is a Telebit T-2500, connected to a 16 MHz 286
that I just bought, which is then connected to lots of Ham gear ---
the thought of a lightning hit scares me ...), but so far, the
conversation (at least, what I've seen of it) has dealt with the (more
severe) problem of a direct hit.  I'd like to throw in another problem
 ...static discharge resulting from near misses.

I mention this mainly because of an experience while I was in school
at Texas A&M.  A thunderstorm was approaching, but didn't seem to
close at the time --- so nothing was really unplugged yet.  Then, w/o
any warning, we took a very near miss.  The TV (which was off) lit up
and glowed for a second.  All of the lights that were turned on (and
thus, connected to the main power feed) went off.  All of the lights
that were turned off lit up very brightly for a second.  Everything
then reversed itself to normal.  Oh, my hair was more or less standing
on end ... :-)

Over the next week, every single light that had been turned off
(almost every light in the house) blew.  The lights that had been
turned on (and apparently didn't take the static charge's full effect)
were safe.  The final amplifier stage of my stereo amplifier had to be
replaced (the power transistors tested as a solid short in all
directions on a Fluke 77), and the power xformer shorted out (not
completely --- just enough to cause problems) and had to be replaced
as well.  The computer wasn't damaged (as far as we know), but the
surge suppressor was still plugged in (it wasn't hurt either).

Now, my question is this --- with static charges dancing around in the
case of a near miss, if you unplug your computer and modem completely,
you've just lost your ground ... which might have saved it from that
static discharge (and it might not have).  Will a surge suppressor
still help in this case, assuming that it isn't connected to a ground
(i.e., the wall outlet)?

Perhaps with a good surge suppressor, the static discharge of a near
miss isn't even a concern --- but the possibility that it is concerns
me.  Anybody have any thoughts on this one?


jim

Standard disclaimer....These thoughts are mine, not my employer's.

Share and Enjoy!  (Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, complaints division)
73, de n5ial

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: Sun, 21 Jul 91 21:25 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems


Chris Boaro <[e-mail]> writes:

> Ha! You think that's bad ... we lost 12 out of 13 US Robitics HSTs in
> a single electrical storm a few weeks back! It was interesting that
> only the HSTs got fried, even tho we have 60 or so generic 2400 baud
> modems.

While lightning is seldom a problem on the California coast, even we
are aware of the rule that says, "Lightning takes the path of least
resistance -- which is usually provided through the most expensive piece
of equipment."


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

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems
Date: 22 Jul 91 04:58:40 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


> yet have a reliable e-mail address). We are probably going to buy a
> large box from "Black Box" that can provide protection for about 50
> lines. It's a patch board kinda thing and pretty pricey at $650.

If you want to add serious protection to any site that gets MANY pairs
of phone wires in, it is really SIMPLE to do. The big problem is
getting quality protectors bought and mounted for a home or on desk
environment that involves only a few pairs.

Most sites that get MANY pairs get them on an RJ21x jack that is
really a 25 pair telco connector. Let telco hand it off to you that
way rather that battling for the 'anything-goes' interface you now
technically can get.

Buy the CO grade 25 pair (or larger) protector blocks pre-equipped
with 25 pair connectors IN and OUT. Get a short 25 pair cable
preconnectorized M-F for each RJ21x 25 pair interface to be protected.

Disconnect whatever cable you had that plugged into the RJ21X jack,
and plug it into the output of the new protector. Connect the RJ21X to
your new protector with a 25 pair cable. Keep the cable going into the
protector AWAY from any leaving it!

There are PLENTY of other options, this is just trying to make it VERY
simple. The Porta Systems 25 pair block with 25 pair cable connectors
in and out (MALE in, FEMALE out) preloaded with 25 of their premium
230 volt Delta protectors (95BCDXN-230) I am pretty sure is part
number 0581-32-31511-6. Graybar, Anixter, AllTel, NorthSupply, TWComm
Corp, or any *TELEPHONE* supply house sells these. This isn't cutting
edge technology. This is simply buying the 'good stuff' telcos use to
protect their COs, but that isn't marketed for 'data-suckers' (tm)
where less substantial hardware at mega-markup brings juicy profits.

Run FAT copper wire from the protector block to a nearby substantial
ground.  (What a substantial ground is is well beyond this note.)

Additionally, if this ground is shared with the ground from the OUTPUT
of an computer grade isolation transformer where the NEUTRAL is
legally BONDED to ground right in your computer room, and ALL your
devices are powered from this transformer, so much the better. Make
sure there is plenty of surge protection on the power, too. Note that
such a transformer, though often bought and used seperately (e.g.
Topaz), is often a component in say a UPS setup.

With a common local ground for both power and phone, and CO ESS grade
protectors, nothing at your site should get whacked. There is simply
no way to get damaging voltages between wires of the same or different
services, including GROUND.

FWIW, you want as much protection as early on in your building as
possible for both power and phones. Telco generally provides this
first stage for their wires, and you best get something for the power
at your service entrance.

These first ones should snub as much energy as possible for incoming
spikes.

Adding your own protection right at your equipment, hopefully a
considerable distance from the service entrance, is really a second
wall of defense.

I am simply suggesting using the PREMIUM of the units that are fully
qualified for use at 'front-line' at the service entrance or in the CO
between the cable vault and the ESS machines. Used this way as the
second wall of defense, your equipment should be quite safe.

Not to upset too many pet notions some have, but the isolate 'green'
ground in the orange outlets is potentially a serious liability if you
are trying to eliminate spike damage. If you caught the common horse
sense in the immediate local common ground for power and phone
protection and see that it linits chances for damaging voltages
between wires from different services that enter your equipment, try
to reconcile that with the isolated ground from an orange outlet
philosophy that precludes bonding that ground to other grounds
locally. Now consider that ten feet of 'GREEN' wire of ANY guage (let
alone hundreds of feet) could have even HUNDREDS of ohms impedence at
the frequency of some spike. 'just because they say to do it, doesn't
make it right'.

But that is another topic for another time.

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

Subject: Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps?
From: Not Leon D Zetekoff <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 23:39:34 EDT
Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL


Phydeaux <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'd like to find out where the cell sites are for Cellular
> One/Chicago.  They refuse to help me with dropped calls except to say
> "check your antenna, there are lots of cells in your area." ...  Does
> anyone know how to go about this?

If Cell One doesn't want to talk (it may depend on who you're getting;
is there a way you can talk yourself through to their engineering
department?) ... there are other routes to try. To build a cell tower
is not a trivial task and would certainly require things like
licensing and building permits. Perhaps the city has a public record
of building permits available, or zoning regulations, that would
relate to the cellular sites. I don't know who would be responsible
for licensing, but the FCC or the appropriate public service
commission may have public record of this.

So ... keep looking, asking and plugging away. If the truth doesn't
come out, perhaps a case could be made to the appropriate authorities
(local, state, federal) to make this information available for public
examination, if this isn't the case already.

Having said that, I should try this detective stuff while I'm down in
this neighbourhood. :-)


[e-mail]  [e-mail]  shark.cs.fau.edu!bnw!djcl
IMEX 89:82/135   Fido: 1:3609/7

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 09:40 PDT
Subject: Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps?


You may not be able to get maps, but these things are kind of hard to
miss.  Look for a low tower or pole, maybe 40-50 feet, with a
triangular array of antennas on top.  That's your cellsite!

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

From: "Daniel R. Guilderson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 05:02:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> think!barmar@bloom-beacon.
mit.edu (Barry Margolin) writes:

> My guess is that much of that 56% local rate increase was
> shortly after the breakup, during this adjustment period.

I don't know but my basic local phone bill went from about $22 to $28
in the past two years.  That's more than 25% right there.  Parts of
the bill have gone up over 33% in the same time period.  The stinky
thing is that there's nothing I can do about it.  It's pay or no play.

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 07:44:00 EDT
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem


In a message dated 13 Jul 91 20:05:24 GMT, [e-mail]
(Jonathan Eunice) writes:

> 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.

I used to live across the street from a radio station, so I know how
frustrating this can be.

Three suggestions:

1) First, INSPECT all your phone wiring for bad connections ... either
screws or connectors not properly tightened, or bad splices.  A bad
splice can act as a detector of Radio Frequency Interference (RFI).
Note: If you get the interference when you plug a phone into your
network interface box (where the telco's wiring meets yours), then
it's quite possible that there may be a bad splice or poor connection
in the drop wire to your home, or in the phone company's cables near
your home.

2) If all your connections seem okay, try using two .02 microfarad
mylar capacitors rated at 600 volts or more, connecting one lead to
each wire of your talking pair and the other lead to a good earth
ground (the network interface box may be the best place to do this).

In other words,

        Red wire 0------||-----+-----||-----0 Green wire
                      .02 uf   |   .02 uf
                               |
                               |
                               0
                             Ground

You can also try this near a particular phone that's giving you
problems.  Also, in cases of minor interference, you may want to try
smaller values (down to .001 microfarad), since smaller values would
be less likely to affect audio frequencies and possibly interfere with
your data transmissions.

3) Try using choke coils in SERIES with each wire of the phone line.
You want coils with low DC resistance but high RF resistance.  I think
AT&T may market a device that contains something like this, but you
might want to try raiding the electronic "junk box" first, if you have
one.  If the coil has low DC resistance (I would say under 100 ohms,
but perhaps someone else could be more specific on this), give it a
try.

Hope this helps!


Via D'Bridge 1:1/211  07/18 18:59
Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!umich!wsu-cs!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

From: Douglas Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 08:24:49 -0600


The first and last several entries in the Edmonton phone directory are:

A A A A A A A A A H 26c Pizza
A A A A A A Auto & Truck Parts
A A A A A A H Lama Pizza
A A A A A A A Homemade Steak & Pizza
A A A A C J Moving & Supplies A Division of Sherwood Moving & Storage Ltd
A A A A H Pizza 73
A A A Affordable Plumbing
A A A Alarm Systems
A A A Courtesy Autobody & Towing

(15 more start with A A A)

Zytaruk
Zzzzee Best Plastics of Canada Inc
ZZZZZYZ'S Enterprises and Auto Ltd.


[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 12:52:18 EDT
From: Al Donaldson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Swedish Televerket Changes Policy on AXE Services
Reply-To: Al Donaldson <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton VA (USA)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (H.
Peter Anvin) writes:

> Now, let's see if U.S. phone companies will follow suit and remove all
> fees on CLASS service.  Maybe around 2050 or so ...

If we're really lucky, then maybe by 2050 we won't have to pay extra
for touchtone service.


Al    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 11:37:42 PDT
From: Mickey Ferguson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: County Seat Phone Numbers


One thing my old hometown area did which makes sense is to provide
numbers to the county services and offices which are local calls for
anyone in the county.  What used to be a toll call is now free.  Every
place ought to be able to call its county offices without charge.  (I
think they set it up where there were local exchange number for the
different areas, but it also could be done with localized 800
services.


Mickey Ferguson    Rolm Systems    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #556
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08083;
          23 Jul 91 17:05 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17274;
          23 Jul 91 2:37 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15220;
          23 Jul 91 1:33 CDT
Date:     Tue, 23 Jul 91 0:26:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #559
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 Jul 91 00:26:09 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 559

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Justice Terms Equal Access Unfeasible [Radio Comm Report via L. Donnelly]
    Unusual Phone-Sex Line [Linc Madison]
    New GTE Dallas Directory Fun [Linc Madison]
    Why Not Alias 301-688 and 301-878 to Both MD Area Codes? [Carl Moore]
    Auto-Answer Phone Query [Steve Kass]
    What's The Best E-Mail? [Donald R. Newcomb]
    Re: Sprint Rate Change [John Higdon]
    Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 16:07:34 cst
From: Leroy Donnelly <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Justice Terms Equal Access Unfeasible
Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs![e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


 From the July 22nd edition of {Radio Communications Report}:

Justice TERMS EQUAL ACCESS UNFEASIBLE FOR USE IN CELLULAR

WASHINGTON - In a potential setback to long-distance carriers, the
Justice Department said Bell Cellular operators should not be subject
at this time to equal access requirements for interexchange calls
handed off between cellular systems because such arrangements cur-
rently are not technologically viable.

  The department's June 12 recommendation will now be considered by
U.S. District Judge Harold Greene, overseer of the 1984 breakup of
American Telephone & telegraph Co. that created the seven regional
Bells.  The consent decree, which set out terms of the divestiture,
bars regional Bells from manufacturing, long distance and infor-
mation services.

  The long-distance, or interexchange, restriction comes into play in
the handing off and forwarding of Bell cellular calls that cross
restricted local access and transport areas, or LATAs.  Equal access
allows telephone subscribers a choice in long-distance companies and
mandates easy across-the-board access to a particular long-distance
carrier.

  "As this Court and Department repeatedly have stated, the RBOCs
(Regional Bell Operating Companies) may not avoid their duty to
provide equal access, where technologically feasible, simply because
providing equal access involves some of additional expense," said
Justice in the 17-page report.

  However the department added that recent industry input "makes it
clear that there is not certainty that it will ever be feasible to
provide equal access for intersystem hand-off, and it is impossible to
predict with any precision, when, if ever, such technology may evolve."

  Greene called for a report on the status of equal-access technology
last September in ruling that Bell cellular calls could be handed off
between adjoining cellular systems even when traffic crosses LATA
boundaries, without forcing Bells to adhere to the equal access
requirement in accomplishing the hand-off.

  At that time, Greene declined to impose the equal access on inter-
systems Bell celluar hand-offs out of concern that such a requirement
might make it difficult for calls to go uninterrupted between cel-
lular systems and because it was unclear whether technology would
permit it.

  Greene, though, ruled equal access would apply to automatic call
delivery, a function akin to call forwarding.

  The issue, while seemingly technical in nature has significant
business implications for competing long distance companies -- like
AT&T and MCI Corp. -- and also for Bell cellular operators who want to
build wide-area cellular networks to compete against their nonwireline
counterparts.


 Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
 [200:5010/666@metronet] Omaha, Best-Connected BBS City.  (200:5010/666.0)

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 01:50:53 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unusual Phone-Sex Line


I was flipping through a freebie newspaper, past the ad for
1-800-XXX-XXXX phone sex line (advertised as "Not a 900 number!  Not a
976 number!  Not an 800 number!  Call 1-800-XXX-XXXX ....) when I
noticed one of a format I've never seen before.

The content of the service is standard multi-connection chat line, but
the number is advertised as 011-599-6868.  (That's +599 6868 for
international readers.)  The ad says something about no surcharges,
just the regular call charges.  599 is Netherlands Antilles, which has
a couple of one-digit city codes listed, but nothing for 6.

How do you suppose this works?  Does the PTT in Netherlands Antilles
operate the service, or give a kickback of its landing fees to the
company that does?  Also, that's gotta be in the running for the
shortest phone number in the world.


-- Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]  =  ucbvax!tongue1!linc
Disclaimer: I have no connection to the government or telephone company
of the Netherlands Antilles, having never even been nor called there.


[Moderator's Note: Are you *positive* you didn't call there? Confess
now, or I'll ask Randy to review the records and post his findings.  :)
Someone once described phone-sex lines to me as 'a service that
everyone calls at one time or another, but no one will admit to using.
When I have tried it using various carriers (MCI/ATT/Sprint) --
strictly as research for the Digest, of course (of course!!) -- I have
never gotten past the busy signal. It must be extremely popular.  I
think what happens is the international carrier bills the normal rate
for a call to the NA, and whatever remittance they make in the normal
course of settling accounts with the PTT there is sufficient to keep
the proprietors of the service happy.  Other ideas, anyone?  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 01:42:33 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: New GTE Dallas Directory Fun


I was recently in Dallas, visiting my parents and attending my high
school reunion.  While there, I chanced to glance through a bit of the
GTE phone book which had recently been delivered.  A few noteworthy
bits of trivia:

(1) The 301/410 split is covered in the area code map, but they got it
backwards!  They show Baltimore keeping 301 and Washington suburbs
going to 410.

(2) The city code for London is still listed as 1.

(3) The area code splits in California (415/510 and 213/310) are
omitted, I think (may be wrong on this one).

It was also full of other oddities particular to Dallas calling
patterns and such, plus explanation of features like cancel call
waiting (70#, or 70 <four-second pause> from rotary), with no mention
of the fact that the feature may not be available on your phone.  (My
parents have CW but not CCW; 70# gives fast busy.  This is from
214-466).

The other interesting thing is that the above features are all from
the Carrollton directory (suburb near the airport).  The listings for
Dallas are in a separate GTE Dallas directory, which is now
distributed to GTE customers instead of the SW Bell Dallas directory
which they used to give out.  The GTE Dallas directory has no preface
pages -- just the listings themselves.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]  =  ucbvax!tongue1!linc
 ...soon to be in 510 land!

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 8:59:36 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Not Alias 301-688 and 301-878 to Both MD Area Codes?


(In Maryland, currently served only by 301 area code, 688 is Fort Meade
and 878 is Fort Ritchie.)

I suggested that 688 and 878 might be aliased into both 301 and 410
areas because they are both local to both DC and Baltimore city.  This
would leave the local calling instructions from DC and Baltimore city
completely unchanged after the 301/410 split:

Local calls from DC would be 7D within DC, and 301 + 7D or 703 + 7D
respectively to MD and VA suburbs.  Local calls from Baltimore city
would be 7D.  Some local calls originating in suburbs between DC and
Baltimore city will cross the 301/410 border and thus must change from
7D to NPA + 7D.

For those who don't already know, the 800-477-4704 C&P help line
claims that 688 and 878 will stay in 301.

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 13:18 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Auto-Answer Phone Query


A friend of mine is looking for an auto-answer speaker phone for a
bedridden relative.  He's seen one at Sears for $300, but that sounds
a bit steep to him and to me.  Any recommendations would be
appreciated, for products or for ways to adapt a non-auto-answer
speakerphone to make it answer automatically.


Steve Kass/ Math&CS/ Drew U/ Madison, NJ 07940/ [e-mail]

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

From: Donald R Newcomb <[e-mail]>
Subject: What's the best e-mail?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 16:30:01 GMT


I am investigating the features of various electronic mail systems
available to individuals. I would appreciate any assistance anyone can
give with this project. I have started by looking at 20 common
features that are important (to me) and tabulating them in a matrix.

The features are:

 A. Can send mail to various networks and systems:
    1. Intermail: Internet, SPAN, UUCP, BITNET and all the systems
       connected by Internet.
    2. Telemail: Sprint Mail, NASA Mail etc.
    3. MCI Mail
    4. Compuserve
    5. GEnie: General Electric's E-Mail
    6. TELEX: Unrestricted World-wide Telex
    6a. Personal Telex #. User has a personal TELEX number for
        receiving Telex vs. common Telex number using a code in
        the message to route the message.
    7. Paper Mail: Delivery by USPS.
    8. Dialcom: Tymnet E-mail
    9. FAX

 B. X.400 addressing: Utilizes and receives X.400 addressed messages.
 C. Packet network connections.
 D. Telnet: Access to and from Internet Telnet.
 E. Usenet: Has Usenet News
 F. Binary File Transfer. Has a way to transfer binary files.
 G. File Store: User has at least 360K characters of storage.
 H. 800#: Access from toll-free 800 number for lower 48 states.
 I. Receipt: Sender can request an automatic receipt when a message
    is read.
 J. Auto-forward: User can set mailbox to automatically forward
    incoming mail to _any_ possible destination. (The acid test
    is to forward incoming e-mail to a FAX)

The systems compared, so far, are:
    1. Telemail
    2. MCI Mail
    3. ESL (Western Union EasyLink)
        4. GEnie (Star*Services) (not same as Quickcom)
    5. Pinet (American Institute of Physics)
     6. World (Software Tool & Die, world.std.com)
    7. UUCP  (Generic Public access UUCP host)
    8. Compuserve
    9. Fidonet

This first-cut analysis does not really tell which service might be
most cost-effective. To do that, one would need to compare a market-
basket of projected usage. Since most services have complex pricing
schedules, such an analysis could be difficult, at best.


               Features-Read Down                    Costs ($US)
           |---------------------------------------|------------------
           |I|T|M|C|G|T|P|T|P|D|X|F|P|T|U|B|F|8|R|A| S  | A  | H |
           |n|e|C|o|E|e|e|e|a|i|.|A|a|e|s|i|i|0|e|u| e  | n  | o |
           |t|l|I|m|n|l|r|l|p|a|4|X|c|l|e|n|l|0|c|t| t  | n  | u |
           |e|e| |p|i|e|s|e|e|l|0| |k|n|n|a|e|#|e|o| u  | u  | r |
           |r|m|M|s|e|x|o|g|r|c|0| |e|e|e|r| | |i| | p  | a  |   |
           |n|a|a|e| | |n|a| |o| | |t|t|t|y|S| |p|F|    | l  |   |
           |e|i|i|r| | |a|m|M|m| | | | | | |t| |t|o|    |    |   |
           |t|l|l|v| | |l| |a| | | |N| | |X|o| | |r|    |    |   |
           | | | |e| | | | |i| | | |e| | |f|r| | |w|    |    |   |
           | | | | | | |#| |l| | | |t| | |e|e| | |d|    |    |   |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Telemail  |$ $ $ $ ? $ Y N $ ? Y $ S N N $ $ $ Y N  ?     ?
 MCI Mail  |$ $ $ $ $ $ Y N $ $ Y $ S N     $ $ ? N       35
 ESL       |D $ $ $ ? $ Y $ $ $ Y $   N N N $ ? $ N  0   300*
 Genie     |N N N N Y N N N N N N N P N N ? ? $ ? N  0    60   0-18
 Pinet     |Y Y Y Y ? $ D N D D N $ ? Y Y Y Y Y N N 15    0    10-19
 World     |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D C Y Y Y Y N N Y  0    60   2-8
 UUCP      |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D ? N N Y Y ? N Y
 Compuserve|$ $ $ $ ? $ ? N ? ? ? $ $ M N Y Y $ ? N 75?
 Fidonet   |Y Y Y Y ? ? ? N ? ? N ? N N N ? ? N N ?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

 Key:
    Y=Available feature at no extra cost.
    N=Not available.
    $=Available, an extra charge for usage applies.
    D=Feature available with subscription to DASnet.*
    S=Sprint (Telenet) Packet Network
    C=Compuserve Packet Network
    T=Tymnet Packet Network
    P=Private Packet Network
    M=Multiple Packet Networks
    ?=Unsure
    *=Minimum sum of usage charges

Note:(*) DASnet is a service that provides systems and individuals
     with gateways to a variety of incompatible e-mail systems.
     A monthly charge of $4.75 plus usage charges apply to DASnet
     services for individuals. For information contact,
     "[e-mail]".

     Several systems (Compuserve, GEnie, Telemail etc) provide other
     valuable services such as airline reservations, Dow-Jones news,
     discount stock brokerages and flower ordering. While these may
     be important services, they fall outside the bounds of this
     study.


Donald Newcomb     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for a very interesting and well-prepared
analysis.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 23:31 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sprint Rate Change


Doctor Math <[e-mail]> writes:

> I thought about switching to AT&T when I first picked up the thread
> about the new rate increases. Now, it's gonna happen first thing
> Monday morning.

Two things I can say about AT&T. One is that AT&T's rates do not seem
to change as often as a person changes his socks. To keep up with MCI,
Sprint, and all the rest is an impossibility. Their rates would
literally have to be printed in the commodity prices section of the
newspaper for an individual to be really informed.

The other is that on the infrequent occasions when AT&T does change
its rates, it is usually in a downward direction. And then this
usually sets off some scurrying on the part of MCI and Sprint to
perform some cosmetic surgery on their respective rate cards -- to
convince the public that they are STILL at least a fraction of a
percent below AT&T.

I was talking to a Sprint rep shortly after an AT&T rate reduction.
When I pointed out that the prices she was quoting me were HIGHER than
AT&T, she was momentarily flustered and then recovered, pointing out
(correctly) that AT&T had just lowered rates and that Sprint would be
having a reduction shortly "in order to remain competitve".

Frankly, it is comforting to still patronize the industry leader.


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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 20:02:50 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> 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.

About two years ago, I received "service" (if you oculd call it that)
from GTE while living in Mill Creek, WA, on the 206-338 exchange.  The
switch was unlike anything else I had ever used (I had always lived in
an RBOC area before).  I assumed that it was some funky GTE creation,
probably a GTD-5, and it was definately a peice of junk.  It exhibited
the strange behavior, recently described in the Digest, when calling
your own number if you have call waiting.

The most annoying things were that the flash interval was non-standard,
so hitting the FLASH button on my AT&T cordless phone would not
activate call waiting.  And, hitting OFF then TALK would always result
in terminating the first call.  Also, the ringing sound that the
caller hears wasn't in synch with the ringing voltage, which made
using TollSaver on the answering machine more difficult.  The FLASH
button has worked just fine on every 1AESS I have been on, and now on
a "D5RS", whatever that is.  (This new beast, which I think is a
"rural" digital switch from NT, has its own set of quirks, which I
shall describe in another message).


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #559
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28942;
          24 Jul 91 0:51 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08737;
          23 Jul 91 23:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06291;
          23 Jul 91 21:55 CDT
Date:     Tue, 23 Jul 91 21:11:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #561
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 Jul 91 21:11:44 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 561

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: RJ12 Jacks, A & A1 Signals, Modems and Bell Phones [John Higdon]
    Re: RJ12 Jacks, A & A1 Signals, Modems and Bell Phones [David Lesher]
    Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works? [Andy Sherman]
    Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Bob Frankston]
    Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone [[e-mail]]
    Re: Getting Off a Party Line [[e-mail]]
    Re: How Many With Touchtone? [Paul Wexelblat]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Mark Brader]
    Re: International 800 Calling [Armando P. Stettner]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem [Andrew Payne]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Gordon Burditt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 00:49 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: RJ12 Jacks, A & A1 Signals, Modems and Bell Phones


Nelson Bolyard <[e-mail]> writes:

> These leaf switches were designed so that as one put the receiver in
> the cradle, the A-A1 switch opened BEFORE the tip-ring circuit opened,
> by at least a few milliseconds.  This timing was crucial for use with
> multi-line phone systems (e.g. the 1A2 system).  In 1A2 systems, if
> the A-A1 circuit was still closed when the tip-ring circuit went open,
> this meant that the call was going on hold, and the 1A2 system would
> not release the call.  The red or black Hold button worked by shorting
> the A-A1 signals while the tip-ring connection opened.

The above is just the opposite of how 1A2 signaling works. When a
phone goes off hook, the tip/ring loop closes and the A/A1 circuit
closes, both through the hook switch contacts. When the telephone user
wishes to put the call on hold, he pushes the 'hold' button which
OPENS the A/A1 circuit. In other words, 'hold' intention is signaled
by opening the A/A1 circuit while there is tip/ring loop current
present.

Then as the caller releases the 'hold' button, it pops up the line
button. The tip/ring loop is now open, but the call is held by the
KSU.  When the call is picked up from hold, tip and ring are
re-established, and the A/A1 circuit is closed, which actually
releases the hold.

As Nelson points out, timing is critical. If the A/A1 hookswitch
contacts open BEFORE the tip/ring contacts, the call will go on hold
when the receiver is hung up. This is why you will find that the A/A1
contacts always establish before the tip/ring on both the hookswitch
and on the line keys.


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

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ12 Jacks, A & A1 Signals, Modems and Bell Phones
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 7:18:28 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


{Nelson talked about hookswitches on 500 sets}

A standard {2}500 set had three sets of contacts on its hookswitch.  Two
were open when on_hook, one was closed. Here's how they were wired:

contact:        NO1        NO2        NC
residential use:    tip        ring        rcvr
1A2 use:        tip (or ring)    A control    rcvr

Neither setup disconnected the ringer when off-hook, although this is
typically done in the UK. The NC contact shorted out the handset
receiver so the phone would not "talk" with line noise when on_hook.

I have seen a special hookswitch made by DOD to improve on_hook
isolation. It had, as I recall:

    NO:    tip
    NO:    ring
    NO:    A control
    NO:    in series with the transmitter
    NC:    rcvr
    NC:    shorted T+R in set just past the two NO contacts
        above.

And maybe a few more. It WAS rather big.

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works?
Date: 23 Jul 91 13:27:43 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


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

> 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?

As of 1/1/92, AT&T and the RBOCs will have to stop sharing the current
shared facility for calling card numbers and verification.  Says the
MFJ and the FCC and maybe the sacred texts of several religions :^).

At that time, AT&T will sell verification services to LECs for
Intra-Lata calls billed to AT&T Cards (as it already does for
Intra-Lata calls billed to Universal Cards) and will buy verification
services from the LECs for AT&T calls billed to a LEC card.  Needless
to say, AT&T will not offer verification or billing services to OCCs or
AOSs, so only AT&T handled Inter-Lata calls can be billed to the AT&T

> 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.

I doubt that any carrier will be able to afford to offer dual billing
systems.  The cost would be prohibitive, and you would pay for it in
the form of higher tariffs.


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: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals
Date: 23 July 1991 09:53 -0400


Then there are the proposals to ban the use of beepers by minors since
they might used by drug dealers. The fact that they are great for
parents to give to their own kids is not as important as the hwad
(Holy War Against Drugs).

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone!
Organization: Xerox Digital Systems Department, Henrietta, NY
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 06:09:03 PDT


While I do get annoyed by telemarketing, (someday I'll tell you all
about my battle with Gannett newspapers) I'm not ready to place
complete blame on MCI for the Friends and Family telemarketing calls.
I'm an MCI customer, and received a call from them on Sunday afternoon
(really) telling me that I had been signed up for Friends and Family,
and that they would be happy to contact my friends and family to
invite them to join the service.  I politely said "no, I don't give
out names and phone numbers to telemarketing companies".  Easy.

I agree with you that MCI should try to confirm the information that
they are given before placing such telemarketing calls.  However, in
the case where MCI got your name from one of your friends/family, who
is to blame?  It seems to me that your friends/family share the blame,
since it's *them* who gave out your name.  As the old saying goes,
with friends like these who needs enemies?


Don     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line
Date: 23 Jul 91 06:34:59 PST


[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?)

Get Usenet via UUCP.  With a script to automatically redial if the
data connection gets interrupted.

A one-month subscription should do it.


[Moderator's Muse: Have you fogotten the FCC prohibition against the
use of modems or other privately owned (non-telco provided) instruments
on party lines?   PAT]

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

From: Paul Wexelblat <samsung!ulowell![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Many With Touchtone?
Reply-To: samsung!ulowell![e-mail]
Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 16:14:53 GMT


> I'm working on a proposal that requires some statistics on what
> percentage of the population of the United States is Touchtone
> equipped, on both a total and city-by-city (especially northeast)
> basis.

> Does anyone have this information available, or know where I can find
> it?

You most likely want three (count-em three) categories for your
survey.  From your source I educe that you may have an interest in
applications of touchtone menu systems...

NOTE!!! there are some of us stuck with yecho digital systems that
dial with tones, but do NOT produce tones on the line when the buttons
are pushed.

Ain't technology wonderful!


Wex

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 03:40:00 -0400
From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


> ... 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.

Ahem.

I can assure you that I have called several different 800-numbers in
the USA from Canada; and my employer has an 800-number dialable from
the USA.

This simple correction leads to a question, though.  As most readers
will know, the North American Numbering Plan (country code 1) includes
not only Canada and the USA but a number of Caribbean countries
grouped under area code 809.  Are there 800-numbers that work between
those countries, and between those countries and the USA and/or
Canada?

> But the 800 subscriber does not authorize international toll charges,
> which is why you are blocked from calling him by that method.

The original poster expressed willingness to pay the toll.


Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]

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

From: "Armando P. Stettner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International 800 Calling
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 15:18:01 GMT


It was a little late when I described 800 service.  One thing I forgot
to mention is that the database mapping of the called number by the
NCP sometimes results in a network routing number (NRN) which is
almost like a POTS number but is otherwise non-dialable.


aps

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

From: Andrew Payne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem
Date: 20 Jul 91 13:16:33 GMT
Organization: Cornell Theory Center


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

>> I've just moved to a hill upon which a radio transmitter is located...
>> I can often hear a particular radio station very strongly over the
>> phone ...

> Certainly call the FCC -- they will send you a complaint form to fill
> out.  The radio station may be required to take measures to clean up
> their signal.  I get the impression that the FCC is pretty tough about
> this sort of thing.

    No, no, no!  As a first step, do NOT contact the FCC!  This is
akin to slapping your neighbor with a lawsuit because she's playing
her radio too loud.  Instead, try to resolve it yourself first (as has
been discussed).  If that fails, try contacting the radio station:
their engineer has probably heard many complaints similar to yours and
should have some suggestions.

    Finally (and ONLY finally), contact the FCC.  But you will
probably be disappointed: it may take the better part of a year to get
a response to your inquiry.  And when you do get a response, you may
be evn more suprised.  For many people in your situation (e.g. "I live
next door to a broadcast transmitter"), the FCC often considers the
problem yours.  Why?  Transmitters are rarely at fault (as has been
pointed out), especially broadcast transmitters that have been on for
years.

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

From: "90958, HERRICK, DANIEL" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem
Date: 23 Jul 91 16:00:42 EST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jonathan MARK) writes:

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

>> I've just moved to a hill upon which a radio transmitter is located...
>> I can often hear a particular radio station very strongly over the
>> phone ...

> Certainly call the FCC -- they will send you a complaint form to fill
> out.  The radio station may be required to take measures to clean up
> their signal.  I get the impression that the FCC is pretty tough about
> this sort of thing.

It is very unlikely to be the radio station's problem.  They are
emitting the field their license authorizes them to emit.  However,
citizen complaints to the FCC are a genuine inconvenience, both to the
FCC and the station.  The result is that the station is likely to be
reasonably friendly helping you to correct the problems in *your*
equipment that makes your equipment susceptible to RFI.

Call the station.


dan herrick            [e-mail]

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

From: "90958, HERRICK, DANIEL" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today
Date: 23 Jul 91 12:37:19 EST


In article <[e-mail]>, samsung!ulowell!.ULowell.
EDU![e-mail] (Paul Wexelblat) writes:

> 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.

Recent experience here with Ohio Bell.  I added a second line
(residential) for the computer.  She asked if I wanted the number
listed.  I asked if it cost extra.  She said, "No."  I said, "Then
don't list it."

All the data for the new account was, I thought, copied from the old.

A friend then told me he tried to call from an airport and information
told him my number was unlisted.

I tried information and was told there was an unlisted number.  Then
she found a listing under a similar name (initials and names nonsense).

Called the business office.  No, they can't just unlist the unlisted
number so it doesn't confuse people looking at the listings.  Well,
make the listings identical.

I ended up with the unlisted number unlisted under the name Ichabod Crane.

Havn't called information yet and asked for that one.


dan herrick

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

From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z
Date: 23 Jul 91 19:10:35 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


The first two entries in the Fort Worth residential listings are:

A, M.

and

AAARGH, A. A. 309 College St.

Does anyone think that Aaargh is a real last name?


Gordon L. Burditt   sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #561
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29043;
          24 Jul 91 0:54 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08737;
          23 Jul 91 23:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06291;
          23 Jul 91 21:55 CDT
Date:     Tue, 23 Jul 91 21:50:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #562
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 Jul 91 21:50:26 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 562

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Credit Card Surcharges - Any Reason For These? [Bryan Richardson]
    Re: Operation Telephone 1965 [Tony Harminc]
    Re: International 800 Calling [Frederick G. M. Roeber]
    Re: Sprint Plus Change Letter [John Parsons]
    Re: Sprint Rate Change [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: Information Wanted on Portable Faxes and Fax Boards [Allen Gwinn]
    Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? [Wilson Mohr]
    Re: Telesat's Anik E-2 Satellite Salvag [Rick Calicura]
    Re: Lightning Protection For Modems [Bud Couch]
    Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup [Daniel R. Guilderson]
    ATC Ad Campaign [David Leibold]
    Comsec Data Security on Good Morning America (ABC) [Craig Neidorf]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card Surcharges - Any Reason For These?
Date: 23 Jul 91 17:07:58 GMT
Reply-To: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


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

> I wonder why carriers are surcharging for calls made with credit
> cards? This seems to be a holdover from the days when operator
> assistance was required to take down a card number (and thus a rate
> higher than DDD was applied). It seems that card numbers can be
> handled directly by the carrier, while direct dial requires some
> interaction with a local telco, so it might seem that card calls are
> actually cheaper to process than direct dial; but that could be a
> tariff or carrier-telco matter.

I do not think that credit card calls are cheaper to handle.  The call
is the same as any collect or bill-to-third party call.  Operators
must still exist to handle these calls, including credit card calls
from locations without a touch tone phone.  Credit card validation
databases must be developed and put into service.  Fraudulent calling
must be handled, and the costs of uncollected (fraudulent) calls must
be absorbed by the carrier.  All of this costs additional money over
"DDD" POTS calls.


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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 12:39:41 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Operation Telephone 1965


Doctor Math <[e-mail]> writes in issue 558:

> Found this gem in {Popular Electronics} V15 #3 (Sept. 1961),
> pp41-44,98-100.  By Ken Gilmore. Words his, typos mine:

> These are just a few of the scores of special services you'll enjoy
> when electronics takes over completely. With the new system, switching
> and routing of call -- now done by relatively slow-moving relays --
> will be accomplished with no moving parts at all. Hordes of electrons
> rushing through transistors, diodes, and glass tubes will do the job,
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
> and they'll do it within *millionths* of a second. Thus, the
> all-electronic system will be able to perform thousands of different
> operations, carrying out extremely complex switching operations
> impossible with present equipment.

Ahh -- sounds like the ESS flying spot store.  This was the early
1960's version of ROM.  Imagine a CRT with a photographic film pasted
to the front.  The light passes through the film and to a (single)
photocell in front.  The film has dots on it to represent the bits.
The addressing signals control the beam sweep, and the data is read
serially from the photocell.  Recording (once only of course) is done
using the same setup but with unexposed film and no photocell.

Somehow I can much more easily believe in the existence of electro-
mechanical SxS switches than I can in the FSS, but it really did
exist.  No -- really -- I'm not making this up :-)


Tony H.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: International 800 Calling
Date: 23 Jul 91 06:27:55 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(ED HOPPER) writes:

> 2.  AT&T and the other relevant telcos and PTT's don't want to
> engineer the network to complete 800 calls to the US for a fee in
> order to comply with item number two above (800=Toll Free) [....]

The Swiss and French PTTs catagorically state "You can't call that
number."  Period.  Click.

I once had one of the CERN operators try every trick they knew to get
through the Swiss PTT to an 800 number, to no avail.

> I would suggest that those people who find themselves in this
> situation go and pound on the 800 customer to comply with common-sense
> and provide a dialable number in his advertising.  That's the answer,
> not re-engineering the network to accomodate stupidity on the part of
> advertisers.

And when said customer has problems with the idea that the US is not
the world?  The IRS never would give me a non-800 number at which I
could reach them, and I can't really go to a competitor.


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]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 11:46:34 mdt
From: John Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Plus Change Letter


> [Moderator's Note: It sounds like there were slightly different
> versions of the letter (depending on certain special affiliations,
> etc) all of which said about the same thing.   PAT]

Indeed.  I have two lines, both on Sprint accounts.  I received two
letters from them.  The last paragraph of one letter mentioned the $5
gift certificate, which was enclosed.  The second letter did not come
with a certificate, and the last paragraph was merely generic
marketing drivel.

Any lucky winners out there get more than one certificate?


John Parsons   [e-mail]

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

From: "90958, HERRICK, DANIEL" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Rate Change
Date: 23 Jul 91 16:31:54 EST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> The other is that on the infrequent occasions when AT&T does change
> its rates, it is usually in a downward direction. And then this
> usually sets off some scurrying on the part of MCI and Sprint to
> perform some cosmetic surgery on their respective rate cards -- to
> convince the public that they are STILL at least a fraction of a
> percent below AT&T.

It was just about a year ago that AT&T changed its rates upward for
the first time in thirty or fifty (maybe the number was 36) overall
toll tariff changes.  The change was about 2% and was matched by the
others.


dan

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

From: Allen Gwinn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Portable Faxes and Fax Boards
Organization: sulaco
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 11:32:07 GMT


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

> 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.

Absolutely the best little PC Fax board is from a company called Dallas
FAX (in Dallas, TX).  I think that they have a 1-800 number.  They make
a Group 3 fax board, and modem in one with V.42bis (as well as a version
with MNP5).  Their boards start out around $150-160 and go up to
about $200.

Of course, the obvious advantage of a FAX board solution is that you
don't waste your paper with incoming traffic.  You can select what you
want to print.  However, by the time you get a page-scanner (assuming
that you want to send something that you can't generate from your
word- processor), you can get much more expensive than a standalone
fax.


Allen Gwinn  ([e-mail])

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

From: Wilson Mohr <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps?
Date: 23 Jul 91 17:44:17 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

> You may not be able to get maps, but these things are kind of hard to
> miss.  Look for a low tower or pole, maybe 40-50 feet, with a
> triangular array of antennas on top.  That's your cellsite!

I don't think so. Depending on the density of the region, cellsites
can be anything from a blockhouse with a 200+ foot tower with stick
antennas to an (yes this is real) 18' straight body truck with
antennas mounted to the side. (This is used for determining worthiness
of an intended permanent location). The most popular arrangement is a
hotel or office building near center of the grid. A suite in the
building is rented for a (cough) modest sum, and the antennas are
mounted to the side of the building. In Hawaii, we had to bury a
couple of blockhouses to preserve the athestic appearance of the area
due to State Law (or was it local code?)

Each cellsite is a Licensed Commercial Transmitter. As such, the
locations are a matter of public record at the FCC. Most operating
companies are hesitant about disclosing the precise locations since
they might be a target for vandalism from a disgruntled customer or
other social deviate.

The best way to find a cellsite (without going to the FCC) is with a
field strength meter in the range from 879.39Mhz to 880.62Mhz and go
for a drive! However, this will find sites from both cellular
operators.


Wilson Mohr - Motorola CIG      1501 W. Shure Drive, IL27-2315
 ..!uunet!motcid!mohr                Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1497

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

From: Rick Calicura <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telesat's Anik E-2 Satellite
Date: 18 Jul 91 05:26:14 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/444 - BMUG, Berkeley CA


Hi, when is the new bird going to be given the "smoke test"?  I am
looking forward to viewing it on my three-meter dish here in
CAlifornia.


Rick Calicura - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
    UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!161!444!Rick.Calicura
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection For Modems
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 01:05:40 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> samsung!athenanet.com!
> [e-mail] (Ken Abrams) writes:

>> [....] when those wires take a direct hit within a

> I've been following this thread with great interest (the modem I'm
> using even as I type is a Telebit T-2500, connected to a 16 MHz 286
> that I just bought, which is then connected to lots of Ham gear ---
> the thought of a lightning hit scares me ...), but so far, the
> conversation (at least, what I've seen of it) has dealt with the (more
> severe) problem of a direct hit.  I'd like to throw in another problem
> ...static discharge resulting from near misses.

> Now, my question is this --- with static charges dancing around in the
> case of a near miss, if you unplug your computer and modem completely,
> you've just lost your ground ... which might have saved it from that
> static discharge (and it might not have).  Will a surge suppressor
> still help in this case, assuming that it isn't connected to a ground
> (i.e., the wall outlet)?

> Perhaps with a good surge suppressor, the static discharge of a near
> miss isn't even a concern --- but the possibility that it is concerns
> me.  Anybody have any thoughts on this one?

I've been following this thread for awhile, wondering whether I should
open my mouth (keyboard?) and remove all doubt ... but what the heck.

Your experience here was not a "static" discharge of the line. The
lightning itself is a static discharge, but once that current is
flowing, there is no way for it to convert to a "static" charge on
your line.

No, lightning caused surges on a telephone line are "electromagnetic"
phenomena. That lightning bolt creates an rf field of enormous
potential.  Even allowing for the cubed law losses, if it is within a
few thousand feet of the cable that your line is on, think of how well
an antenna of a couple of miles (your line) is going to convert that
electromagnetic field to current and voltage.

The surges on a power line are created by the same mechanism, but
their effects are different because of the vastly different impedences
there.  On a telephone line, one pair connects to co equipment and, at
the other end, to your phone (or whatever). A power line is
continuously connected to equipment, along its entire length, which is
probably a lot longer, with transformers, breakers, etc scattered
about. The effects of a surge will be different depending on how it
entered the equipment.

IF your computer and modem are _completely_ disconnected, from _both_
the telephone line _and_ the power line, the only way that lightning
can damage them is a direct hit to your house, in which case I think
that they will be some of your more minor worries.

The problem lies when there are multiple paths that the surge can take
to the earth. A potential can be developed between the different
points of (earth) connection, which may produce current flows in
directions and amounts that the equipment in question wasn't designed
for. Without re-laying out your house wiring, it may be difficult to
assure that everything is grounded to the same point.

Telephone CO's _are_ grounded (to earth) at a single point.


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

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

From: "Daniel R. Guilderson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 20:41:35 GMT


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

> There is something wrong here. My data line (including touch-tone (tm)
> for additional charge) is $16.93/month, and we are both covered by the
> same Mass. Public Utilities Commission.

Here's a comparison of my actual phone bills from October, 1988 and June,
1991.

                Oct 1988    June 1991    %Increase
Residence Unltd Metro Serv    19.30        22.87        18
Touch-Tone             0.58         0.98        69
Access Serv-End User Charge     2.60         3.50        35
Federal Tax             0.70         0.82        17
                -------------------------
Total                23.18        28.17        22

OK, so I don't know what I was talkin' about with that 25% figure ...
what I really meant to say was that it went up by 22%.

Two questions:

    1)  Why did touch-tone go up 69% ?
    2)  Why am I being taxed by the Federal gov't for local
        in-state service?

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

Subject: ATC Ad Campaign
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 00:20:12 EDT
Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL


ATC has been placing some full-page ads in some of the daily
newspapers around Florida. They refer to themselves as the fourth
largest publicly held carrier (whatever that means in the whole scheme
of things) and now make reference to a new billing system that is
supposed to measure the time when the conversation starts and ends
(more like call supervision).  There are also bonus offers such as a
month's free calling (with some strings attached, though) and how the
ATC rates compare (favorable) with the AT&T Pro Wats, MCI Prism Plus
and Sprint Dial 1 WATS offerings.

In all, it looks like an effort to counteract some bad publicity
surrounding reported billing problems and corporate upheavals.  And
that's the latest news about ATC these days.


[e-mail]  [e-mail]  bnw![e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 20:40:35 CDT
From: Craig Neidorf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comsec Data Security on Good Morning America (ABC)


Set your VCRs ...

Comsec Data Security (Erik Bloodaxe/Chris Goggans, Doc Holiday/ Scott
Chasin, Malefactor/Ken Shulman, and Robert Cupps) is the topic on Good
Morning America -- July 25, 1991.

Two members of Comsec will appear on the show, but which two is
currently unknown.

Tune in and see what they have to say.


Craig Neidorf ([e-mail])

The above message is a personal interest message.  I have no
affiliation with Comsec Data Security.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #562
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01629;
          24 Jul 91 1:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02839;
          24 Jul 91 0:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac08737;
          23 Jul 91 23:08 CDT
Date:     Tue, 23 Jul 91 22:53:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #563
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 Jul 91 22:53:09 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 563

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Marketing, Telco-Style [John Higdon]
    Almost Slammed ... by AT&T [Steve Shimatzki]
    An Interesting Conversation With SWB Mobile Systems [Mark Earle]
    When Local Telco Bills For LD Carrier [Joshua E. Muskovitz]
    NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards [Dave Niebuhr]
    Bellcore's Telepresence Project [Robert Jacobson]
    Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Charlie Mingo]
    Phones in Hotels, Once More [Steve Kass]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 01:52 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Marketing, Telco-Style


In a recent post, I indicated that Pac*Bell had been involved in
documented cases of slightly underhanded Centrex sales tactics. A
number of readers have expressed a desire to hear some of the dirt and
have requested a case history. OK.

Through a series of maneuvers, a local, government-funded social
agency acquired an ITT System 3100 PBX. Through various associations,
I was involved in its care and feeding. The problems began when the
operation moved.

In the new location, people began complaining that they could not get
an outside line when dialing '9'. This seemed straightforward enough.
Simply check all the outgoing trunks for defective ones. All checked
out OK. But then there were more complaints. Trunks checked again.
All tested fine. We started swapping trunk cards in the 3100. No luck.

Then we started exercising the system. Oddly enough, the problem
seemed to rotate around throughout the trunks, with no one trunk
causing the problem. To condense things a bit, we determined that
sometimes a ground start trunk would come up with insufficient loop
current and would not properly signal the 3100 that it had been
'started'.  Consequently, the audio path was not established and the
caller heard no dial tone.

The CO was a #5 crossbar, which means that for every dial tone
request, an originating register would be selected on a random basis.
We concluded that some of the ORs were somehow defective. Pac*Bell
repair was incredulous. The lineman (and CO people) assumed that if a
repair person could take a butt set and bring up dial tone 100% of the
time on a trunk, there could be nothing wrong. The concept of loop
current and "specifications" did not impress the plant people.

In the meantime, the agency directors were getting a little steamed.
The problem had been going on for some time and no progress toward a
solution seemed to be in the works. Pac*Bell insisted that if you
could seize dial tone with a butt set, that was that. After a great
deal of name calling and threats, a crossbar "expert" was brought in
by Pac*Bell. His first act was to order a "routine" of all of the
office originating registers. No less than fourteen were found to be
out of specification, out of a total of 140. The problem showed up
about one out of ten attempts. Pretty close.

When these ORs were blocked from service, the problem which had been
going on for months went away. The customer was delighted. But then,
enter the Centrex goons.

The Centrex people made an appointment with the agency directors. In
hand they carried the entire history of the trouble reports on the
questionable central office equipment. But history had been re-written.
The reports clearly showed that the trouble on each call was in the
CPE. The sales turkeys claimed that this amount of trouble was to be
expected in a privately owned PBX, but that Centrex was totally
reliable, blah, blah, blah.

Fortunately, the directors of this agency, unlike most government
stooges, had some grasp of the situation. An associate was called in
to join the converstation and history, in effect, was re-revised to
reflect reality. The goons went on their merry way and the 3100 is
still in service.

What a great day it will be when Pac*Bell starts marketing its own
equipment using these slimy tactics. I have written to my congressman;
have you written to yours? Do you know who s/he is?


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

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 23 Jul 1991 18:04:13 EDT
From: Wish-Bringer (Steve Shimatzki) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Almost Slammed ... by AT&T


I remember a while back that everyone was afraid of being 'slammed'
into another long distance carrier.  Recently, I had an experience
that might be of intrest because of that, and because it involved
AT&T.

Now I'll admit that I'm a college student, and unlike all the telecom
execs who contribute daily, I only contribute to the list once in a
blue moon ... but, I read it faithfully.

So I'm curious if this is any real problem or if I'm just being
paranoid.  Here's what happened:

I was home working on my computer Friday afternoon, when my computer
room phone rings.  Not many people call me there, because it is a
seperate phone number, just for our DATA calls.  When I answered it,
it was a telemarketer, presenting herself for AT&T.  She then stated
that we did not have AT&T, and said we had another long distance
carrier, and jumped into her spiel about how much I can save with
AT&T.

That threw me for a loop, because we have AT&T, and as long as I could
remember, we had it.  So I told her kindly, that to the best of my
knowledge, I did have AT&T, and if that status had changed, I would
call my local telco rep, and change it myself.  End of story.

Here's the strange part: Long distance calling was discontinued on
that line (well, locked out or whatever) because I got carried away in
my early years, and had a VERY large bill to the 201 area code. (Yeah,
a few cents a minute adds up :'( )

Anyway, not only was long distance calling blocked from the phone, but
like a day or two before all this, an AT&T rep called about how much
money I could save on the 201 area code (now you know why it was
mentioned) with their new plan ... so, if they know I'm AT&T, why
didn't they know that I'm AT&T?  (understand?)  I've thought about it,
and all I can think is:

   A:  I used to call 201 alot as a kid;
   B:  We blocked long distance calling;
   C:  YEARS  (NOT current at all!) later they ask about this plan;
   D:  We tell them NO;
   E:  They try and RECONNECT our long distance calling by tricking us.
       With the 'not using AT&T as your carrier...'

I know it sounds like I am paranoid about the phone company and all,
but its the only way I can make sense of it; that after telling them
no, we CAN live without the long distance calls, they try and trick us
into getting it.

Just VERY curious,


Steven Shimatzki-| InterNet : [e-mail] | BBS : (412)-277-0548   |
Snail Mail:    Rd# 1 Box 20-A   Dunbar, Pa 15431
These ARE my thoughts, and nobody else's.


[Moderator's Note: Not to worry ... it is just that AT&T is hopelessly
confused and mixed up where their marketing efforts versus real customer
activity is concerned. For example, almost a year ago, I had to have a
minor change made in my service from Illinois Bell, to automatically
exclude third number billings from getting through on my lines. It
took IBT fifteen seconds to enter it in a terminal.  None the less,
that caused my Reach Out America/World plans to get dropped from my
account and reinstated the next day, with pro-rata charges and credits
in and out on the account both ways, etc ... the whole works.

That triggered something at AT&T which has since -- to this day months
later -- caused me to get several form letters bemoaning the fact that
I am no longer a Reach Out customer and asking me to reconsider.  The
fact is I was and am still on those plans. They keep writing and
telling me how much I could save on calls to Independence, Kansas.
When I called to speak with the person whose name appears on the
letters I got every excuse why I cannot (speak with her). Now I find
it is only a 'phone name'; there is no such person. No one knows who
is sending the letters to me. All you get on the phone from their
customer service is the telephonic equivilent of a blank stare.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 09:17:25 GMT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: An Interesting Conversation With SWB Mobile Systems


In a recent conversation with Customer Service for Southwestern Bell
Mobile Systems, I found out several interesting things. One of my
complaints from February of this year is being addressed. They are
implementing *111 which is supposed to get you direct to the
technicians at the switch center. However, it may not be manned
weekends/nights yet, nor have they devised a "direct" number to reach
them from a regular phone. Catch 22: if the switch is down, how do I
reach them using *111. Gee, they hadn't thought of this, and will get
back to me.

No airtime charge for *71 *72 *73 call forwarding set up, unless you
are roaming.

Forwarding, call waiting, etc. do work if roaming in the SWB area (most
of Texas). If you forward in conjunction with Follow Me Roaming, you'd
pay the LD rate from "home" to where you are, but no airtime (other
than 1 unit to set the forwarding up). So now when I stay at a
friends in San Antonio, I can spend one airtime unit, set up FMR,
another unit, set up forwarding to his number, and not worry about the
batteries running down on my phone and missing a call.  Plus I save
since answering calls so set up doesn't eat air units, as it would if
using the CMT. Of course, the downside is FMR clears each night at
midnight, so I might miss a call due to that. And I must expend air
time units each day to reset the FMR and local forwarding.

When roaming on SWB's system (most of Texas) no daily charge, but air
time is up from (a year ago) .38 to .48, and will go to .51 shortly.
By comparison, on my plan ($40/month base rate) peak is .38/min and
off peak is .00/min (yup, not a typo).

They are adding more sites/areas, which will be local to Corpus
Christi. Good for me, as I currently call LD to those places.
Aparently, with their microwave'd points of presense in those distant
areas, they let me make local calls, even though SWBell would charge
me in state LD from a regular phone. Interesting.

No plans for a Roam-America like service any time soon.

The off peak hours may SHRINK by two hours. Now it's 8 p.m.  to 7 a.m.
It may become 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. Why? Because Cell One is doing it. My
response was they should maintain, or go the other way, and give
callers, say, until 8 a.m. as off peak.  This would certainly give the
sales folks something real to offer prospective customers, who may be
considering Cell One.  This point was lost on them however.

While on a trip to NY, several times I mashed *611 to see what system
I was on (always locked on 'B'). In some cases I got billed the roam
daily charge. In others, got a unit of air time as well. In all cases,
made no actual calls in or out. I am contesting those charges. In the
cases where the phone was merely on, and in service, but I pressed no
buttons, I never got any kind of billing charge, which is as it should
be.

Anyhow, that's my recent adventures with my CMT.


Mark Earle -- Reply to:
[e-mail]       [e-mail]
CI$ 73117,351                 FidoNet 1:160/50.0

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 11:23:49 EDT
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: When Local Telco Bills For LD Carrier


Does the local carrier have the right to kill your local service if
you don't pay the long-distance portion of your all-in-one billing?
This doesn't seem right.  If your dispute is with the distance
carrier, and you are paying the local portion, doesn't the local
carrier HAVE to give you service?

Or am I missing the point here? ;-)


Josh Muskovitz     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: No they do not have the right to kill local service
based on non-payment of anything but their own charges. But you must
specifically tell them *what* you are not paying and *why* (where the
LD carrier is concerned) or your remittance will be taken as a short-
payment on the entire bill.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 8:50:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards


On the 7/22/91 "NBC National News" there was a blurb about Cash Cards
being used in England.  The way this works is that a person buys a
card at a local vendor (say Lottery Agent) for $5.00 and receives
$5.20 worth of calls.  It's used like an ATM card and there is a
readout that shows how much is left.

The purpose is to cut down on pay phone vandalism and theft since with
these cards there is no cash in the machine.

NY Tel (not known for innovation, or much else for that matter) is
trying them out at ferry terminals in NYC and may expand in the city
and elsewhere in the state if they are successful.  Also, other phone
companies are watching to see how well this goes.


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

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bellcore's Telepresence Project
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 15:07:42 GMT


I saw reference to a Telepresence Project in a flyer for a
telecommunications conference.  What might this entail?


Bob Jacobson

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 12:08:14 -0400
From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?


    There's been some debate on a BBS I frequent as to the minimum
interval one should leave between automated attempts to redial a busy
number.

    A suggestion has been made that the phone system will suffer if
one attempts to dial a number more frequently than, say, once every
ten seconds, and that the telco will do something unfortunate if it
ever finds anyone doing this.  (Note that the number in question is
rarely idle for more than 10-15 seconds at peak periods.)

    Is this nothing more than a telecom old wives tale, or is there
(i) any official policy on redial frequency, and (ii) any way for the
telco to determine the frequency with which subscriber redials?

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 23:40 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Phones in Hotels, Once More


I recently spent four nights at the Hilton at Dedham (MA) Place.
Here's their phone service story.  Perhaps others can confirm if it's
typical of the Hilton chain.

No charge for calls within the 617 area code (!).

A Metromedia brochure on the nightstand, with a number to call for
rate information.  A typical five minute daytime call is about $2 for
the first minute and 22c for each additional minute "not including the
hotel surcharge," which is not disclosed.  The brochure curiously
enough noted that I could place calls through the carrier of my
choice, but gave no details.  10288 and 950-1022 were blocked, and the
hotel operator couldn't get an AT&T operator or bong for me.

Experimentation led me to the AT&T <bong>: 8-0-NPA-NXX-XXXX-<MetroMedia
bong>-0-"please wait for an operator"-<beep>-<10 seconds>-<AT&T bong>
and I put all my calls on my calling card.

When I checked out, the bill contained 36 calls to the phone number 0,
at $0.75 each, most of which were calls that hadn't gone through, and
some of which were multiple calls using # between them to restart the
process.  Of course I complained, and almost without a blink I was
credited the full $27.  I mentioned that there was no disclosure of
the surcharge, that many of the calls had not gone through, and that I
would have used a pay phone had I known there was a charge.

No surcharge and no argument would have been preferable, but at least
the desk clerk was accomodating.


Steve Kass/ Drew U/ Madison, NJ/ [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #563
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04432;
          24 Jul 91 2:53 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24635;
          24 Jul 91 1:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02839;
          24 Jul 91 0:14 CDT
Date:     Wed, 24 Jul 91 0:00:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #564
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Jul 91 00:00:05 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 564

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    GTE Switches [Joe Kelsey]
    Party Line Usage [John Macdonald]
    Eight-Party Lines [Frederick G. M. Roeber]
    Not Telecom-Related, But I Need Your Help! [Joshua E. Muskovitz]
    Wanted - Telephone Call Forwarders [Richard Shima]
    Loop Loss vs Frequency? [Brian Kantor]
    List of Toll-Free (and Now Also Tolled) Dialing Codes [David Leibold]
    Question on Audiovox CTX4500 Programming [Tom Hutton]
    ATC's Relationship to MCI? [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Sprint Plus Change Letter [Doug Sewell]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 10:38 PDT
From: Joe Kelsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE Switches


David Barts ([e-mail]) and Joe Stein ([e-mail])
have recently talked about GTE switches, especially in GTENW.  Since I
work for GTE I guess I'll see if I can actually shed some light on the
actual situation here vis-a-vis switches types, etc.  I do not work
directly for GTE Telops -- GTE Telecom is an unregulated subsidiary of
GTE and so we have to pay for our phone service just the same as
everyone else.  However, many employees here used to work for Telops,
specifically in GTENW, so I can get some inside information.  I myself
have never worked for *any* regulated phone company, so I can only
pass along information from others here.

The information I have is just GTE *before* the Contel merger.  I
don't have information about Contel switches, etc.  Overall, 50.9% of
GTE switches are SPC (stored program control) and 49.1% are still
mechanical.  In GTENW for area code 206, there are only three
mechanical offices left: Stevens Pass, Mount Vernon and Stanwood.  I
don't have the breakdown for any of the other area codes (503, 509, etc.)

Here is a percentage breakdown of all of the SPC switches in GTE.  The
areas are the pre-Contel areas.  With the Contel merger, the area
names and boundaries change, but since I don't have information about
Contel switches, this is the best I can do.  South West is the
Texas/Oklahoma/NewMexico area, North is the midwest states, South is
the Florida area and West is the west coast states.  The column
percentages may not total 100% due to rounding error.  Also the
notation .% means less than .5% (I round .5% up to 1%.)  The last line
is the percentage of SPC switches in each area, the remainder being
various mechanical switches (cross-bar, step-by-step).

          South                Overall
Switch           West   North   South    West   Total

GTD-5        62%    71%    58%    62%    64%
#2 EAX         5%    11%    11%     8%     9%
DMS-10         6%     8%    14%     5%     8%
DCO        24%     2%     6%     0%     6%
DMS-100/200     2%     3%     9%     6%     5%
Vidar         0%     3%     0%     6%     2%
#5ESS         1%     0%     2%     4%     2%
GTD-3         0%     2%     0%     2%     1%
#1AESS         0%     0%     0%     3%     1%
#4ESS         0%     0%     1%     2%     1%
GTD-4600     1%     0%     0%     1%     .%
EWSD         0%     0%     1%     0%     .%
ITT-1210     0%     0%     0%     .%     .%

Total SPC    44%    39%    66%    76%    51%

You can see that GTE West has the largest percentage of SPC switches.
At one point (maybe ten years ago, or so the story goes), someone at
GTE estimated that it would take 50-100 *years* to convert all of the
cross-bar and steppers to electronic switches.  Five years later, the
estimate was down to ten years (mainly due to the economics of lower
head counts)!

In GTENW for area code 206, there are six #5ESS COs, in addition to
the tandem #5ESS in Everett (Everett (Casino), Bothell and Redmond COs
are #5ESS in the Puget Sound area).  Almost all of the rest of the
switches (especially in the 206 area) are GTD-5's (sixteen total).
There is one Vidar, four EAX2's (early SPC switch), three CXP5's (#5
cross-bar) and four SXS (step-by-step!).  According to my list, GTENW
(Washington, Oregon, Idaho) has 73% of the #5ESS in all of GTE!

Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> asked about 206-338 in
Mill Creek, which is served by the GTD-5 at the Everett (Alpine) CO.
I just moved from Seattle/US West service area (#5ESS) into northern
King County/GTENW service (Richmond Beach CO, GTD-5), and the
difference is quite noticable.  One thing I fail to understand is why
GTE has to play around with the various Call Waiting, Three-way
calling, etc.  features.  Here I am, used to using *70 to disable call
waiting on the old #5ESS, and now I have to retrain myself to use 70#
instead!  They also use timeouts to detect feature dialing on rotary
phones instead of ``11'' (on 5ESS you can dial 1170 instead of *70.)
Here is one vote for standardizing feature access codes!  Sigh...


Joe

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

From: John Macdonald <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 12:56:40 EDT
Subject: Party Line Usage


The discussions of party lines (and people showing surprise or doubt
that there might still be any around) prompts me to tell of an
incident that happened to me recently.

Three weeks ago, I was at the family cottage with my family, my
brother's family and my mother.

The phone started ringing - a normal length evenly-spaced ring.  My
wife and I ignored it.  After a couple of rings, my sister-in-law and
my mother ran up from two different directions to answer the phone.
My wife and I looked on - "But, that's not our ring!".

It turns out that in the last year sometime, the line had been
converted from multi-line distinctive ring party line service to
two-line separate ring.  With the previous service, there had been a
number that had a ring that was similar to, if not identical with, the
"normal" ring for non-party lines.

Since nobody had told us, my wife and I had been ignoring calls for
the last few months (maybe two or three calls in all).

When we first got the phone at the cottage, about 25 years ago, the
only choice was to get a multi-drop party line.  In the meantime,
there have been more and more of the cottages in the area converted to
full-time residences, and more of them wanting to have phone service.
As a result, they have had private lines available for quite a while
now. and have gradually converted the multi-drop lines to the two
party form.  Since there is a lower cost for the party line, and since
we have almost never had conflicts with other parties wanting to use
the line at the same time, and since we don't use the line much
ourselves, the party line form is just fine.  (I can see the
possibility of converting to a private line in the future - I would
like to be able to spend the entire summer at the cottage, using a
modem to "commute" to work - this will probably be workable in the
next year or two.)


John Macdonald   jmm@eci386

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Eight-Party Lines
Date: 23 Jul 91 06:59:52 PST


Speaking of party lines, I remember in about 1976 reading in the
Riverside, California phone book about the available party-line
services, and their costs.  Residential service was available in
single (non-party), two-party, four-party, (six?  maybe..), and
eight-party.  Two-party was cheaper than single, and four was cheaper
than two.  But at some point it turned around, and eight-party was
actually more expensive than the previous option.

Being a capitalist at even such a tender age, I immediately wanted to
know what was so valuable about eight-party lines that they could be
priced so highly.

I never found out.  The only thing I could come up with was that it
appealed to people who liked to listen in on party lines.  But
self-selection would kind of discourage this.

Does anyone know the explanation?


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]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 15:23:20 EDT
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Not Telecom Related, But I Need Your Help!


Esteemed Moderator:

I realize that this message isn't about telecom, but I have exhausted
all my other avenues of getting ahold of someone to help.  Since the
readers of the Digest have a vast array of arcane knowledge, I wonder
if you could post this plea for help ...

Hello ...

I've recently inherited some vintage (PET era) CBM computer equipment,
including an 8050 dual floppy drive.  In my efforts to restore this
stuff to its original condition, I've discovered the drive is somewhat
dead.  When I apply power, the LEDs flash in a repeating pattern, and
the drive does not boot.  What I am looking for is some kind of
pointer to repair it myself, or find someone who can/will for a
reasonable amount of $$$.  I am (although rusty) very familiar with
the old PETs, so it is safe to assume that obvious solutions (cabling,
etc.) have not been overlooked.  Do tech notes still exist for this
thing?  Can I get them?

Please send advice, etc. to:

[e-mail]

or, via USPS,

Joshua Muskovitz     API Test Development
Dept. 32EA, Mail Stop 628    IBM
Neighborhood Road   Kingston, NY  12401


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for your confidence in TELECOM Digest
readers. Let's see if anyone can help you.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 15:55:37 -0400
From: Richard Shima <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted - Telephone Call Forwarders
Reply-To: [e-mail]


We're looking for manufacturer/distributor sources for CPE telephone
call forwarders.  We don't need network translators but need sources
able to supply comprehensive technical descriptions and specifications
for remotely operable stand-alone user forwarding devices.

Can anyone supply the source for the LOGOS forwarder?

Buscom used to make one; are they still in business, and, if so,
where?

Thank you!


Richard Shima         INTERNET:  [e-mail]
6809 Mayfield Rd.     BITNET:    al085%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm
Cleveland, OH  44124  FIDONET:   1:157/3.10
[phone]

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Loop Loss vs Frequency?
Date: 23 Jul 91 20:02:21 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


Whilst trying to help a friend with a modem/fax problem he was having,
I made some measurements on his phone lines.  The milliwatt tone from
an office across town was about -7 dbm, as I recall.  That seems
reasonable to me.  (I had the lines terminated in 900 ohms for these
measurements.)

Dialing one line from the other, and injecting a 0 dbm 1004 Hz tone
into one of his lines, I measured a received level of -12 dbm on the
called pair.  Again, not unreasonable.  404 Hz was about the same.

However, when I used a 2804 Hz tone into the line again at 0 dbm, the
received level was -31 dbm.  That seems 'way too much attenuation for
a normal subscriber loop in a suburban area - probably just a couple
of miles to the CO. 2713 Hz was down to -28 dbm.

Are these reasonable numbers?  Or is there too much high-frequency loss
in this line, which might well explain the problems he's seeing with
his equipment.


Brian

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

Subject: List of Toll-Free (and Now Also Tolled) Dialing Codes
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 17:27:38 EDT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton


The list of international toll-free services is still being compiled;
there has been a good response so far, and the list will soon be
coming out. However, it would be interesting to get some information
on toll-free in Japan (and Pacific countries other than Australia, as
the Australia info is in). Also, I recall seeing Spain use a "900"
area code for its toll free service; some confirmation or denial of
this would be appreciated.

However, some information on "900" type services (tolled special
services like announcements or conference lines) has come in, so I
will officially expand the list to include these as well. In
particular, I am missing UK tolled services information (ie. codes of
the form 089X or something), and information on countries other than
North America (info for a couple European countries came in, though).

Thanks for your help, and a few more days will be allowed before the
list (of toll and non-toll) numbers gets posted.


[e-mail]     [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 13:29:19 PDT
From: Tom Hutton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question on Audiovox CTX4500 Programming


After searching through back issues of TELECOM Digest and finding the
access codes for the Audiovox CTX4500 cellular phone, it became
apparent why an associate of mine was not able to roam to any of the
"A" carriers in California.  It seems that the PacTel service center
when programming the phone for San Diego service, entered the system
ID's of all the California competitors in the EEPROM as systems to
ignore!!

Does anyone have the full programming instructions for the Audiovox
CTX4500?  There are a number of fields that the previous messages had
no information on.


Tom Hutton     San Diego Supercomputer Center

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATC's Relationship to MCI?
Date: 23 Jul 91 16:42:02 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I will start this out by giving some facts about ATC and MCI before
all the mergers.

MicoTel was MCI's fiber carrier before ATC merger.  Telus issued
Telecom*USA 800 service for personal use (The 780 prefix) before both
mergers. Now ATC carries MCI fiber trafic I am not sure if they still
get new 800 numbers from MCI or not.  ATC received the 800-749
exchange from TELECOM*USA.

MCI 800 calls from Melbourne are routed over ATC's Melbourne POP. All
other calls except those preceeded with one of ATC's PIC is routed to
Orlando via SouthernBell first.

ATC will introduce new calling cards with lots of 'neat features'
usaable from anyplace in the world (I assume 891 style cards like the
new AT&T).

MCI/TELECOM*USA Voice news newtork can be accessed from home by
dialing 10852-1-700-950-5000 from SothernNet*USA area or
10835-1-700-950-5000 from Teleconnect areas.

Now when I dialed 10(some ATC PIC)-1-700-950-0000 I receive MCI's
Voice News Network.  This leads me to belive that ATC will offer VNN
with the new card and that MCI will be handling it for them or they
bought the tecnology from MCI. I also assume that MCI carries ATC's
traffic in areas that ATC does not have its own network. (esspecially
the 800 services.)

It also leads me to beleive that in the future that MCI will try to
merge with ATC.


Bill

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

Organization: Youngstown State University VM system (YSUB)
Date: Tuesday, 23 Jul 1991 23:01:38 EDT
From: Doug Sewell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Plus Change Letter


In article <[e-mail]>, John Parsons <johnp@hpgrgu.
gr.hp.com> says:

> Indeed.  I have two lines, both on Sprint accounts.  I received
> two letters from them.  The last paragraph of one letter mentioned
> the $5 gift certificate, which was enclosed.  The second letter did
> not come with a certificate, and the last paragraph was merely generic
> marketing drivel. Any lucky winners out there get more than one
> certificate?

I did! I did!  The letters were identical.

I'm waiting to see how Sprint (or perhaps Ohio Bell) botches this: I
have two separate home phone numbers, installed at different times The
second line is a data line, which incidentally IS listed; why should I
pay $1.80/month?  I don't accept calls on that line except by machine.
The local phone company bills both local phone lines on one bill.

Sprint is the carrier for both long-distance lines.  I received two
different FON cards (I destroyed one) and the bills arrive about two
weeks apart.  In the near future, Sprint will be billed on the local
telephone bill, so I'm waiting to see how this gets hosed.

All in all, I've been happy with Sprint.  I use the FON card from my
office, since I can't dial long-distance from my phone except by
giving my credit card number to the university operator (yeah, right)
or going to a much-less-private pay phone.  I almost considered MCI
when they had around-town billing, but since that's going away, that
isn't a plus any more.

(PS: thanks for the advice on getting off a party line.  It's been
forwarded to D & ML).


Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center,         [e-mail]
Youngstown State University, Youngstown,  OH 44555  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #564
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09792;
          24 Jul 91 5:08 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08648;
          24 Jul 91 3:25 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14632;
          24 Jul 91 2:20 CDT
Date:     Wed, 24 Jul 91 1:23:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #565
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Jul 91 01:23:06 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 565

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Bellcore Announces The Network Management Handbook [Jody Kravitz]
    Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS? [Will Estes]
    No Calling Card For a Cell Phone [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now [Andrew Friedman]
    Re: Infamous Telephone Quotes [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Comsec Data Security on Good Morning America [David Querin]
    Re: Comsec Data Security on Good Morning America [Craig Neidorf]
    When Your Chance to be on Television is Lost [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 18:35:18 PDT
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Bellcore Announces The Network Management Handbook


I just received a mailed solicitation from Bellcore announcing "The
Network Management Handbook".  I don't know how I happened to get on
their mailing list.  The solicitation is on thick glossy paper, 8.5" x
14", folded very cleverly into a piece the size of a business-size
envelope.  The piece unfolds twice, first to reveal slick marketing
"bullets", quotes from users, and a catchy abstract map of the eastern
US.  The map is split in the middle and the brochure unfolds again to
reveal the description of the Handbook and the order form.  Very
Madison Avenue ...

What follows is a direct transcription, with deletions noted, of the
text and order form.  Some readers of the Digest may find this
interesting.  I wish I had the money to order it ...

    NETWORKING MANAGEMENT IS A COMPLEX PRECESS

Your goal is to make maximum use of your network when it is under
stress due to traffic overload or network failure conditions ... with
the "Network Management Handbook" you can meet this goal!

The "Network Management Handbook" is built on years of experience ...
the experience the Bell Operating Companies acquired in managing their
network.

The "Network Management Handbook" undersands the problems you're up
against in managing your network and addresses them!

    THE SOLUTIONS TO YOUR NETWORK PROBLEMS!

Don't let your network become bogged down by congestion, inefficiency,
and equipment malfunctions.  Learn how to effectively handle these and
many other unexpected problems you encounter daily.  The "Network
Management Handbook" outlines practical approaches to reach solutions
to your network problems.

    INVALUABLE SOURCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS!

The "Network Management Handbook" is more than a reference manual --
it is invaluable to your job!  The "Network Management Handbook"
presents in-depth and concise examples of how telephone company
networks function.  Now you can relate many Bell Operating Company
practices to your individual situation and handle, or avoid
altogether, Network Management problems.

    KEEP YOUR NETWORK WORKING AT ITS OPTIMUM LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE!

The "Network Management Handbook" provides you with the knowledge and
the techniquest to monitor individual network components and the
performance of you network as a whole.  This monitoring process can
help increase the efficiency of your existing network.  It can also
help to increase revenues and reduce expenditures by taking better
advantage of your already-existing network capabilities.

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

The Network Management Handbook will give you a thorough understanding
of the many complex occurrances in your network system.  This
comprehensive guide is divided into 16 sections:

 1. General Network management

    The Network Management Organization -- Purpose, Objectives, Principles,
    Roles and Responsibilities

 2. Intra-Lata Network Fundamentals

    Switching System Characteristics, Network Configurations, Routing,
    Blocking, and Transmission Planning

 3. Access Service Tariff Overview

    Protective Controls, Expansive Controls, 900 Service, Government

 4. Surveillance Data Description

    Data Gathering Method, Data Intervals, Machine Discrete Data, Machine
    5-Minute Data, Trunk Group Data

 5. Control Descriptions

    Traffic Classifications, Routing Classifications, Protective Control
    Descriptions, Expansive Control Descriptions

 6. Technical Overview

    Surveillance Data, Controls, Technical Interface Description

 7. Ordering And Implementing Management Features

    EADAS/NM System Capacity, Introduction to 1/1A ESS(tm) Switch Interfaces,
    Introduction to 5ESS(tm) Switch Interfaces, Introduction to DMS(tm) -100F
    Switch Interfaces, Introduction to 4ESS Switch Interfaces, Network
    Management Worksheets, Multiline Hunt Group Data Retrieval Procedures --
    1/1A ESS Switch

 8. Reroute Translations

    1/1A ESS Reroutes, 5ESS Reroutes, DMS-100F Reroutes, 4ESS Reroutes,
    Terminating Reroutes from an Access Tandem (All Switch Types), Terminating
    Reroutes from an Interexchange to an End Office via another End Office
    (All Switch Types)

 9. Quick Response

    QR-1 Service Description, QR-1 Numbering Plan and Architecture, Network
    Management Hierarchy, Network Manager Role in QR-1, Network Management
    Interfaces, network Management Sensitivity Areas

10. Intercompany Network management Model

    Effective Network management, LEC/IC Network management Interfaces,
    LEC Responsibilities, LEC/AT&T-C Agreement -- Joint Switching Systems,
    LEC Network Engineering -- Administrative and Maintenance Practices,
    IC Responsibilities, AT&T-C/LEC Agreement - Joint Switching Systems,
    IC Network Engineering, Administrative, and Maintenance Practices

11. National Security Emergency Preparedness

    NSEP Architecture, Network Management, Implementation of Actions,
    Notification to NSEP Personnel of Abnormal Conditions, Evaluation and
    Critique of NM Actions, Failure Preplans, Scenarios

12. Tones And Announcements

    Special Information Tone (SIT), Emergency Announcements, Equipment
    Operation, Prerecorded Cassettes, Local Customized Announcements

13. Acronyms And Abbreviations

    Definitions of Common Network Management Acronyms and Abbreviations

14. Network management For 800 Service

    Description of 800 Service, Centers Supporting 800 Services, SMS-to-SCP
    Interface, EADAS/NM-to-SSP Interface, Seas-to-SCP Interface, 800 Service
    Trouble Scenarios

15. Common Channel Signaling Network Management

    Common Channel Signaling Network Architecture, Common Channel Signaling --
    Network Management (CCS-NM), Effects of Common Channel Signaling on NM,
    Automatic Controls, Manual Controls, CCS NM Data

16. Network Restoration Framework

    Intent of the Network Restoration Framework, Network Restoration Plan
    Content, Resource Documents

    * ESS & 5ESS are trademarks of AT&T
    * DMS is a trademark of Northern Telecom, Inc.

    --- additional marketing "bullets" deleted ---

       The Network Management Handbook
Bellcore   is available by individual chapters
       or as a complete book

Call 1(800)527-1080, FAX to [phone], or
complete this form and send to:  Bellcore
                 Room 4D-114,
                 290 W. Mt. Peasant Ave.
                 Livingston, NJ 07039

    Save $500 by ordering the complete handbook

    Complete Handbook                $495.00


 1. General Network management                 $19.00

 2. Intra-Lata Network Fundamentals             $29.00

 3. Access Service Tariff Overview             $80.00

 4. Surveillance Data Description             $29.00

 5. Control Descriptions                $140.00

 6. Technical Overview                     $41.00

 7. Ordering And Implementing Management Features    $145.00

 8. Reroute Translations                $140.00

 9. Quick Response                     $25.00

10. Intercompany Network management Model         $38.00

11. National Security Emergency Preparedness         $48.00

12. Tones And Announcements                 $57.00

13. Acronyms And Abbreviations                 $38.00

14. Network management For 800 Service             $98.00

15. Common Channel Signaling Network Management         $28.00

16. Network Restoration Framework             $35.00

    (Check, Visa, Mastercard, American Express accepted)

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS?
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 19:27:15 PDT


Can someone tell me about any standards that might exist for digitized
voice on the PC?

Software standards: What are the standard formats for representation
of voice data?  How is compression handled?

Hardware standards: Unlike the Mac, the PC seems to be a pretty sorry
platform on which to record and playback the human voice.  What
products are available to record and playback voice?  Specifically,
I'm looking for those products that do an acceptable job of playing
and recording human voices, at the lowest possible cost.


Thanks,

Will Estes   Internet: [e-mail]   UUCP: apple!cup.portal.com!Will

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 22:00:17 PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: No Calling Card For a Cell Phone


Every month (if I've made any long distance calls on my cellular
phone) I get a bill from AT&T. The bill is completely separate from
the Cellular One bill and is for long distance *only*. So, there
exists, in my name an account with AT&T.

Now, when you roam, it is often necessary to use 0+ dialing to place
long distance calls. You would think that it should be possible to
bill those calls to "the cellular phone" i.e., to the AT&T account
described above. Not so. AT&T will not issue a calling card for a
cellular number, but *will* quite happily establish a new
"non-subscriber" card and send a *separate* bill for calls placed on
this card. Just what I need; another bill in the mail.  Can anyone
please explain this stupidity?



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


[Moderator's Note: Please see my comments earlier today regarding AT&T
and their left hand eventually, hopefully, figuring out what their
right hand is doing. I get six bills monthly from AT&T: Cell Phone 1,
Cell Phone 2, AT&T Mail, Equipment Lease (once every three months),
Equipment purchased on time payment from phone center; wireline long
distance calls (via my IBT bill). Ridiculous, isn't it!    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Friedman)
Subject: Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 04:35:36 GMT


Pat,

I enjoyed your description of long distance calling in Ye Olden Dayes.
However, an interesting question posed previously by another poster
remains unanswered.  Why did the long distance operator use source
routing? In your description the source LD operator specifies the next
hop to each intermediate operator.  It seems to me, that a better
method would be for each intermediate operator to determine the next
hop for themselves.

Cheers,


                  |  Tel: [phone]  | Internet: [e-mail]
 Andrew Friedman  |  Fax: [phone]  |   ACSnet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well to be honest, I don't remember if they did or
not. I was only a very little tyke who had just been taught by his
older cousin how to play with the telephone, circa 1949-50 when that
sort of thing was being phased out. It may be each operator along the
way chose the routing to be taken next. Maybe I just thought it was
the first operator in the chain who routed everything.  I came in on
the final year or so of that methodology; and some of it was already
gone by then I suspect.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 03:25 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Infamous Telephone Quotes


        In article (Digest v11.iss560), Brett Person <plains!person@
uunet.uu.net> mentions Mark Twain's dislike for the notion of
investing in the telephone.

        In fact, that dislike must have stayed with Twain his whole
life, for in his final years, when it was customary for the press to
ask him for just one more witticism for the year's end, he granted a
Christmas wish for the world, saying, "Merry Christmas to everyone
except the inventor of the telephone!"

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

From: David Querin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Comsec Data Security on Good Morning America
Date: 24 Jul 91 03:41:24 GMT
Organization: tamu


I have heard that their appearance has been put off due to the
economic summit or some such.  Of course this has not been fully
confirmed, but 'tis the news that has been floating by.


David

/* of course it's only my opinion.  i would not talk for anyone else! */

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 23:35:23 CDT
From: Craig Neidorf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Comsec Data Security on Good Morning America


I just heard that because of the economic summit, GMA will have to
delay Comsec's appearance for at least a week and a half.  Sorry to
have brought it up and now learn that it isn't happening right away.

The same thing happened to me shortly after my trial ended last year.
GMA was all excited and talked about putting me on, but a week later
the Iraq/Kuwait problems began and I was no longer important.  The
press is rather fickle, but GMA has proven to be one of the most
unreliable among them.


Craig Neidorf  ([e-mail])

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: When Your Chance to be on Television is Lost
Date: Wed, Jul 24, 1991 01:00:00 CDT


For those who missed the first article by Craig, the Comsec segment
was originally scheduled for July 25. Craig will no doubt let us know
when it comes up again.  And yes, Craig, I know how frustrating it can
be to prepare something for television and then get pre-empted for one
reason or another, because it has happened to me.

In November, 1963 I was asked by the Chicago Public Library to do a
little show for them (actually, a thirty minute documentary) entitled
"Getting to Know the Chicago Public Libary". It was a 'walking tour'
through the main library and a couple of the branches. I explained
each area as I visited it. I spent three months putting this together
to be aired on WGN Channel 9 on Sunday morning.

The week it was to air, WGN had some sort of technical difficulty and
had to go off the air for about 45 minutes, during *my* time slot. I
was very depressed, but the station people said not to worry, they
were going to run the show the following Sunday morning instead.
Sounded great to me, and I *lived* for the next weekend.

But on Friday of that week, our nation and the world was devastated by
the assasination of President John F. Kennedy. Those of you old enough
to remember will recall that from Friday at about noon until early
Sunday morning, all the radio and television stations did *nothing*
but assasination coverage; in most cases for 40 hours or more straight
through.

By Sunday morning, most of the stations had gone back to their regular
programming, and Channel 9 called me to say my little documentary
would be on at 11:00 AM as planned. Uh, huh ... they started me on
time alright, and I was on for 45 *seconds* when there was a break for
a special bulletin: "We will go back to the program in a minute, but
first we will go to the Dallas Jail, where Lee Harvey Oswald is being
removed to the county jail to await trial in the murder of the
president ..."

The picture changed to the basement of the Dallas Jail ... here comes
Oswald, handcuffed and led along by guards. Swarms of reporters with
microphones in his face to get his story ... and up steps Mr. Jack
Ruby, as bold as can be, puts a gun in Oswald's face and says for the
world to hear, "You son of a bitch! You killed the president and now I
am going to kill you!"  Bang!  Well ... need I tell you my production
did *not* come back on the air 'after a brief news bulletin'. In fact,
it never was aired.  For the rest of the day, the television stations
had a marvelous time with that thirty seconds of footage showing
Oswald getting zapped and Ruby being placed under arrest. But except
for the original live showing, subsequent, repeated (a hundred times
that afternoon, does anyone recall for sure?) showings of the film had
Ruby's voice blocked out during the first part of his comments, in
deference to the FCC prohibition against vulgar language on television
in those days ... 'son of a bitch' qualifying in that category.  We
saw his lips move, his nostrils flaring and the gun firing; that was
all.  I never saw my production again; I have no idea what WGN ever
did with it ... they certainly never got around to airing it.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #565
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04419;
          25 Jul 91 3:08 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07593;
          25 Jul 91 1:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00892;
          25 Jul 91 0:34 CDT
Date:     Thu, 25 Jul 91 0:33:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #566
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Jul 91 00:33:09 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 566

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Bob Izenberg]
    Re: Lightning Protection For Modems [Peter Thurston]
    Re: Lightning Protection For Modems [Jim Graham]
    Re: International 800 Calling [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Re: International 800 Calling [John E. Girard]
    Re: Church 900 Hotline Program [David Leibold]
    Re: Alcor Email Case [James Zuchelli]
    Mismatched 1+ Carrier [mission![e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 06:53:15 GMT


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

>    There's been some debate on a BBS I frequent as to the minimum
> interval one should leave between automated attempts to redial a busy
> number.

>    A suggestion has been made that the phone system will suffer if
> one attempts to dial a number more frequently than, say, once every
> ten seconds, and that the telco will do something unfortunate if it
> ever finds anyone doing this.  (Note that the number in question is
> rarely idle for more than 10-15 seconds at peak periods.)

>    Is this nothing more than a telecom old wives tale, or is there
> (i) any official policy on redial frequency, and (ii) any way for the
> telco to determine the frequency with which subscriber redials?

I've never heard of anyone doing that, though it could be done.

What may have generated the idea however, is that modern switches do
peg things like going off hook and not dialing at all, hanging up
before a valid number is completely dialed, and so on.

I'm not real sure how a line switcher handles that kind of thing.  On
trunks the switch does a diagnostic test on a trunk when a short dial
or pre-route abandon happens (too few digits, and either stays off
hook or goes on hook respectively).  Too many of them in too short a
time and it may take the trunk out of service and flag it for
maintenance.  Of course trunks should only be accessed by automatic
equipment and not getting enough digits should NEVER happen.  With
customers dialing manually it would be expected to on a regular basis.

Line switchers do the same thing if you go off hook and don't dial at
all, and may well do diagnostics on the same indications that trunk
switchers do them on, but with higher counts etc.

But, if you dial a valid number and wait long enough for either a ring
or any kind of intercept or busy signal it should be seen as a normal
call process and would not be pegged on anything that results in any
maintenance action.  It will get pegged as a call attempt and not as a
call completion.  The attemp/completion ratio is interesting on a
grand scale, but not on a line by line basis.

In short, you should be safe if you hang up long enough to get a dial
tone when you go back off hook.  It should be easy to find out too,
just set the wait time to two seconds and see what happens if you dial
it 30 times when its busy.  I do it all the time and pcomm just times
out and won't dial anymore.


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: Bob Izenberg <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 02:20:20 CDT
Organization: Teenage Binge and Purgin' Turtles
Subject: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?


Charlie Mingo writes:

>     A suggestion has been made that the phone system will suffer if
> one attempts to dial a number more frequently than, say, once every
> ten seconds, and that the telco will do something unfortunate if it
> ever finds anyone doing this.  (Note that the number in question is
> rarely idle for more than 10-15 seconds at peak periods.)

A radio station that I once worked at (closed carrier, on a cable TV
station's barker channel) got a call about their single phone line.
As I heard it from the station's GM, they were told that the request
line being busy all the time was causing problems, and that the
station would have to add a second phone line.  I assumed that Essex
County, NJ had enough telco resources to make this claim doubtful.
Was someone in NJB marketing looking at a list of perpetually busy
numbers and doing a hard sell on each?  Could be.  The GM was warm
butter before this approach, and ordered the second line.


Bob

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

From: Peter Thurston <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 14:01:51 +0100
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems


When I worked for Philips Research in the UK, I was given the task to
solve a lightning problem we had with the Gandalf network of terminals
around the building. We would have at least two major hits each
summer, often knocking out 20 or so terminals and the RS232 ports in
the central 'gandalf' box. A problem was that we had two buildings
separated by a road; all telephone and data lines passed (pass) over a
bridge across the road, giving rise to the opportunity for potentials
to develop: in the bridge itself and between the earth points in the
two buildings.

Proprietry lighting protectors would have been too expensive for the
250 odd terminals, given that one would be needed at each end of the
line. Most are overpriced too, the type you buy for your PC etc.  We
developed a small circuit which would hang on the wires at the Gandalf
box, and sit inside the terminal socket on the wall. As with most
proprietry units, it contained a Zener-resister-Arrester combination
for each line, with a diode connection to Ground/Earth. Some were
installed, but I left so I have no idea how well the system worked. If
the Gandalf system still exists, and there is a PRL reader, perhaps
he/she will contact me?

Bud Couch (TELECOM Digest V11 #562) mentioned the problem with
multiple earths. Not entirly related to telecoms but my brother had
two sections of his Hi Fi connected to power outlets on two sides of
the 4th story flat/apartment. After a storm one day he discovered his
woofer one inch in advance from it's normal resting position.


Peter Thurston

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

From: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection For Modems
Organization: Amoco Corporation, Telecommunications Network Design
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 20:03:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> kentrox![e-mail]
(Bud Couch) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:

>> Now, my question is this --- with static charges dancing around in the
>> case of a near miss, [and so on ...]

> Your experience here was not a "static" discharge of the line. The
> lightning itself is a static discharge, but once that current is
> flowing, there is no way for it to convert to a "static" charge on
> your line.

What I was talking about was the static charge (in the air ... not on
the phone line) one might see in the case of a near miss -- a related
problem on the same lines as the discussion on what happens if you
actually take a direct hit.  When in the area of a serious
thunderstorm, it isn't too difficult to detect the fact that static
electricity levels go very high.  Now, when (as I described in my
post) you are right near where lightning actually does hit, the
potential is increased substantially.

Now, we all know that many types of ICs (like the CMOS ICs, for
example) are rather sensitive to static, and in some cases, simply
touching them in a non-static-free environment can destroy them (I've
seen this happen, too -- I blew some chips before I had a static
strap, and I've seen others who swear that with internal zener diodes
protecting the ICs these days you don't need to worry about it blowing
chips as well [expensive ones, at that]).  So, when the levels of
static electricity in the atmosphere around you go sky high as a
result of a near miss from lightning, what additional threats are
there for your modem, computer, etc. from the static electricity
itself?

I realize that asking this question is now no longer directly related
to telecom (i.e., we are no longer talking about the damage potential
from the phone line connection -- we're talking about static
electricity from slightly different circumstances ... a near hit
instead of a direct hit), but then again, this could impact the type
of protection I want to get ... there may be some device out there
that attempts to address this as well.  Or, it may really not be a
problem, or, there may be nothing I can do about it at all.  This,
however, is the info I'm looking for.

> IF your computer and modem are _completely_ disconnected, from _both_
> the telephone line _and_ the power line, the only way that lightning
> can damage them is a direct hit to your house, in which case I think
> that they will be some of your more minor worries.

Based on the revised version of this posting, do you still want to
stick to that point?  That the static charge in the area NEAR a
lightning hit (and, btw, I'm not talking miles ... I'm talking just
down the street, or closer) is not a threat to static-sensitive
equipment like modems/computers/etc?  I'm thinking you might have
misunderstood what I was asking about.


jim

Standard disclaimer....These thoughts are mine, not my employer's.

Share and Enjoy!  (Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, complaints division)
73, de n5ial

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.

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International 800 Calling
Date: 24 Jul 91 13:15:34 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(ED HOPPER) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 558, Message 9 of 9

> I would suggest that those people who find themselves in this
> situation go and pound on the 800 customer to comply with
> common-sense and provide a dialable number in his advertising.
> That's the answer, not re-engineering the network to accomodate
> stupidity on the part of advertisers.

I would be reluctant to point the finger at my customers because of
their lack of understanding of the international network.  The
supervison idea (supervise only the international portion of the
call), if it would work, sounds like an elegant solution to the
problem.  The principle of international calls (011 + ) costing money
would seem to take precendence over the idea that 800 numbers are
always free.  I understand that some of these arrangements are
restriced by tariff and other agreements with the PTT's.

One can't assume that a periodical 'targeted' at the US Market will
not make its way overseas.  Globalization is an inherently 'jerky'
process that is just starting.  Technology is going to make things
possible that people can take advantage of, if properly educated.

Few of the posts I have seen on this topic express the desire for the
company to pay for the international portion of the call; the callers
are just potential customers trying to contact the company.

On AT&T's part, couldn't low-volume international customers be advised
to advertising the USA Direct number for international calls?  (Those
operators can dial 800 numbers, can't they?)

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

From: "John E. Girard" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International 800 Calling
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 15:14:46 GMT


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

> I would suggest that those people who find themselves in this
> situation go and pound on the 800 customer to comply with common-sense
> and provide a dialable number in his advertising.  That's the answer,
> not re-engineering the network to accomodate stupidity on the part of
> advertisers.

Believe it or not, I have had secretaries and receptionist-types at
companies refuse to give me the direct number, like it was supposed to
be secret.

The best thing you can do is call anyone you might need to contact
while overseas *before* you go and compile a direct-dial list.  If you
need a number whilst overseas, the AT&T 800 operators will host a call
to directory assistance in order to get a local number for you.
However, this does require that you know the city where the company
resides.  AT&T will not provide a cross-reference from the 800 to the
local number.  The operators believe it can't be done and the supes
say the system doesn't provide the feature.  Now THERE is something to
complain about next time you call!


John Girard   New Science Associates, Inc.  [e-mail]
VOICE: 415-968-3324 ************************** FAX: [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Church 900 Hotline Program
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 20:51:21 EDT
Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL


Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]> wrote:

>      I noticed recently that during the recent general convention
> of the Episcopal Church in Phoenix, the church operated a 900 number
> for curious Episcopalians who wanted the latest lowdown on what was
> going on on the convention floor.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) has an after-hours news line on an 800
number: 1 800 UP2DATE. The news line is only operational outside
office hours. This line contained information out of the recent PCUSA
General Assembly, along with other news.

>      The charge was $0.50/minute; I have no information as to the
> identity of the carrier or the quality of the information.

The prefix of the 900 number (the NXX of the 1 900 NXX XXXX) should be
able to indicate which carrier is involved; at least until a full-
blown CCS7 implementation renders the prefix-carrier correlation
meaningless.


replies to: [e-mail]     [e-mail]
            (bnw.delray.fl.us should be fully Internet-mapped soon;
             use shark.cs.fau.edu!bnw if gooing this route)

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

From: [e-mail] (James Zuchelli)
Subject: Re: Alcor Email Case
Date: 12 Jul 91 09:22:56 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/555 - MacCircles, Pleasanton CA


Very interesting.  If email is protected, for how long is it
protected? If I mail a letter and the person I send it to reads it and
puts it out on his table and someone comes into their home or office,
and reads it, its not considered an intrusion into the mail system.
If the same person opened a piece of mail that was in the persons mail
box, there would be a violation of federal law.  So how long can email
sit in a computer before it is not longer considered protected?  is
there a limit, can a message that is ten years old be considered no
longer protected?


James Zuchelli - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
    UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!James.Zuchelli
INTERNET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: These are good questions with answers that are not
available yet. It is likely a lot of them will be resolved in court on
a case by case basis over the next few years.   PAT]

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

From: mission![e-mail]
Subject: Mismatched 1+ Carrier
Date: Tue Jul 23 16:10:50 1991


When I recently moved from one apartment to another about a mile away,
GTE set up the service just fine (was I surprised!) except that I
found out later my 1+ carrier was AT&T even though GTE service, GTE
repair, and Sprint all said their records showed I was served by
Sprint.

How is the 1+ carrier actually determined?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #566
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09439;
          25 Jul 91 5:21 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20903;
          25 Jul 91 3:49 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10281;
          25 Jul 91 2:41 CDT
Date:     Thu, 25 Jul 91 1:40:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #567
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Jul 91 01:40:20 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 567

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sprint Rate Change [Linc Madison]
    Re: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers [Rob Knauerhase]
    Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup [John Higdon]
    Re: Wanted - Telephone Call Forwarders [Roy Stehle]
    Re: Question on Audiovox CTX4500 Programming [Roy Stehle]
    Re: Phones in Hotels, Once More [Wally Kramer]
    Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! [Mary McComb]
    Re: Simple Computer / Phone Link Wanted [William Clare Stewart]
    Re: No Calling Card For a Cell Phone [Bill Nickless]
    Re: Infamous Telephone Quotes [Scott Dorsey]
    Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Douglas Martin]
    Re: Anyone Know Mr. ZZYZZYXY? [Argun Tekant]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 01:48:24 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Rate Change
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> The other is that on the infrequent occasions when AT&T does change
> its rates, it is usually in a downward direction. And then this
> usually sets off some scurrying on the part of MCI and Sprint to
> perform some cosmetic surgery on their respective rate cards -- to
> convince the public that they are STILL at least a fraction of a
> percent below AT&T.

"Cosmetic surgery" is exactly right.  I recently dissected my Sprint
bill and found that they actually charge LESS for the first minute
than for additional minutes on the same call.  The only reason I can
conceive is that they want to make all those three-minute "typical"
call comparisons look bright and shiny.  What ever happened to the
logic that the first minute costs *more* because of the cost of
set-up?

Then again, AT&T called me to invite me to switch back, and I said,
"Sure -- put it in writing."  The droid said he couldn't -- it was
"against policy."  Another droid called a couple weeks later, and I
simply told her, "Your commercials say to ask for it in writing, but
your people refused.  I won't consider switching to AT&T until I get a
complete rate chart."  This time it was promised to be out in the mail
right away, but that was in November and I'm *still* waiting.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]  =  ucbvax!tongue1!linc

P.S. I've never called any phone sex line *in the Netherlands Antilles*.
I *did* discover, though, that Pac*Bell payphones in 408 would dial 415
"976" lines for just the regular toll charge to San Francisco, but that
was some years back.


[Moderator's Note: For many years, 415-976 was open to the world via
AT&T for the cost of the tolls only, although MCI always did intercept
with a message 'at this time, MCI does not connect with 976 numbers'.
When I say the world, I mean just that. One evening after I had gone
to bed (two-ish or so), I decided to do some research for the Digest
and dialed into one of the 415-976 open chat lines. I got to talking
with a chap from London who had just woke up and was ready for
breakfast who asked me how big my mailing list was. At thirteen cents
a minute via Reach Out, those services were a bargain for me. Then one
day, poof! intercepted by AT&T right downtown at the Canal Street
switcher; 312-5T telling me my call could not be completed as dialed,
or rather, they had no intention of completing it as dialed.
Apparently the information providers and/or PacTel got tired of people
in London chatting with folks in Chicago for the price of the toll
while San Fransisco people willing to pay 'just two dollars for three
minutes of hot chat' got busy signals as a result.   PAT]

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

From: Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 00:57:10 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Miller)
writes:

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

>> Also, they included a "no-strings-attached" $5.00 gift certificate!

> All three of you [E-mail repliers]said you you did not get the gift
> certificate.  I
> don't know why I got it (no complaints though :-)), I did make a
> fairly angry call one night, after reading about this in

[snip]

> Carol said she sent a polite letter, and didn't get the gift
> certificate.  Perhaps there is still some use for unbridled anger :-)

Interesting; I asked them about credit for the calls between 6/3 and
when I called them (not having made any between reading about the
increase here and calling to complain).  The Sprint lady credited me
for the difference, then gave me a $5 "inconvenience credit" (after
talking to her supervisor), instructing me to simply pay $5 less than
the adjusted amount.  Then I got the letter with a $5 gift certificate
in it.

I plan to use it, but still switch to MCI when I return to my
apartment in Illinois; MCI now beats Sprint for the two numbers I
usually call, and "Friends & Family" promises to take a discount over
that.


Rob Knauerhase
[e-mail]     Intel Developer Tools Organization (for the summer)
[e-mail]        Univ. of Illinois, Dept. of CS, Gigabit Study Group

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return
Date: 23 Jul 91 17:23:11 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> About two years ago, I received "service" (if you oculd call it that)
> from GTE while living in Mill Creek, WA, on the 206-338 exchange.  The
> switch was unlike anything else I had ever used (I had always lived in
> an RBOC area before).  I assumed that it was some funky GTE creation,
> probably a GTD-5, and it was definately a peice of junk.  It exhibited
> the strange behavior, recently described in the Digest, when calling
> your own number if you have call waiting.

    Back in '85-'86 I was in the Redmond 881 exchange, and it
seemed like every time I called into Seattle I wound up having a
conversation that sounded like an excerpt from a Jacques Cousteau
soundtrack, between bad echo cancellation and weird little "pings"
that came along every few seconds. I've heard rumors that GTE had a
high-usage trunk running along the bottom of Lake Washington that was
responsible for the problem.

    I can't think of any evidence to support this. Does anyone know the
lowdown?


Jeff Carroll    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 02:33 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup


"Daniel R. Guilderson" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Two questions:

>     1)  Why did touch-tone go up 69% ?

I don't know. It went to zero here.

>     2)  Why am I being taxed by the Federal gov't for local
>         in-state service?

For the same reason you are taxed on income you make in locally in
your state. Our bloated Federal government needs the money.


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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 09:25:47 -0700
From: Roy Stehle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted - Telephone Call Forwarders
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA


In article <[e-mail]>:

> Can anyone supply the source for the LOGOS forwarder?

The LOGOS Automatic Call Forwarding Machine is available for $225 from:

    Communications Publishing
    P.O. Box 500
    Mercer Island, WA 98040-0500
    [phone] or [phone]  9 AM to 5 PM Pacific Time
                      Answering machine other hours

The have a "Cellular Telephone Products and Publications" catalog that
has a number of interesting products.  One item of interest to another
thread is "The Cellular Telephone Directory" that gives coverage maps.
While I doubt that it shows cell sites, it might use simple circles
centered at or near those sites.

I have no affiliation with Communications Publishing and I have not,
yet, ordered anything from them.


Roy Stehle    SRI International

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 09:30:06 -0700
From: Roy Stehle <stehle>
Subject: Re: Question on Audiovox CTX4500 Programming
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA


In article <[e-mail]>:

> Does anyone have the full programming instructions for the Audiovox
> CTX4500?  There are a number of fields that the previous messages had
> no information on.

Depending on how badly you want the information, the "Cellular
Telephone Program Handbook" offers this type of information on "more
than 250 models" of cellular telephones.  I do not know if your
Audiovox is included.

$149 from Communications Publishing at [phone] or [phone].


Roy Stehle    SRI International

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

From: Wally Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phones in Hotels, Once More
Date: 24 Jul 91 19:57:29 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


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

> I recently spent four nights at the Hilton at Dedham (MA) Place.

> When I checked out, the bill contained 36 calls to the phone number 0,
> at $0.75 each, most of which ... hadn't gone through ...
> I complained, and ... was credited the full $27. ...

More fortunate than me.  At the Kona Hawaii Hilton I was charged $1.00
each for call attempts to 800 numbers!  I complained that I hadn't
gotten through.  I kept complaining until the manager listened to me
and told me, "Each call attempt costs one dollar."  End of discussion.

My advice:  Don't use a Hilton phone.


Wally Kramer    contracted from Step Technology, Portland, Oregon 503 244 1239
[e-mail]        [phone]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 24 Jul 1991 16:46:28 EDT
From: Mary McComb 225 Sparks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone!


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

> I agree with you that MCI should try to confirm the information that
> they are given before placing such telemarketing calls.  However, in
> the case where MCI got your name from one of your friends/family, who
> is to blame?  It seems to me that your friends/family share the blame,
> since it's *them* who gave out your name.  As the old saying goes,
> with friends like these who needs enemies?

I am one of those who fell for MCI's Friends and Family deal.  I
figured that at worst, MCI would send out a mail notice to the folks I
put down on the list.  I may be naive, but it never occurred to me
that MCI would harrass my friends and family with obnoxious
telemarketing calls.  My dad tells me that they did exactly that.  I
had been pleased with MCI for the last several years, partly because
they seemed low key compared to AT&T, but I have had it with them for
harrassing my contacts.  I am moving soon to an area without MCI; if I
weren't, I would cancel MCI.  The ads make it sound like they will
just doublecheck to see if your people are already on MCI; there is NO
indication that they will subject them to phone calls.


Mary McComb     (soon to be leaving) Penn State University

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 17:27:55 EDT
From: William Clare Stewart <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Simple Computer / Phone Link Wanted
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Special Services Division.


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

> I'd like to be able to have my system send me Email (at a known,
> remote location) informing me when someone called and left a message.
> I could then call in and check the message.

A fancy hack, if you have Caller-ID service, is to get a Caller-ID box
with RS-232, and have your email message include the phone number.  A
crude hack, if you can get a five-volt signal out of your answering
machine or otherwise wire something to detect ringing voltage, is to
feed it to the DSR or DCD pin on your RS-232 port and have your PC
wake up and send mail.


Bill Stewart 908-949-0705
erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ

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

From: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Calling Card For a Cell Phone
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 22:31:00 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Please see my comments earlier today regarding AT&T
> and their left hand eventually, hopefully, figuring out what their
> right hand is doing. I get six bills monthly from AT&T: Cell Phone 1,
> Cell Phone 2, AT&T Mail, Equipment Lease (once every three months),
> Equipment purchased on time payment from phone center; wireline long
> distance calls (via my IBT bill). Ridiculous, isn't it!    PAT]

I have MCI dial-1 service.  They bill their LD charges to my Visa
card.  (At one time they were billing their LD charges to my AT&T
Universal card.)  Whenever AT&T calls, asking me to switch back, I
just tell them that I'm quite happy with MCI, because they bill my
Visa card.  When I had a cellphone in a different state, the bill from
MCI went to the same Visa card, even though they had a different
billing center for that state or something.

Maybe someday AT&T will offer dial-1 billing to their Universal card.
Then again, it is AT&T we're talking about.


Bill Nickless   <[e-mail]>  [phone] or [phone]

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

From:  Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Infamous Telephone Quotes
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 13:23:36 GMT


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

>        In article (Digest v11.iss560), Brett Person <plains!person@
> uunet.uu.net> mentions Mark Twain's dislike for the notion of
> investing in the telephone.

>        In fact, that dislike must have stayed with Twain his whole
> life, for in his final years, when it was customary for the press to
> ask him for just one more witticism for the year's end, he granted a
> Christmas wish for the world, saying, "Merry Christmas to everyone
> except the inventor of the telephone!"

    This is a man who lost most of his life savings investing in the
development of a mechanical typesetter that never did work.
Merganthaler got his finished long before.


scott

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

From: Douglas Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 07:44:52 -0600


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

> The first two entries in the Fort Worth residential listings are:

> A, M.

> and

> AAARGH, A. A. 309 College St.

> Does anyone think that Aaargh is a real last name?

OK - I guess you've got Edmonton beat for "people" at the start of the
phone book (we don't have distinct residential White Pages; our White
Pages are both residential and business). The first entries that
appear to be people rather than businesses, are Aab F W, Aab H, Aab J,
Aabak Brian, Aaberg Olav.

By the way, are spaces significant in the sorting in your phone book?
i.e. do "A B C" and "ABC" sort close to each other? Seems a little silly to
me to have spaces significant, but that's the case in ours -- "A B C Trophy"
comes three pages BEFORE "ABC Crating and Pallets".

[e-mail]   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Spaces *have* to be considered. In your example
above, "A B C" are three distinct 'words' or 'names', while "ABC" is a
single three-letter 'word' or 'name'.   PAT]

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

From: Argun Tekant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anyone Know Mr. ZZYZZYXY?
Organization: Wimsey Associates
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 16:41:58 GMT


It looks like Vancouver BC is the winner for the nd-of-phone book
race.

This year's last entry goes:

    Zzzyzyton P   4499 W 2nd .......... 251-4973

What goes?


Argun Tekant


[Moderator's Muse: I wonder if P. Zizzy-ton (I assume you pronounce it
that way, or do you say Zie-zeeton) is a real person or a ringer?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #567
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09474;
          25 Jul 91 5:21 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20903;
          25 Jul 91 3:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac10281;
          25 Jul 91 2:41 CDT
Date:     Thu, 25 Jul 91 2:18:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #568
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Jul 91 02:18:36 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 568

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cantel - North America's Only Nationwide Cellular Network [John R. Covert]
    A/A1 Control and Modems [Todd Inch]
    Email From Space [AppleLink, Michael Elliot via Lloyd W. Taylor]
    C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch!) [Phil Wherry]
    ABCD: What are These Buttons on My Phone? [Peter Wolf]
    Comment on German Phone System(s) [Wolf Paul]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 22:05:05 PDT
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cantel - North America's Only Nationwide Cellular Network


Because I was going to be in Canada several times this summer and
travelling from place to place each time, I decided to subscribe to
Cantel in addition to by Nynex service, at least temporarily.  My
experiences so far follow:

Service activation was not inexpensive; the first month's bill showed:

    C$50.00 Cantel activation fee
    C$49.50 Canada DOC license
    C$14.14 Cantel Plan fee May 23 to Jun 08
    C$24.95 Cantel Plan fee Jun 09 to Jul 08
    -------

       C$138.59 Subtotal
       C$  9.70 7% Federal Goods and Services Tax
       C$ 11.86 8.56% Quebec Sales Tax
    -------

       C$160.15 Total

The Cantal plan includes the first 30 minutes of usage, after which
peak and offpeak rates go into effect.  It also includes all custom
calling features.

The airtime bill is confusing, in my case showing only what is to the
left of the vertical bar:

    Peak    26 minutes  $6.50    | $6.50/.50 = 13 minutes charged
    Offpeak    31 minutes   4.33    | $4.33/.33 = 13 minutes charged
    Total    57 minutes $10.83    | 31 free minutes = allowance + 411

A nice feature: local directory assistance is always free.  LD may
cost.  Itemization would cost $3.50, but is free for the first two
bills, so it was possible to make sense out of that extra free minute.

There are no daily charges or high airtime charges when roaming
anywhere in Canada.  There is no need for follow-me-roaming; calls
reach you and all features work anywhere in Canada or in many Ericsson
systems in the U.S.A.

Systems in at least Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, upstate New
York, and West Virginia work now; Seattle should get connected soon,
which might instantly open up much of McCaw (more than half the
Cellular Ones), and I suppose some day, New York.

Features in Ericsson switches work slightly differently than in AT&T,
NT, and Motorola switches:

Call Forwarding all calls: *21*(receiving number)# send, #21# turns it off.

No Answer Transfer: *63*(receiving number)# send, #63# turns it off.

Busy Transfer: *67*(receiving number)# send, #67# turns it off.

Call Waiting:  You can toggle whether you want it or not -- it arrives off.
     *43* turns it on, supposedly until you dial #43# to turn it off.

     To answer, you must enter "2" before pressing send.  Just pressing
     send converts the caller's ring to a busy signal, and seems to
     leave call waiting disabled for the rest of the call.  I didn't
     discover a way to turn it back on; 1 send might.

     Only documented for three way calling, but works for call waiting:
     3 send joins the two incoming calls.

     1 send is documented as terminating the call in progress and
     returning to the other party.  I don't know if "end" will do
     that (like on AT&T switches), and I don't know what 1 send does
     when you have joined the parties.

     Not documented at all: 4 send takes you out of the call and
     leaves the two parties connected.  Don't know what it does if
     you have not first joined them.

Three way calling: 1, 2, and 3 are documented as above.  I haven't
used the feature yet, but will have to on my next Canadian visit.  In
particular, I wonder what happens when you just press send at various
stages in call setup, and how you drop the second party to the call if
they can't go on hook.  I fear the old Rolm problem (recenty fixed
with a special drop code) that once you bridge, you're stuck if it
keeps ringing, goes busy, or puts you on perpetual hold/limbo.  Only
an on-hook from one party would clear it, so you'd have to clear the
whole call and start over.

Local and Long Distance calling:

There's a huge complicated book (20 pages for the Quebec and Eastern
Ontario exchanges) explaining what's local and what's long-distance,
depending on where you are (by city -- of course, actually, group of
cells) when you place a call.  Listed are all the NXXs that are local
for outgoing calls and arrows indicating the subset of those that are
local for forwarded calls.

Also, for each Cantel NXX, there is a list of areas to which you can
roam and not be charged long distance for incoming calls to your home
number.

The instructions explain that you can force callers to use the roamer
port, possibly saving them long distance, and definitely saving you
incoming long distance, by forwarding your calls to a local number in
your home area.  There is no charge (not even airtime) for immediate
call forwarding (a.k.a. call forward all calls) to your home area, and
only LD charges otherwise, but see the LD note below.

When you have forwarded your calls and have your phone off, calls to
roamer ports in your home machine go to reorder, and calls to other
machines attempt to page you.  I need to see what happens if you do
this while your phone is on, but in an area in your machine but where
toll applies to incoming.  For example, right now, my phone (with a
Montreal number) is off, and I get reorder on both Montreal and
Granby.  If I still had calls forwarded, but were in Granby, would
calls be able to be placed on the Granby roamer port, or would I have
to cancel call forwarding, enabling both the Granby roamer port and
calls to my actual number, to which LD would apply?

An interesting quirk: While in Montreal, calls could be placed to me
on the Granby roamer port, and there was no LD charge (and good that
there wasn't; Montreal is a place I expect no incoming charge).  The
question is, what happens in Granby with a call placed to the Montreal
or Sherbrooke roamer port?

Calls to roamer ports in other systems do not reach you, but in the
Prairie Provinces, a single system can cover the entire province, and
calls do work over long distances.  Are you ever charged a toll charge
for a call on a roamer port that reaches you, however distant?  Could
that ever be more expensive than a call on your home number?

My next bill will answer some, but not all of these questions.

As if Long Distance in Canada weren't already expensive enough, Cantel
charges a 15%-25% premium over regular long distance rates.  Yecch.
Not satisfied with making money off airtime, they make money off
reselling LD.

But hey, it's a system that really works across an entire continent.
Quite impressive.  Call Following and Feature Following should be
universal.


john


[Moderator's Note: Could you possibly send along the address and phone
for people to contact if they want more information or to sign-up?   PAT]

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

From: Todd Inch <[e-mail]>
Subject: A/A1 Control and Modems
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 21:19:36 GMT


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

> You can't just use a double-pole relay to take the
> modem off hook and close A/A1 because you don't want the A/A1 signal
> to chatter while pulse dialing.

Well, some have tried.  Radio Shack did sell a A/A1 converter box to
plug a single-line device into which consisted of only a full-wave
bridge rectifier (four diodes) and a relay.  [Disclaimer - I only
bought one, a close out.  Maybe they forgot the cap on this one unit.]
I think the bridge is only necessary if the CO reverses line polarity
during the call.  The AC leads of the bridge go in series with either
wire going to your device and the DC out goes to the relay coil.

This was a problem on pulse phones, especially since most A/A1 systems
use the condition where a phone is off hook but A/A1 is momemtarily
open to turn on the "hold" circuit.

I fixed that with a capacitor across the relay coil, and have since
built several of these from scratch with a little experimenting for
proper values.  If components are selected properly, this WON'T be
triggered by ring current.  The bridge IS needed with a DC cap to give
it the proper polarity if installed backward, etc.

> Just last night I modified my Supra modem to support an RJ12 jack so
> it will light the indicators on the little key system I've put
> together out of surplus ITT parts.

Many modems have a Single Line Phone (RJ11) / Multi-Line Phone (RJ12
or RJ13) [no, I don't know what a RJ13 is off hand] DIP switch.  This
determines if the Black/Yellow (or Orange striped) pair is connected
for A/A1 or not.  It is VITALLY IMPORTANT that this is set to
Single/RJ11 if you have two-line phones in your house/business.
Otherwise, it will always pickup (short out) the second line when
using the first line and may damage the modem from the line current
(but I doubt it.)  This feature could easily be used to operate a
relay to disconnect the other phones which share that phone line.

If it's an answer-only modem (not placing outgoing calls) you could
probably hook up an amp and/or relay to the Carrier Detect RS-232 lead
to act as A/A1 control.  It wouldn't trigger until the remote modem
answered if you were placing an outgoing call.

Technostalgia for newcomers: The term A/A1 is the name of the circuit
used with those old-fashioned five-line phones that look like a normal
(model 500 dial or 2500 tone) phone except for the five added lit
buttons and red hold button across the bottom.  The hookswitch
included a switch just for the A/A1, which is electrically separate
from the phone line itself.  These were called 1A2 systems.

So what's the hack/phrack/freak-type term for someone who builds their
own phone hardware for use on their own line, which is probably in
violation of FCC (and Canadian equivalent) rules?

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

From: "Lloyd W. Taylor" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Email From Space
Reply-To: "Lloyd W. Taylor" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 11:11:54 GMT


NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the
Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and
they are going to be *connecting*to*AppleLink*from*space*.

This is very exciting, because it is the *first time ever* that e-mail
will have been sent or received from space (if it works).

It's exciting for the astronauts because not only can they send data
files back and forth and send their mission reports in while still on
the mission, but they will also be able to communicate with their
families while they are on the trip.  And that is GREAT!

The connection is a little bit more complex than normal ... here is
the journey an AppleLink packet has to take from the GE IS host:

The packet goes (digital, X.25) through the GE IS ww network to a
modem pool (converts to analog) which is connected to a ROLM telephone
switch (converts back to digital), then to a data phone at Johnson
Space Center.

The data phone is connected to a Mac Portable through its Printer
port.  The packet then goes through a "Data Forwarder" application
written by our own Byron Han (the genius behind this project) which
sends the packet out the Modem port using "NASALink," a CTB tool
specially written for this event (also by Byron).

The packet then goes through a PSI Fax Modem (back to analog)
operating in v.27 terr (half duplex, ungodly, and evil) and is then
routed through an ATU (Audio Terminal Unit) which digitizes the signal
(converts to digital).

The packet is then sent up to an orbiting CommSat (Commercial
Satellite) then back down to White Sands, New Mexico TDRSS (Tracking
and Data Relay Satellite System).

It is then sent up again to another TDRSS Satellite which is orbiting
geosynchronously with the space shuttle, and that satellite sends the
packet to the space shuttle (still digital) which sends it through its
voice subsystem and converts it back to analog.

It is sent through another ATU to another PSI Fax modem (back to
digital) through the modem port, through the NASALink CTB tool and
FINALLY into AppleLink 6.0.2s1 (a special version of AppleLink 6.0.2).

Whew!  In addition to modifying AppleLink (slightly -- we would have
used 6.1 which has the necessary modifications built in to handle this
amazing connection, but 6.1 wasn't in beta early enough to train the
astronauts how to use it), the portable had to be modified with a
special fuse to prevent accidental turn-on during ascent,
modifications to the trackball so it wouldn't float out of its socket
in 0grav, and the motherboard was sprayed to prevent outgassing.

We also thank Maria in ADG for making modifications to the host
software to support this connection.  The original throughput we were
getting was about 110bps, but we've gotten it up to an effective
throughput of 400-800bps!  Alright with the wise cracks.  We're using
an off-the shelf modem ... the IBM system they set up for simple data
file transfer (XModem) requires a $500,000 modem.  (That's another
reason we have to make this work.  We, of course, can do the same
thing in spades.)

So, wish us all luck.  We'll need it.  This connection has, of course,
never been tested end to end.  We've only been able to test pieces of
it at a time.  If it does work, there will be great reason for
celebration.

"Hello, HelpLine?  Uh, I'm having trouble getting on AppleLink."  "Did
you check all of your connections?"


Michael Elliot

P.S. Feel free to forward this to anyone you'd like.
(Forwarded, with minor cleanup editing, from AppleLink by Lloyd Taylor)


[Moderator's Note: I think it would absolutely great if there were an
email address for net people to use to send greetings to the space
people. Wouldn't *you* be thrilled to send email to outer space
wishing the astronauts well?  How about it, Apple-Link? Can such be
arranged?  PAT]

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

From: Phil Wherry <[e-mail]>
Subject: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch!)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 12:29:07 GMT


It would probably interest readers of the TELECOM Digest to know that
C&P Telephone (DC-MD-VA) has now enabled the use of the Call Return
(*69) and Call Repeat (*66) services on all subscriber lines. If you
subscribe to these custom calling features, nothing has changed. If
not, you can still use the features -- but you will be billed $0.75
each time you invoke a feature.

Interesting marketing technique.


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

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

Subject: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone?
From: afp!gna!comsat![e-mail]
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 05:49:13 MET
Organization: Satellite Telecom, Geldrop Holland


Recently I bought a new touch-tone dialer for my answering-machine. It
wasn't the same as the one I got when I bought the machine and had a
few extra keys, namely next to 1-0, #,* there were ABCD keys which
also produced tones. I played around with them and found out that the
telephone-system sometimes reacted to them. What is the use of these
keys? If there is any use for them, why aren't they on normal
telephones?


Peter Wolf, "agent cooper"


[Moderator's Note: Sounds like it is time for a few messages on the
Autovon phone network once again ... :)   PAT]

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

From: Wolf PAUL <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comment on German Phone System(s)
Date: 24 Jul 91 08:47:46 GMT
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe


A rather amusing observation on the German telephone system(s):

A recent article in my daily paper pointed out that the German
telephone company, TELEKOM, uses an advertising slogan in West Germany
(the former FRG):

    Ruf doch mal an!

    ("Just call!", or "Why don't you call!")

Even though TELEKOM has taken over the East German (former GDR) phone
system, they carefully refrain from using that advertising slogan in
East Germany. Every extra call is one too many, as things are now!


W.N.Paul
IIASA, [e-mail], [phone]          (till Jul 26, 1991)
ALCATEL/ELIN, [e-mail], [phone]      (as of Jul 29, 1991)
Home: Kirschenallee 113, A-1220 Wien-Austria, Europe; Tel.  [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #568
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04404;
          26 Jul 91 3:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02900;
          26 Jul 91 2:10 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07521;
          26 Jul 91 1:04 CDT
Date:     Fri, 26 Jul 91 0:43:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #569
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 Jul 91 00:43:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 569

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Email From Space [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Email From Space [Gary W. Sanders]
    Re: Email From Space [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Email From Space [Douglas Mason]
    Re: Email From Space [Mark A. Haun]
    Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Wayne Folta]
    Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Robin Kenny]
    Re: Cantel - North America's Only Nationwide Cellular Network [T. Harminc]
    Re: Cantel - North America's Only Nationwide Cellular Network [J. Covert]
    Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! [Ethan Miller]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Date: 25 Jul 91 10:07:16 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Lloyd W. Taylor) writes:

[about the insanely complicated route between applelink and the Mac on
the shuttle]

Why on earth (heh heh!) didn't they just link a bidirectional audio
channel between the shuttle and mission control with modems on both
ends?  Sheesh!

> [Moderator's Note: I think it would absolutely great if there were an
> email address for net people to use to send greetings to the space
> people. Wouldn't *you* be thrilled to send email to outer space
> wishing the astronauts well?  How about it, Apple-Link? Can such be
> arranged?  PAT]

Oh gee, nice idea Pat!  I can just see them logging on to Applelink
and finding out they have 350,000 new bits of email.  Even assuming
the Applelink software doesn't barf on that, they won't be able to see
the wheat (the stuff from NASA) from the chaff.

Better to set up a newsgroup (or whatever they call it on Applelink)
and a special "no email to this account" account that the astronauts
can use to log in and post with.  Keeps things more organized.


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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 08:59:16 EDT
From: Gary W Sanders <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> "Lloyd W. Taylor" <lloyd@
aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> writes:

> NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the
> Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and

> This is very exciting, because it is the *first time ever* that e-mail
> will have been sent or received from space (if it works).

First time ... NO ... I suspect that nasa has done this before on a
nasa project level. If not then others have been doing it. I have been
sending and reading email to the MIR space station for a number of
months. Also the shuttle has had a amateur packet radio station on a
couple of missions.  The packet station has a mailbox and messages can
be left. Also let us not forget the oscar's, Fuji, pacsat lo-19..  All
are flying BBS's that you can send and receive messages on ... email
 from space has been around for sometime.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 09:30 PDT
Subject: Re: Email From Space


Michael Elliot writes on Applelink:

> NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the
> Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and
> they are going to be *connecting*to*AppleLink*from*space*.

> This is very exciting, because it is the *first time ever* that e-mail
> will have been sent or received from space (if it works).

Sorry ... not the first time.

Hams have been exchanging data with both the NASA Orbiter and the
Soviet MIR space station for several years now.  Perhaps you saw news
during recently of kids talking to the orbiter via ham radio?  When
they weren't using the radios for voice, they were using them for
packet (digital) radio.  SAREX (Shuttle Amateur Radio Experiment) had
a packet station that would allow many hams to connect and exchange
data so that they could later receive a "QSL" confirmation.  The last
(or next to last) Shuttle mission was a milestone for the ham
community, since it was composed of an all-ham crew.

> [Moderator's Note: I think it would absolutely great if there were an
> email address for net people to use to send greetings to the space
> people. Wouldn't *you* be thrilled to send email to outer space
> wishing the astronauts well?  How about it, Apple-Link? Can such be
> arranged?  PAT]

It's not uncommon for a ham (including US Hams) to connect to the MIR
Space Station operating under callsign (U2MIR) and leave messages in a
packet maildrop for the cosmonauts.  In fact, a recent plea from the
cosmonauts was for more substance in messages.  They want news and
information.

This sort of ground-to-space operation is legal for US hams with the
new no-code technician license.

Finally, I need to compliment the participants in this project, and
wish them well. This is a marvelous achievement.


Ed Greenberg, KM6CG

PS: Lloyd, Please forward this back to Michael Elliot, whose Email
address was not shown on Telecom.

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

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 18:15:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System


In article <[e-mail]> "Lloyd W. Taylor" <lloyd@
aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> writes:

> NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the
> Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and
> they are going to be *connecting*to*AppleLink*from*space*.

Our fearless leader mentions:

> [Moderator's Note: I think it would absolutely great if there were an
> email address for net people to use to send greetings to the space
> people. Wouldn't *you* be thrilled to send email to outer space
> wishing the astronauts well?  How about it, Apple-Link? Can such be
> arranged?  PAT]

Patrick!  Could you imagine the saturation of the networks if everyone
found an email address that went to space?  Although I would be
absolutely thrilled to bounce some mail to someone in space, I
invision it turning into a situation like the Craig "Send Me A
Postcard" kid.  :-)

This *is* fantastic technology.  Can they read netnews in space?  :-)
I'm going to modify pnews so it says:

"This program posts news to zillions of machines throughout the entire
 universe ... and beyond! ..."

Was there any politics involved in going with an Apple machine?


Douglas Mason                                    [e-mail]
Software Development and Support                 [e-mail]
Freestone, Inc. - Redwood City, CA  94063        +01 415.368.0191

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

From: "Mark A. Haun" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 15:43:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Lloyd W. Taylor) writes:

> NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the
> Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and
> they are going to be *connecting*to*AppleLink*from*space*.

> This is very exciting, because it is the *first time ever* that e-mail
> will have been sent or received from space (if it works).

Sorry, but it isn't *quite* the first time that email will be
exchanged with a manned space platform.  Hams have been exchanging
packet email with the Cosmonauts on the Mir space station for some
time now.

Of course, that doesn't make this opportunity any less exciting :-)


Mark A. Haun / 3445 Del Mesa Ct. / Sacramento, CA 95821 / Phone: [phone]
UUCP: {ames | apple | sun}!pacbell!sactoh0!mahaun | Amateur Radio KJ6PC
INTERNET: [e-mail] / pacbell!sactoh0![e-mail]
Amateur Pkt Radio: kj6pc@wa6nwe.#nocal.ca.usa -or- [44.2.0.56] on 144.93 MHz

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

From: Wayne Folta <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?
Date: 25 Jul 91 22:41:24 GMT
Reply-To: Wayne Folta <[e-mail]>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742


>    Is this nothing more than a telecom old wives tale, or is there
> (i) any official policy on redial frequency, and (ii) any way for the
> telco to determine the frequency with which subscriber redials?

In the White Knight (a Mac comms program) there is a note that it is
illegal in the US to have an automatic dialer redial a single number
more than 15 times.

This might be to avoid problems where someone sets up their modem to
dial into a BBS repeatedly until it gets a carrier, but the phone
number is wrong and some poor soul gets repeated calls every six
seconds throughout the night! It would also protect people from
purposeful auto-dialing harrassment and from errant FAX maxchines.


Wayne Folta          ([e-mail]  128.8.128.8)

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

From: Robin Kenny <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?
Date: 25 Jul 91 00:58:23 GMT
Organization: HP Australasian Response Centre (Melbourne)


[e-mail] wrote:

>    There's been some debate on a BBS I frequent as to the minimum
> interval one should leave between automated attempts to redial a busy
> number.

>    A suggestion has been made that the phone system will suffer if
> one attempts to dial a number more frequently than, say, once every
> ten seconds, and that the telco will do something unfortunate if it
> ever finds anyone doing this.  (Note that the number in question is
> rarely idle for more than 10-15 seconds at peak periods.)

>    Is this nothing more than a telecom old wives tale, or is there
> (i) any official policy on redial frequency, and (ii) any way for the
> telco to determine the frequency with which subscriber redials?

                 **** Not an Old Wives Tale ****

Here in Australia the rate and volume of automated contact attempts is
limited IN LAW to (top of head, references at home) six attempts in
total no more frequently than each minute.

Yes, repeat dialling can severely impact an exchange as the total
capacity of the telephone system is sized for a median traffic load,
not for the total number of subscribers. Modern ISDN equipment will
probably change the rules (because of their speed) however you could
just phone up the technical section of the relevant telephone company
for The Word.

It's also good manners.

Speaking as an ex-telephone company employee.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 12:15:41 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cantel - North America's Only Nationwide Cellular Network


> Service activation was not inexpensive; the first month's bill showed:

>   C$50.00 Cantel activation fee
>   C$49.50 Canada DOC license
>   C$14.14 Cantel Plan fee May 23 to Jun 08
>   C$24.95 Cantel Plan fee Jun 09 to Jul 08
>   -------

>       C$138.59 Subtotal
>       C$  9.70 7% Federal Goods and Services Tax
>       C$ 11.86 8.56% Quebec Sales Tax
>   -------

>       C$160.15 Total

You could have avoided the provincial sales tax by subscribing in a
province (Alberta) that has no sales tax.  The sales tax would in any
case not be chargeable if you had made the arrangements from outside
the province.  (Well - it's arguable, but certainly if you buy goods
or services which are shipped out of province you don't pay the PST.)

The GST is also not charged on exports.  I suppose you could argue
that at least part of the bill was for services to be exported.

> There is no need for follow-me-roaming; calls reach you and all
> features work anywhere in Canada or in many Ericsson systems in
> the U.S.A.

I understand they even have cross-border hand-off, so you can drive
across the bridge from Canada to the USA and keep talking all the
while.  Of course if you keep up the conversation while going through
customs and immigration, you may attract the wrong sort of attention  :-)

> As if Long Distance in Canada weren't already expensive enough, Cantel
> charges a 15%-25% premium over regular long distance rates.  Yecch.
> Not satisfied with making money off airtime, they make money off
> reselling LD.

It's not clear if they are reselling LD or charging you a premium for
their own LD service.  I have tried to find out what the rules are,
without success.  Since they have their own landlines (and microwave)
in place, I don't see why they wouldn't route as much LD as possible
over their own facilities.  In this sense I think Cantel may be the
back door to LD competition in Canada.

Of course you can always dial your LD calls as 0+, and pay the $.75
surcharge + Telecom Canada rates.


Tony H.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 10:31:48 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  25-Jul-1991 1320" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cantel - North America's Only Nationwide Cellular Network


> You could have avoided the provincial sales tax by subscribing in a
> province (Alberta) that has no sales tax.

However, then I would have had an Alberta number, and would have had
to pay incoming long distance on all calls to my number when in the
Montreal area -- and I'm in Montreal a lot more often than in Alberta.

> The sales tax would in any case not be chargeable if you had made
> the arrangements from outside the province.  (Well - it's arguable,
> but certainly if you buy goods or services which are shipped out of
> province you don't pay the PST.)

I don't have the Quebec forms, but the Ontario form specifically states
that sales tax is not refundable on telephone and telegraph services.

Do you know anyone who has a cellular phone in Canada?  Certainly some
of these people must have made calls totally outside their province,
and can report as to how tax is charged.  In the U.S., it depends on
the state.  Some states charge tax if the call is billed in the state;
Massachusetts charges tax only if the call is both billed in
Massachusetts and at least one end of the call is in Massachusetts.

> The GST is also not charged on exports.  I suppose you could argue that
> at least part of the bill was for services to be exported.

If someone can get a ruling on this, I'd be interested.  However, all
my previous dealings attempting to get a Cantel number were met with
"Sorry, we can't provide service to Americans except as roamers," so
I'm not going to push this too hard.

Especially since NYNEX just started pulling roaming agreements in U.S.
West territory because of fraud -- apparently most of U.S. West's
switches cannot block an invalid ESN after a single call, and several
thousand dollars worth of fraud came in from a bunch of U.S. West
cities.  As of 3 July 1991, there is no NYNEX Boston roaming in most
major U.S. West cities.  NYNEX New York is not blocked in as many
cities.  I had to use Cantel to roam -- BTW, Cantel usually has
agreements with both the A and B carriers in most cities in the U.S.


john

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone?
Date: 25 Jul 91 13:57:27 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, afp!gna!comsat![e-mail]
writes:

> few extra keys, namely next to 1-0, #,* there were ABCD keys which

Touch Tone really has four row and four column frequencies defined.
Your ABCD buttons use the regular four row frequencies with the 1633hz
column frequency.

Most TT chips 'know' about 1633, and lots of applications make use of
it.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 10:29:55 PDT
From: ethan miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone!


The solution to this problem with MCI's Friends and Family is as
follows: If the people on your list are already MCI customers, MCI
just writes their names/numbers down.  If you ask the people on your
list beforehand, you can find out who's currently on MCI, who's
willing to switch, and who doesn't want in.  Put only those in the
first two groups on your list -- they either won't get called, or will
get called once and switch.


ethan miller--cs grad student  [e-mail]
#include <std/disclaimer.h>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #569
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17526;
          26 Jul 91 9:57 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15398;
          26 Jul 91 8:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07359;
          26 Jul 91 7:12 CDT
Date:     Fri, 26 Jul 91 7:07:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #570
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 Jul 91 07:06:52 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 570

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards [Andrew D. Nielsen]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [J. Macdonald]
    Re: US Sprint Providing One-Way Service [Tad Cook]
    Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query [Tad Cook]
    Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works? [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Email From Space [Andrew Payne]
    Re: Getting Off a Party Line [Randal L. Schwartz]
    Re: US Sprint Providing One-Way Service [Bruce E. Howells]
    Re: International 800 Calling [Claus Tondering]
    Re: Sprint Rate Change [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Andrew D. Nielsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 02:56:17 GMT


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

> On the 7/22/91 "NBC National News" there was a blurb about Cash Cards
> being used in England.  The way this works is that a person buys a
> card at a local vendor (say Lottery Agent) for $5.00 and receives
> $5.20 worth of calls.  It's used like an ATM card and there is a
> readout that shows how much is left.

Telecom Australia has been (rather rapidly) converting most of the
call box phones across Australia to accept small plastic cards which
one can buy (at a range of values) from news agents, post offices,
delicatessens etc.  They're easy to use, and much better than using
coins.  A small hole is punched in the card after each use to show the
value remaining.

You can also program the card to automatically call a given number
about 15 seconds after inserting the card into the phone, though I
still haven't worked out who other than parents with small children
might use this feature.

The phones all have liquid crystal displays and (at last!) numeric
keypads for dialling.

These phones are not the same as the credit card and EFTPOS card
phones which can be found in obvious locations such as airports, and
obscure locations such as the Cataby roadhouse north of Perth in the
middle of nowhere.

Looks like they're taking deregulation seriously and improving their
service.


Andrew D. Nielsen                     |    Internet:  [e-mail]
Macintosh Programmer                  |
Department of Computer Science        |
The University of Western Australia   |                Tel: [phone]
NEDLANDS WA 6009   AUSTRALIA          |                FAX: [phone]

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

From: John Macdonald <eci386![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 13:24:09 GMT


> 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 ...)

What really is annoying is such behaviour from places that should know
better -- those in the telecom business.  For example, Fidelity Telecom
regularily advertizes in {Communications Week} specifying just a
US-only 800 number.  They don't mention what city they are located in,
so there's no hope of using directory assistance to find a *real*
number for them.  (If anyone has a real number for them, I might need
to call them again some time -- they missed out the last time I wanted
to talk to them though ...)


John Macdonald   jmm@eci386

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

Subject: Re: US Sprint Providing One-Way Service
From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa![e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jul 91 20:00:09 GMT


Eric T. Kiser <[e-mail]> writes:

> For about the last six months, a fair amount of calls placed from
> Dayton, OH to Huntington, WV result in the Huntington to Dayton link
> becoming severely attenuated (about 60 db down) a few minutes into
> the call, while the other direction is unaffected.

(some details deleted)

> I've not wasted any of my time contacting Sprint about this. Instead
> I thought I would pose the problem to the Digest to obtain a more
> intelligent response.  Any comments/theories?

You really should contact Sprint about this!  We could waste a lot of
time with wild speculation on what can happen in a trunk to cause
this, but only Sprint can fix it for you.


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]

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

Subject: Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query
From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa![e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jul 91 20:02:20 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> A friend of mine is looking for an auto-answer speaker phone for a
> bedridden relative.  He's seen one at Sears for $300, but that sounds
> a bit steep to him and to me.  Any recommendations would be
> appreciated, for products or for ways to adapt a non-auto-answer
> speakerphone to make it answer automatically.

I am having trouble imagining how this works.  In a normal telephone,
the line is answered when you take the phone off hook.  For the phone
to auto-answer, it would have to put an off hook condition on the line
as soon as it detects ringing.  So if the phone is connected to the
line, it answers the phone, whether or not there is anyone in the room
to talk to the caller.

Let us assume that there is someone there to talk to the caller.  How
does the speaker phone know when to go back on hook at the end of the
call?  Does it automatically go back on hook after a period of
silence?  Will room noise keep it perpetually off hook?


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]


[Moderator's Note: In the limited experience I have had with auto-
answer speaker phones, they do not simply go off hook when a call
comes in. In addition to the requirement there be an incoming call,
there must be a voice or some other loud noise directed at the speaker
 from within the room before they will answer; i.e. the phone rings,
you look at the speaker and say 'hello'.  If no person is in the room
to respond, then there is no answer to the caller.  PAT]

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier
Date: 25 Jul 91 19:33:59 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


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

> When I recently moved from one apartment to another about a mile away,
> GTE set up the service just fine (was I surprised!) except that I
> found out later my 1+ carrier was AT&T even though GTE service, GTE
> repair, and Sprint all said their records showed I was served by
> Sprint.

  Your telephone number's feature set (whether you have touch-tone,
call waiting, etc., as well as your 1+ carrier) are all stored in the
switching machine. The telephone company's records are stored in
seperate record-keeping systems. There is a link between the two,
which can either be a dedicated data link, a magtape, or somebody
typing in the changes, depending on the size of the installation and
the age of the equipment.

  Thus, it is possible for the feature set to be utterly different in
both places if a change was not sent. However, the usual cause of this
problem is the change is sent, but then for some reason the switch is
reloaded from an old backup, wiping out your changes. [By the way,
this is the usual reason for call forwarding "cancelling itself"].

  Once you manage to convince them that there really is a problem,
they will either just update your line in the switch, or they will
re-sync the switch by loading _all_ the records for a group of lines
(or possibly the whole exchange).


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

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works?
Date: 26 Jul 91 00:03:46 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

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

>> 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

[stuff deleted]

>> step backwards.  Does this mean a LEC does not have to take AT&T's new
>> card?

[stuff about shared database deleted]
[stuff about verification deleted]

My point is that a LEC does not have to accept any IXC card, and a IXC
does not have to accept a LEC card. But does a LEC have to accept a
LEC card for Intra LATA calls? Or will Intra-LATA calls be deregulated
so all IXC can carry them?

Will LEC's accept other IXC cards besides AT&T? They should be
required to.

>> 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.

> I doubt that any carrier will be able to afford to offer dual billing
> systems.  The cost would be prohibitive, and you would pay for it in
> the form of higher tariffs.

Why should this be so hard or cost more to support? MCI does it? A lot
of carriers that direct bill do it for casual callers 10xxx without an
account.  I would think that it would be cheaper to direct bill
instead of LEC bill.

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Payne)
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 11:42:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> "Lloyd W. Taylor"
<[e-mail]> writes:

> NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the
> Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and
> they are going to be *connecting*to*AppleLink*from*space*.

> This is very exciting, because it is the *first time ever* that e-mail
> will have been sent or received from space (if it works).

    Wrong.  Hams have been using packet radio to send "e-mail" to
and from space for years.  On the last shuttle mission, all five
astronauts were licensed hams and operated, among other things, packet
radio.  The Soviet space station MIR often has a BBS running where you
can send mail to/from the cosmonauts.  There are also several
store-and-forward amateur satellites.

    Granted, the ham's efforts often aren't as sophisticated as
the AppleLink-to-space described here.  However, if you look closely,
you will find that amatuers have achieved several other space
"firsts", including the first fast-scan video uplink to the shuttle
and (I think) the first Soviet/US space communication since Soyez
between the shuttle and MIR.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 15:39:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, TELECOM Moderator responds
to roeber@cithe1 writes:

> [Moderator's Muse: Have you fogotten the FCC prohibition against the
> use of modems or other privately owned (non-telco provided) instruments
> on party lines?   PAT]

Many many moons ago, a friend of mine lived at a house with a two-party
line, and spent hours on the phone with his acoustic-couple 300-baud
modem connected to his ADM-3A (both of which show how old this is).

One day, we were getting ready to place a call, so he picked up the
phone, and instead of a dial tone, heard voices.  Being the young'uns
that we were, we kept listening.

After a few moments of conversation, one voice says to the other,
"Hey, I heard a click ... do you have a party line?"

"Yeah, why?"

"Because, I just heard a click.  Maybe they're listening to us now."

To which the other replied, "Naaah, they can't be listening to what
we're saying, because all *we* hear when they're on the line is a
whole bunch of BEEEEEPs."

We hoped that we hung up the phone fast enough to avoid having them
hear us burst out laughing for quite a while.

"I'm not making this up." -- Dave Barry

Just another early modem user,


Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone] ==========
on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III
[e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce E. Howells)
Subject: Re: US Sprint Providing One-Way Service
Organization: Internet access via FSF
Date: 25 Jul 91 18:07:31


On 22 Jul 91 07:00:00 GMT, [e-mail] (Eric T. Kiser)
said:

> For about the last six months, a fair amount of calls placed from
> Dayton, OH to Huntington, WV result in the Huntington to Dayton link
> becoming severely attenuated (about 60 db down) a few minutes into the
> call, while the other direction is unaffected.

> There is never any warning, never any noise or other signal anomalies
> prior to the failure.  Of course the call remains in progress, and the
> other link is still active, but it is **very** weak.

Yes, this used to happen to me VERY often on calls between 908/381
Rahway NJ and 617/944 Reading MA.

Gave up after the fifth time calling them - "I'm sorry sir, but the
trouble ticket has been cleared", and a three minute credit, which
oddly never did quite appear.

Call them, see if maybe you can get something to happen; but like so
many of these annoying Sprint bugs, I've given up long ago.


Bruce Howells,  [e-mail]

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

From: Claus Tondering <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International 800 Calling
Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 05:41:49 GMT


[e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre) writes:

> On AT&T's part, couldn't low-volume international customers be advised
> to advertising the USA Direct number for international calls?  (Those
> operators can dial 800 numbers, can't they?)

I don't know if they can, but they won't!

Well, perhaps I should modify that statement: I tried once, and the
AT&T USA Direct operator wouldn't connect me. Perhaps if I had offered
to pay for the call on an AT&T credit card, he might have made an
exception?


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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 13:23 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sprint Rate Change


Linc Madison <[e-mail]> writes:

> "Cosmetic surgery" is exactly right.  I recently dissected my Sprint
> bill and found that they actually charge LESS for the first minute
> than for additional minutes on the same call.  The only reason I can
> conceive is that they want to make all those three-minute "typical"
> call comparisons look bright and shiny.

Some of AT&T's past ads addressed this very issue. "Our competitors
compare the cost of one and two minute calls, but really, who talks on
the phone for one or two minutes."

> Then again, AT&T called me to invite me to switch back, and I said,
> "Sure -- put it in writing."

When was the last time you saw an AT&T commercial that talked about
putting it in writing? I suspect that tactic has cause the company
significant grief. But it have not seen one of those "tell them to put
it in writing" spots for a long time.

To think about it, what is there additional to put in writing? The FCC
filings would say it all. It already is in writing. Even Thrifty Tel's
bogus rate structure is "in writing" at the CPUC.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #570
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22108;
          26 Jul 91 11:20 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03480;
          26 Jul 91 9:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15398;
          26 Jul 91 8:19 CDT
Date:     Fri, 26 Jul 91 7:31:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #571
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 Jul 91 07:31:22 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 571

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Dave Platt]
    Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Mike Riddle]
    Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Tad Cook]
    Re: What's the Best E-mail? [Tad Cook]
    Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch) [S. Gaarder]
    Re: Getting Off a Party Line [Brett G. Person]
    Re: Email From Space [David Lesher]
    Re: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS? [Dave Levenson]
    Correction: Bellcore Announces Network Management Handbook [Jody Kravitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 10:56:34 PDT
From: Dave Platt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems
Organization: New Technologies Group, Inc.  Palo Alto CA


> I mention this mainly because of an experience while I was in school
> at Texas A&M.  A thunderstorm was approaching, but didn't seem to
> close at the time --- so nothing was really unplugged yet.  Then, w/o
> any warning, we took a very near miss.  The TV (which was off) lit up
> and glowed for a second.  All of the lights that were turned on (and
> thus, connected to the main power feed) went off.  All of the lights
> that were turned off lit up very brightly for a second.  Everything
> then reversed itself to normal.  Oh, my hair was more or less standing
> on end ... :-)

I'd guess that the major effect here was not static electricity (which
is a high-voltage DC potential, and is unlikely to penetrate
conductors).  It was, instead, induced voltage.

The lighting strike nearby set up a strong, rapidly-varying magnetic
field ... although the initial lightning potential is DC, the bolt
itself is an AC process ... a damped radio-frequency oscillator, in
effect.  The rapidly-varying magnetic field of the bolt induced a
voltage potential into almost every nearby conductor.  These induced
voltages can be quite fierce ... hundreds or thousands of volts are
not uncommon.  People have received severe shocks by being in contact
with a grounded object and a pipe or piece of wire, even if the pipe
or wire was not struck by the lightning itself.

The fact that your hair stood on end might have been an electrical
phenomenon, or it may have been purely physiological.  If I were that
close to a lightning-strike, _my_ hair would certainly stand on end!

> Over the next week, every single light that had been turned off
> (almost every light in the house) blew.  The lights that had been
> turned on (and apparently didn't take the static charge's full effect)
> were safe.  The final amplifier stage of my stereo amplifier had to be
> replaced (the power transistors tested as a solid short in all
> directions on a Fluke 77), and the power xformer shorted out (not
> completely --- just enough to cause problems) and had to be replaced
> as well.  The computer wasn't damaged (as far as we know), but the
> surge suppressor was still plugged in (it wasn't hurt either).

I'd guess that there was enough voltage induced in your speaker wires
to cause the output transistors to arc over inside their cases.  Fzzt.
Similarly, the light bulbs which were turned off, and the power
transformer, were (in effect) connected to long ungrounded antennas
 -- the house wires -- and took the brunt of the induced voltage
across themselves.

> Now, my question is this -- with static charges dancing around in the
> case of a near miss, if you unplug your computer and modem completely,
> you've just lost your ground ... which might have saved it from that
> static discharge (and it might not have).  Will a surge suppressor
> still help in this case, assuming that it isn't connected to a ground
> (i.e., the wall outlet)?

In the case of a voltage induced by the EM field of a nearby lightning
strike, the real danger is having your equipment connected to a length
of wire ... the wire acts as an antenna.  Grounding isn't so much of
an issue ... and, in fact, the wire which runs to a grounding point
can quite easily act as an antenna, and do you more harm than good!

Your best bet is probably to disconnect the computer, modem, stereo,
or what-have-you from its power cord or from the phone line ...
disconnect the cord at the EQUIPMENT, _not_ just at the wall.  This
will leave your computer as a box of electronics inside an
RF/EMI-shielded cabinet (assuming that it's FCC Class B certified),
and the induced voltage from a near-strike is not likely to get
inside.

Lightning must strike fairly close to you to generate a harmful
voltage by induction ... the field strength of the bolt drops off
rapidly with distance.  I'd guess that any strike more than a few
hundred feet from you is unlikely to induce enough voltage to notice.
On the other hand, a strike on a power line in your area (or a strike
close enough to a power line to induce a voltage) can send a spike for
_miles_ over the line, and can damage sensitive equipment that's
plugged in at the time (even if it's not turned on).

All in all, I believe that your equipment's chances for survival are
greatly improved by unplugging it when thunderstorm activity is
expected.


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

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

From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?
Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 12:34:22 GMT


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


>    There's been some debate on a BBS I frequent as to the minimum
> interval one should leave between automated attempts to redial a busy
> number.

>    Is this nothing more than a telecom old wives tale, or is there
> (i) any official policy on redial frequency, and (ii) any way for the
> telco to determine the frequency with which subscriber redials?

There are, I think, two considerations here.  (1) law, and (2)
technology.  In an eariler response, Floyd Davidson, who has a lot
more telco experience that I, doesn't think there's a technical
problem.  In yet another reponse, Bob Izenberg talks about a radio
station that was asked to get a second number for it's request line.

I think both were correct.  Floyd was addressing the initiation of
calls, and Bob the reception.  I've seen news articles before about
how the reception of multiple calls to the same number, as Bob
describes, can cause difficulties, and my understanding is that TPC
has special equipment and perhaps even exchanges set up to handle
this -- if they know about it.  Floyd describes why it doesn't matter as
much for an originator.

As far as the legal side, numerous jurisdictions have enacted laws
governing the automated repeat dialing of numbers.  The ones I'm aware
of, particularly the FCC rules, exempt modems hooked to computers
because there is "manual intervention" available.  I think Toby Nixon
posted about this a while back, and he an (if he has the time and
inclination) give it a better treatment.

As in all things, common sense should probably be your guide.


            <<<< 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

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

Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return
From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa![e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jul 91 20:06:15 GMT


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> describes a GTD5 CO in
Mill Creek, WA:

> The most annoying things were that the flash interval was
> non-standard, so hitting the FLASH button on my AT&T cordless phone
> would not activate call waiting.  And, hitting OFF then TALK would
> always result in terminating the first call.  Also, the ringing sound
> that the caller hears wasn't in synch with the ringing voltage, which
> made using TollSaver on the answering machine more difficult.  The
> FLASH button has worked just fine on every 1AESS I have been on, and
> now on a "D5RS", whatever that is.  (This new beast, which I think is
> a "rural" digital switch from NT, has its own set of quirks, which I
> shall describe in another message).

This switch, which is located in Everett, WA, responds to standard
hookswitch flashes of 500 ms.  Perhaps the parameters are a bit
tighter than what he was used to.  It would be interesting to measure
the flash interval on the cordless phone.

Ringback tone is not synched with ringing voltage in modern digital
offices.  The 5ESS that serves my home is the same way.  The ringback
tone is completely separate from the ringing voltage.  When the called
number is determined to be non-busy, the caller is connected to
ringback tone, and that tone source may be at the silent interval.
Ringing voltage is put on the line immediately, which is why on
digital offices like the GTD5 and 5ESS you can startle callers about
half the time by answering the phone during the first ring.  They will
swear that the phone never rang.  Of course the other half of the time
the two will happen to be in synch.


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]

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

Subject: Re: What's the Best E-mail?
From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa![e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jul 91 20:04:17 GMT


Donald R Newcomb <[e-mail]> writes comparing email
features:

>              Features-Read Down                    Costs ($US)
>          |---------------------------------------|------------------
>          |I|T|M|C|G|T|P|T|P|D|X|F|P|T|U|B|F|8|R|A| S  | A  | H |
>          |n|e|C|o|E|e|e|e|a|i|.|A|a|e|s|i|i|0|e|u| e  | n  | o |
>          |t|l|I|m|n|l|r|l|p|a|4|X|c|l|e|n|l|0|c|t| t  | n  | u |
>          |e|e| |p|i|e|s|e|e|l|0| |k|n|n|a|e|#|e|o| u  | u  | r |
>          |r|m|M|s|e|x|o|g|r|c|0| |e|e|e|r| | |i| | p  | a  |   |
>          |n|a|a|e| | |n|a| |o| | |t|t|t|y|S| |p|F|    | l  |   |
>          |e|i|i|r| | |a|m|M|m| | | | | | |t| |t|o|    |    |   |
>          |t|l|l|v| | |l| |a| | | |N| | |X|o| | |r|    |    |   |
>          | | | |e| | | | |i| | | |e| | |f|r| | |w|    |    |   |
>          | | | | | | |#| |l| | | |t| | |e|e| | |d|    |    |   |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>MCI Mail  |$ $ $ $ $ $ Y N $ $ Y $ S N     $ $ ? N       35

I think it is more like:

 MCI Mail  |$ $ $ $ $ $ Y N $ $ Y $ S N     Y Y $ N       35
 MCI Mail+ |Y Y Y Y Y $ Y N $ Y Y Y S N     Y Y $ N      120

What I am showing here are features for the standard MCI Mail service,
and the high usage option.  With standard MCI Mail, you pay $35 per
year, and then you pay for every message sent.  With the high usage
option, you pay no annual fee, but $10 per month gives you up to 40
free messages (including domestic fax, internet, and any other mail
except paper mail or Telex).

There is no charge for 800 access.  That is the standard method of
access.  There are separate 800 numbers for each baud rate, and even a
special one for 2400 bps MNP5 access.  Return receipts can be
generated for a nominal charge.

You can store files by creating a message and not sending it.  There
is no charge for this, and it stays in your pending box for five days.
I'm not sure what the size limit is though.  Somehow it wouldn't
surprise me if it were less than 360K!


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: Fri, 26 Jul 91 02:11:17 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch!)


[e-mail] (Phil Wherry) writes:

> It would probably interest readers of the TELECOM Digest to know that
> C&P Telephone (DC-MD-VA) has now enabled the use of the Call Return
> (*69) and Call Repeat (*66) services on all subscriber lines. If you
> subscribe to these custom calling features, nothing has changed. If
> not, you can still use the features -- but you will be billed $0.75
> each time you invoke a feature.

I'd like to see them do that with all of the special features where
it's practical -- call forwarding, three way calling, etc.  I have
nowhere near enough use for such features to fork over bucks every
month, but it sure would be handy once in a while.


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

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

From: Brett G Person  <plains![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line
Date: 26 Jul 91 06:37:15 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND


It seems to me that my grandmother was a single member of a party
line.  She lived in a small town in South Dakota.  The two neighbors
that shared her partyline with her died, and the phone company never
changed the line over to a private line.

Brett G. Person  North Dakota State University
uunet!plains!person   [e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 7:27:06 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


> [Moderator's Note: I think it would absolutely great if there were an
> email address for net people to use to send greetings to the space
> people.

Nah,

I can see them now:

    32,768 messages in your mailbox:

    READ
        Hi - my name is Dave Rhodes, and my chain letter
        will make you rich...
    DELETE
        There's this kid named Craig that wants......
    DELETE
        My name is JJ, and I want you to send me a ruple
        so I can stay in school....
    DELETE
        PAC-BELL offers OPX service to MIR, but charges
        extra for touchtone service.......

"Hey comrades, this one is interesting.."

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS?
Date: 26 Jul 91 11:38:28 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Can someone tell me about any standards that might exist for digitized
> voice on the PC?

> Hardware standards: Unlike the Mac, the PC seems to be a pretty sorry
> platform on which to record and playback the human voice.  What
> products are available to record and playback voice?  Specifically,
> I'm looking for those products that do an acceptable job of playing
> and recording human voices, at the lowest possible cost.

Check out the Sound Blaster, available at PC vendors and mail-order.
Unlike the MAC, the PC is supported by a huge number of after-market
suppliers.  These products, while not following a single standard for
voice file storage, offer a wide variety of capabilities.

For your 'lowest possible cost' question, it's probably the Sound
Blaster.  It supports a speaker and a microphone, and software for
emulating a tape recorder, a speech synthesizer, and lots of sound
effects.

For a higher price, you can buy voice I/O equipment with telephone
interface capabilities -- checkout the Watson system from Natural
Microsystems, a family of telephone-line products from Dialogic
Corporation, or, if you're running UNIX on the PC, AT&T Voice
Power (tm).


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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 12:41:54 PDT
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Correction: Bellcore Announces Network Management Handbook


It appears that the Unix spell program did not notice my typo in
Bellcore's address.  The street name is not "Peasant Avenue".  The
correct address is:

    Bellcore
    Room 4D-114
    290 W. Mount Pleasant Ave.
    Livingston, NJ  07039

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #571
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22577;
          26 Jul 91 11:28 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03480;
          26 Jul 91 9:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac15398;
          26 Jul 91 8:20 CDT
Date:     Fri, 26 Jul 91 7:57:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #572
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 Jul 91 07:57:42 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 572

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    800 ANI for NON-answered Calls? [Will Martin]
    Sprint Puts it in Writing [Paulo Santos]
    New York Telephone and Subsidiary Companies [AP, via Bill Berbenich]
    Metro Highbill and NY DMX [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Blocking Outgoing Phone Calls [David Barkelew]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 15:24:24 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 ANI for NON-answered Calls?


There's been a thread of discussion on the USENET newsgroup
"misc.consumers" under the Subject: line of "Fascinating phone scam"
regarding a strange "you have won" situation.  To summarize:

Rob Steele received a postcard telling him that he had won a vacation
and giving him an *800* number to call for info. He called it, several
times and at various times of the day, and it rang and was never
answered. He then, some time later, received another postcard telling
him he had won a vacation, but this time giving him a *900* number to
call, at a $20 charge. He didn't call it, of course.

He theorized that his phone number was captured by ANI equipment when
he called the 800 number, even though that number was never answered.
Thus the scamming operators would never have to pay for the 800 calls
to them, but they would collect data on the phone numbers used by
people who would respond to their initial mailing. This selected group
would then get the 900-call mailing, the theory being that these
people had already responded and thus would be more likely to respond
to a 900-call solicitation. Why else would the operators waste the
expense of the initial mailing if they wouldn't respond when the
number was called?  (But this does seem an expensive way to reduce the
relatively low cost of bulk-mailing postcards with the 900 number on
them, doesn't it?)

There was doubt expressed that the non-answered 800 calls would
actually provide the operators with ANI data. The most technically-
knowledgeable response (so far) on the machine where I see USENET was
this (an edited extract):

> From: [e-mail] (Bryan Richardson)
> Newsgroups: misc.consumers
> Subject: Re: Fascinating phone scam
> Date: 24 Jul 91 20:29:12 GMT
> Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University

> There is a mechanism where the ANI (Automatic Number Identification), or
> phone number, is delivered when the call is initially established (and
> before answer supervision).

> This service is provided by the long-distance carrier and requires
> sophisticated, expensive equipment at the receiver's end to support it.
> There is also a charge on a per-call basis for receipt of this information
> over and above the regular cost of the call.  I don't know if this charge
> applies if the call goes unanswered.

> However, I doubt that any fly-by-night scam has invested in such
> equipment.  Then again, I may be wrong.  More technical information
> about these things can be found in comp.dcom.telecom.

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

I have not seen any elaboration on this topic in Telecom. I think it
deserves some discussion here. What do the technical experts on this
group say about this situation? Is it likely that the non-answered 800
calls were used by the scam operators as a free source of data on
responders' phone numbers? Or would those operators have had to pay
something to get that ANI data on non-answered calls? [I'm guessing
that ANI *is* provided prior to an 800 call being answered because
some of the ANI applications I've seen described say the data is used
before the call is answered, such as to do a database lookup and
provide the answering operator or salesdroid a screen of info on the
caller.]

Is the ANI equipment so expensive and elaborate that this application
seems doubtful? Or is it simple enough that this scheme is likely?

All in all, it seems like a good reason to make as many calls as
possible from a work phone sitting behind a PBX that confuses or
mangles ANI data!


Regards,

Will

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

From: Paulo Santos <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Puts it in Writing
Date: 25 Jul 91 20:29:00 GMT
Reply-To: Paulo Santos <[e-mail]>


They did it!  Sprint sent me in the mail a copy of their new (as of
June 3rd, 1991) Sprint Plus rates.

For all of you who believed that *no* LDC would ever tell customers
their rates *in writing*, here are the current Sprint Plus state-to-
state rates.  (Pat, you may want to put these rates in the archives.)

STATE-TO-STATE SPRINT PLUS RATES

   BAND    MILEAGE              DAY            EVENING           NIGHT
   BASE     RANGE           1st   Add'l      1st   Add'l      1st   Add'l
     1    up to 10         0.1800 0.1700    0.1200 0.1100    0.1051 0.1051
     2       11-22         0.1800 0.1800    0.1300 0.1300    0.1139 0.1139
     3       23-55         0.1900 0.1900    0.1300 0.1300    0.1208 0.1208
     4       56-70         0.2100 0.2100    0.1450 0.1450    0.1208 0.1208
     5       71-124        0.2100 0.2100    0.1450 0.1450    0.1208 0.1208
     6      125-292        0.2100 0.2100    0.1450 0.1450    0.1223 0.1223
     7      293-430        0.2300 0.2300    0.1457 0.1457    0.1256 0.1256
     8      431-925        0.2300 0.2300    0.1495 0.1495    0.1306 0.1306
     9      926-1910       0.2480 0.2480    0.1496 0.1496    0.1331 0.1331
    10     1911-3000       0.2490 0.2490    0.1496 0.1496    0.1357 0.1357
    11     3001-4250       0.3000 0.2900    0.2077 0.2010    0.1650 0.1650
    12     4251 or more    0.3300 0.3200    0.2211 0.2144    0.1750 0.1750

DAY rates:           Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm
EVENING rates:       Sunday through Friday from 5:00pm to 11:00pm
NIGHT/WEEKEND rates: 11:00pm through 8:00am every night and all weekend
                     until 5:00pm Sunday

SPRINT PLUS VOLUME DISCOUNTS

     BASE        CATEGORIES       DAY       EVE/NIGHT
   DISCOUNT                                 WEEKEND

    First        $20-$99.99       10%         20%
    Second       $100-$199.99     10%         25%
    Third        $200+            10%         30%

No minimum usage. All calls contribute to discount except DA.

State-to-state Direct Dial calls are discounted according to the table above.
State-to-state FONCARD(sm) calls are discounted 5%.
International Direct Dial calls are discounted 5%.
No Operator Services or Directory Assistance calls are discounted.
International FONCARD calls are not discounted.
In-state calls are not discounted.

NOTE: The mileage corresponding to the bands was NOT on the sheet that
I received.  A call to Sprint gave that information.


Standard disclaimers: All typos are mine, but I assume no liability.
I am not associated with Sprint other than as a satisfied customer.
Georgia Tech is in no way responsible for the contents of this message.
FONCARD, Sprint & Sprint Plus are trademarks of Sprint Communications.

   Paulo Santos                         Internet: [e-mail]
   Georgia Tech, College of Computing   uucp: ...!gatech!kong!pas
   Atlanta GA 30332-0280, U.S.A.        Voice: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: New York Telephone and Subsidiary Companies
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 16:38:54 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I saw the following on the Associated Press financial wire.  The story
is presented verbatim, so please send your flames and suggestions to
the Associated Press.

APf  07/22 2014  New York Telephone

By ROBERT BELLAFIORE
 Associated Press Writer

   ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- New York Telephone Co. on Monday proposed a
restructuring plan designed to avoid the types of situations that led
to wild sex parties involving NYNEX employees and potential vendors.

   Under the proposal, New York Telephone would be barred from doing
business with virtually every other subsidiary of NYNEX, its parent
company. There would be "common sense" exceptions for such items as
telephone service.

   New York Telephone spokesman Peter Muller said that provision would
prevent the utility from dealing with such companies as Materiel
Enterprises Co., a purchasing subsidiary.

   It was Materiel Enterprises, also known as MECO, that threw parties
in Florida for potential vendors. New York Telephone officials said
there had been no correlation between business awarded and attendance
at the parties, dubbed the "Florida follies" by New York state's chief
utility regulator, Peter Bradford.

   MECO has since been merged with another unit, NYNEX Services Co.,
to form a new subsidiary called Telesector Resources Group Inc. That
company now does purchasing for New York Telephone.

   In light of the Florida parties, the utility-regulating state
Public Service Commission last fall ordered a study into how NYNEX and
its subsidiaries could be restructured. The PSC wanted New York
Telephone to become more independent from NYNEX.

   The New York Telephone plan would expand the 11-member board of
directors by adding two non-company people. That would create a
13-member board with 10 members from outside the utility.

   The plan also would create a statewide consumer council to advise
the board, and it would link the salaries of top company officers to
New York Telephone's performance. Those salaries are now based on the
performance of NYNEX as well as New York Telephone.

   The PSC had sought the changes in an attempt to ensure greater
protection for customers. PSC officials said the proposed changes
would make it easier for the panel to oversee the telephone company's
operations.

   Monday's proposal, if endorsed by the PSC, would likely avoid a
full-scale investigation by the PSC into New York Telephone's
corporate operations. The plan was formulated by New York Telephone
and staff from the PSC.

   The PSC's staff endorsed the utility's plan, which is still subject
to approval by the full seven-member panel.

   PSC General Counsel William last October wrote a stinging report on
the "pervert conventions." At the time, Cowan suggested that the PSC
examine the possibility of breaking up NYNEX to ensure New York
Telephone's independence.

   NYNEX was one of the "Baby Bell" companies formed after the breakup
of AT&T in 1984. New York Telephone and New England Telephone are
subsidiaries of NYNEX.

   The annual booze and sex blasts were arranged by Lawrence Friedman
of Long Island, who was fired as a MECO executive in 1988 by NYNEX.


Say, I wonder if they are hiring? :-)


Bill


[Moderator's Note: So they would quit having sex parties in-house as
it were, and begin sharing the fun with unaffiliated vendors, is that
the idea?   PAT]

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

Date: 26-JUL-1991 03:45:56.78
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Metro Highbill and NY DMX


Despite my somewhat harsh criticism of Metro Mobile/New England in
previous posts, I have always maintained that they have a
*technically* superior system.

Well, due to the recent switch change in New York (a SEPARATE system,
by the way), the following changes have taken place:

- *71/No-Answer-Transfer will not work in the NY system. If you have it
   set and leave the CT system to go to the NY system, you will NOT
   get calls in NY before it "transfers" to wherever you have it set.

- You can not activate/deactivate any call forwarding features while
  in the New York system.

- Three-way calling won't work. (I don't have this, but I am told this
  by Metro Mobile. I am not sure about call-waiting.)

- In order to get calls in NY, callers can NOT use the roam port.
  So, if you drive from CT to NY, and forget to un-forward your
  calls (either *71 or *72), you can not get calls in NY or
  New Jersey, period! No roam port, no nothing!

- If you want to get calls in NY, callers will hear it ring 3 or 4 times
  in CT first, then a few clicks, and then it will page you in NY,
  assuming all the channels from CT to NY aren't used. Also, if
  you are using your phone in NY (ie, the "IN USE" light is on),
  anyone who calls you will just get dead air. No busy signal,
  no message to try again, just dead air! (Eventually, after 2.5
  minutes, your caller will get a re-order.) This system is quite
  irregular - about 30% of the call attempts fail, even though I
  am calling valid Metro Mobile customers who I KNOW are in the
  NY system.

Previously, the coverage between the CT/RI/MA Metro Mobile system was
seamless - you could use all your features and the phone would operate
indentically in both systems. Presently, the only thing you get is
paging in NY, and the system is pathetic at that.

So THIS is progress?! :(

I just read that interesting post about Cantel (or is that Contel?)
in Canada, which made me so sick because that IS how a system should
be run, compared to this garbage down here!

And even if you always use your phone in CT, and never go to NY, this
is still a problem since the NY system bleeds across Long Island Sound
into CT, so that many areas, such as Old Saybrook, Norwalk, etc., will
be virtually cut-off from incoming service should a customer be on the
phone or have No-Answer-Transfer active. And Metro One customers in
Westchester and the North Shore of Long Islsnd will also experience
coverage "gaps" which were no-existant prior to the new switch in NY.

And what is Metro Mobile or Metro One/NY doing about this? (Yes, this
will affect Metro One customers who roam into CT and Western Mass
too!) Rather than trying to correct the problem and make the system
fully functional again, they say "Oh, well, call-forwaridng should
NEVER have worked outside our service area anyhow ... it was just an
accident that it did ... it was never a feature..." BALONEY! They
pushed this feature ALL the time when promoting themselves over
SNET/CT or NYNEX/NY, for over two YEARS!

At a time when most systems are heading towards greater integration
with their nearby sister systems, such as in California (both A and B
systems, by the way), this move by Metro Mobile/Metro One strikes me
as uniquely backwards! The DMX they used to have was a terribly good
selling point on their system. Now, they have very little to sell over
SNET and NYNEX. Don't they realize this?!

I don't think there is much anyone can do about this, but if you are a
Metro One or Metro Mobile customer who feels you may be affected by
this, PLEASE call or write either or both of them and let them know
how you feel. Or, send me a note, and I'll compile all the notes that
I get and send them along.

Of course, should NYNEX suddenly get connected with SNET, all bets
are off! I'll toss out my Metro Mobile handbook, make nine phone
calls, and in a few seconds, Metro Mobile will lose myself and nine
other customers ... I can't wait till the day I can call them up and
drop them! Just can't wait ...


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

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

From: David Barkelew <[e-mail]>
Subject: Blocking Outgoing Phone Calls
Date: 24 Jul 91 18:26:27 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas


A friend of mine is looking for a gadget that can be placed on his
phone (or maybe somewhere on the line) that can filter out certain
outgoing calls. In particular, to stop long distance calls from
originating from his phone number (including blocking access to 0 for
operator assisted) without some form of authentication or key.  He
says that he saw a reference to such a device in a recent (past
several months?) {Wall Street Journal} artical.

If you know of any such gadget, please mail me directly as I don't
read this group regularly.

Thanks in advance,


David Barkelew            Internet: [e-mail]
University of Texas       IP:       barkelew@[128.83.148.31]
Computation Center        THEnet:   UTXVMS::BARKELEW
[phone]             BITNET:   barkelew@utxvms

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #572
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab21179;
          27 Jul 91 21:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07420;
          27 Jul 91 19:58 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10048;
          27 Jul 91 18:49 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Jul 91 18:00:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #573
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Jul 91 18:00:25 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 573

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [TELECOM Moderator]
    Judge Greene Relents on Information Services [Robert Jacobson]
    Phone Cards [Robert M. Hamer]
    900 MHz Cordless Phones? [James J Dempsey]
    Question on Telephone Services / Switches [Mobeen Khan]
    Toll Saver Feature [Robert M. Hamer]
    Does 510 Work Yet? [Bruce Perens]
    Fancy Name [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Dave Niebuhr]
    Re: ATC Billing [Dave Niebuhr]
    Phone Service in the USSR [The Economist, via Charles Hoequist]
    Getting a Five Dollar Credit From Sprint Seems to be Easy [Ron Newman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 23:24:11 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext


The big (and good!) telecom news this past week was that the Baby
Bells are now free to begin offering audiotext services; i.e. 900 and
976 style programs. A spokesperson for Illinois Bell said the company
will begin offerings of this sort as soon as technical changes have
been made which will permit them to do so and when some last minute
marketing studies have been completed which they hope will indicate
the best direction to take in this new endeavor.

Although Judge Greene had originally ruled against the BOC's, he was
directed by the Appeals Court to reverse himself and permit the
telephone companies to enter this new area.

Needless to say, His Honor was furious at being reversed on appeal.
Until this point, I guess it never really occurred to him that his
word on telephone related matters would not be final. He must have
assumed after all this time that his superiors would continue to let
him run amok and keep bashing the telcos to his heart's content.

Well, finally his superiors have seen fit to slow him down. The word I
got today from a contact in Washington who has been following this for
some time now is that having seen they *can* win on appeal, AT&T and
the Baby Bells will begin routinely appealing other of Greene's orders
they find appalling. Here's hoping that between their efforts in Appeals
Court and the federal legislature they succeed in repairing much of
what at one time was the world's greatest phone network.

We'll never see the Bell System again ... but maybe some of the damage
of the past few years can be undone if the good news this week is any
indicator of things to come.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Judge Greene Relents on Information Services
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 16:42:31 GMT


NPR reported this morning that Judge Harold E. Greene, under the
direction of the D.C. Circuit U.S. Appeals Court, has removed the ban
on the provision of information services by the Baby Bells.  However,
the article was unclear as to when the ban is lifted and the appeals
process sure to be utilized by the American Newspaper Publishers
Association, Consumer Federation of America, and others who oppose
lifting the ban.

The judge himself apparently feels his arm is being twisted; he
reportedly signed the order reluctantly.

Query: who are the judges on the Appeals Court panel?  When were they
appointed, by whom, and from whence did these anonymae spring?

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 09:34 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Cards


A thread alive several months ago was, "Why don't the phone companies
supply a pay phone which will take pre-paid cards with a magnetic
stripe which encodes the amount pre-paid and deduct the cost of the
call?"  Such a system is available in Britain, among other places.
(For that matter, the same sort of technology is used commonly for
subway systems.  You buy a "farecard" of some amount, and your trips
are deducted from the card until the card is used up.)

WCBS-New York Channel 2 Monday night announced that New York Telephone
was installing 50 pay phones near the Staten Island ferry terminal
which would work on such a basis.  (Don't know who or where the cards
will be sold by.)  If the experiment is a "success" it will be
expanded.  They also said that other phone companies were "watching
with interest."

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

From: James J Dempsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900 MHz Cordless Phones?
Date: 24 Jul 91 15:54:00 GMT
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA


I remember reading about some new cordless phone in Popular Science a
few months ago which claimed to have better audio quality, better
security and better range as a result of using a newly-FCC approved
frequency of around 900MHz instead of the 49MHz cordless phones
currently use.  However, I haven't seen anything like this in the
stores.

Does anyone know what the story is on this new frequency and when
(if?) we will see phones that use it on store shelves?


Thanks,


Jim Dempsey    [e-mail]

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

From: Mobeen KHAN <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question on Telephone Services / Switches
Date: 24 Jul 91 17:08:50 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


I am a novice at switches and telecom services.  I want to know the
following things:

How do call identifiers work? I am talking about the machines that let
you know the telephone number of the calling party.  Does it have to
be incorporated into the switch software?  Do you need to subscribe to
something in order to use it?  Does it work only with the new switches
or can it be introduced into old switches?

If anyone out there knows about these things, could you reply me at
[e-mail] or at [e-mail].

I would really appreciate it.

Thanks lots.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 16:22 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toll Saver Feature


I remember that the Moderator said on several occasions in the past
that in his opinion toll saver features of answering machines were bad
(I don't remember if his opinion was "illegal," "unethical,", or what)
since they allowed the caller (the person calling the machine from a
remote site) to obtain information (that no one had left a message)
without paying to receive such information.

Yesterday while shopping for a new answering machine, I noticed
several AT&T machines, all of which had the toll saver feature.  Since
AT&T makes the answering machines, and AT&T sells long distance
service, would the Moderator have any objection to using such a
feature while using AT&T as the long distance carrier?


[Moderator's Note: I think AT&T finally took the attitude 'if you
can't beat them, join them.' The feature is very common and all the
other answering machines had it, etc. I still personally feel that
using a system of coded rings to obtain information without having to
have both ends off-hook (thus having to pay for the call) is fraud. I
think eventually in the next few years it (and Larry King's gimmick of
letting it ring until he is ready to talk) will cause the telcos to
tariff a 'call attempt' surcharge pf a penny or two for each minute or
fraction thereof of unanswered ringing which will be waived on calls
answered within, say, one minute.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: Does 510 Work Yet?
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 21:03:14 GMT


We are in the part of the 415 area code that will change to 510 in
September. Is this prefix working yet from other areas?

If you'd like to try, dial 510-215-3596. If you get through, select 3
in the first menu, and 3 in the second menu, and you will be rewarded
by a rendition of Dr. Strangelove singing the Beatles' classic "She
Loves You". Please email back to me the area code and prefix you are
dialing from, your long-distance carrier (if you know it) and whether
it gets through or not. I'll summarize if the results are interesting.


Thanks,

Bruce Perens

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Fancy Name
Date: 24 Jul 91 13:27:41 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


When I was in Islamabad (Their Nation's Capital), Pakistan, I was
happy to see they had cellular phones.

    The cellular system is called "Paktel". It is a Cable and
Wirelss company.

    Do they know that by calling themselves "Paktel", they are
making themselves a target of John Higdon?

    If the Moderator wishes, I will submit a report on Pakistan's
phone system. It will not be a happy portrait.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Yes indeed, please do submit an article.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 9:14:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Niebuhr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z


(Gordon L. Burditt   sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon writes):

> The first two entries in the Fort Worth residential listings are:
> A, M.
> and
> AAARGH, A. A. 309 College St.

> Does anyone think that Aaargh is a real last name?

Not really.  What I suspect is that the A. A. is the real name and the
person wanted an unusual listing.  Although, with the multitude of
last names in the world it could easily be a real name.


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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 9:30:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATC Billing


([e-mail] [e-mail] bnw![e-mail].
fau.edu  writes:)

> ATC has been placing some full-page ads in some of the daily
> newspapers around Florida. They refer to themselves as the fourth
> largest publicly held carrier (whatever that means in the whole scheme
> of things) and now make reference to a new billing system that is
> supposed to measure the time when the conversation starts and ends
> (more like call supervision).

Having had a very recent experience with ATC while in the hospital I
wonder what their bill will be for a 22 mile 'as-the-crow-flies' call.

What happened was that I was about two hours out of the anethesia (the
doc said I'd feel like I had six or seven maritinis, or was that 8)
and I placed a call to my boss to tell him when I'd be returning to
work (dumb but that's how I felt).

I didn't realize (and I should have known better) that places like
hospitals, hotels, motels, etc. often have some other carrier than the
LEC as their default.  Now I'm waiting for the bill since it will show
up to see if it shows up since it was an extended-area call and no
internal operator was involved.

After fully waking up and the brain functioning again, I dialed the
in-house operator and specifically asked for an outside operator who
happened to be my basic carrier (NYTel in this case).

A question arises: Should I have a charge for the first call which I'm
willing to eat appear on any after-the-fact charge from the hospital?

By the way, I'm in the process of sending a letter to the hospital
administrator giving my opinion of my stay and the section on
telecommunications is somewhat strong but doggone it: a person in the
hospital is confused and stressed enough so that they don't need a big
bill for what would be a cheap call.

Most people don't realize what is happening with telephones since they
have too much hitting them elsewhere.  Luckily, I am a participant of
this forum and knew what to do when the time came.


Thanks,


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


Moderator's Note: Many hospitals today are just like a lot of hotel
and motel chains:  *everything* has to be a profit center for them. It
is a very shortsighted way of doing business.   PAT]

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

Date: 25 Jul 91 09:52:00 EDT
From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Service in the USSR


The following appears in the current issue of {The Economist}
under the title "Hung Up":

" The Soviet telephone system is, notoriously, a shambles. Exactly how
much of a shambles? For lack of other statistical evidence _The
Economist_'s office in Moscow conducted its own research. Between June
21st and July 17th it kept track of every international call made, and
logged how many were successful. Of 786 attempts -- mostly to our
headquarters in London -- 754 resulted in no connection at all. Of the
32 completed calls, two were wrong numbers and six were cut off
halfway through. One in 33 was a success.

" Even with a telephone with a repeat-dial button (essential equipment
in Moscow), failing to get through wastes time. Allowing 50 seconds
for each call, your frustrated correspondent spent 40 minutes each day
doing nothing but waiting for calls not to get through.

" On the intermittent occasions of success, it costs six roubles a
minute to talk from Moscow to London. This is payable at the
commercial exchange rate of one rouble to 55 cents. That makes $3.30 a
minute.  (A call the other way costs $1.80 a minute at peak times.) On
top of that, a telephone costs $2,865 to install plus $485 annual
rent.  If you want to run a fax off it, that costs an extra $130 a
year -- a tax on efficiency.

" This is not merely inconvenient for hapless foreigners in Moscow.
It is bad for the Soviet Union too. International communications
are the basis of modern economic activity. Moscow does not even have
a telephone book. And it is relatively well off. From other big cities
it is often impossible to call even Moscow direct, let alone to call
abroad."
                             ------

Comments: {The Economist} doesn't know how good their correspondents
have it: they don't have to book calls in advance, as I did on visits
to the USSR. Stand in line, book, be at your phone in eight hours.
Not to mention the stretch of several months in 1982-83 where all
international connections were blocked for ordinary people.
I do wonder if foreigners have to pay their phone bills in foreign
currency. If not, telephoning could be amazingly cheap: even in
Moscow, you can get four rubles to the dollar as a first offer from
somebody on a street corner.

And a correction: Moscow _does_ have a phone book. It is a restricted
document, and from what I've read, updated only rarely.


Charles Hoequist      | Nay ... I've tried these get-rich-quick-
[e-mail]          | inventions, and I am done ..."  Joe
BNR Inc.                 | Cannon, Speaker of the House, refusing
PO Box 13478             | to invest in Bell's invention.
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27709-3478, USA    919-991-8642

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

From: Ron Newman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting a $5 Credit From Sprint Seems to be Easy
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 16:29:22 GMT


I'm one of the people who received the Sprint mailing without the $5
coupon.  So today, I called Sprint up (1-800-877-4646).  Waited about
seven minutes on hold, then when an operator answered, I said,

"A few days ago I received a mailing from Sprint telling me that the
Sprint Plus rates had changed.  I'm a member of a computer bulletin
board system called Usenet, and some of the people on that system say
that they received a $5 credit certificate in their mailings.  My
mailing didn't have one, and I wanted to find out why."

The Sprint operator asked me for my name and telephone number, then
went into an apparently well-rehearsed spiel about the changes (no $8
minimum, splitting of evening and night calling periods, discounts
start at $20 instead of $25), and said "I'm sorry about the mistake.
I'll be glad to apply a $5 credit to your next bill."

So if you didn't get your $5 certificate and don't mind waiting on
hold for a few minutes, call Sprint and tell them so.


Ron Newman        [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #573
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24323;
          27 Jul 91 22:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12349;
          27 Jul 91 21:05 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07420;
          27 Jul 91 19:58 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Jul 91 19:14:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #574
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Jul 91 19:14:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 574

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Pacific Bell Message Center [Rick L. Spickelmier]
    Programming Changes in NY Tel Land [[e-mail]]
    NY COCOT Tariffs [[e-mail]]
    Out of Band Signalling? [Jon Sreekanth]
    Beware of the FON Card Charges [Dennis G. Rears]
    Phone Rates Reported Up [New York Times, via Peter G. Capek]
    Own Your Own Pay Phone [J. Philip Miller]
    Southern Bell Announces 404/706 Split to Customers [Paulo Santos]
    COCOT Too Costly To Remove [News-Journal, via Ken Weaverling]
    AT&T 800 Directory Removed From Compuserve [Bill Berbenich]
    "All the Telecom Execs Who Contribute [to TELECOM] Daily" [Dan Jacobson]
    Need Book Discussing SONET, ATM, Frame Relay, etc. [Mark Boolootian]
    No Handshake Modem [Roy Stuart Levin]
    CLID Hits Melbourne [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Email From Space [John E. Girard]
    Re: Email From Space [Dan Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Pacific Bell Message Center
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 14:55:36 PDT
From: "Rick L. Spickelmier" <objy!puligny-montrachet![e-mail]>


I have just signed up for the Pacific Bell Message Center (voice mail
for the home user).  One problem I have is that instead of being able
to look at my answering machine to see if I have any messages, I have
to take the phone off of the hook and check for the funny dial tone.
I would like to build a circuit that takes the phone off of the hook
every N minutes, detects the presence/absense of the funny dial tone
and sets/resets a latch that causes an LED to be turned on/off.

Has anybody done such a thing?  What should I watch out for?  Are there
any specs on the dial tone and funny dial tone?


Thanks,

Rick L. Spickelmier   Objectivity, Inc.
[e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 13:42:57 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Programming Changes in NY Tel Land


Upon call termination, rather than dial tone, the caller gets the
"hang up or hear a really loud reorder" threat.  The only reason I can
see for doing this is elimination of a certain type of rather
prevalent phraud, yet if this is the case, why not do it a long time
ago?  I certainly don't see how this would affect the average
subscriber at all.  Have other Bells picked up the same changes?


Andrew

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 13:49:40 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NY COCOT Tariffs


Unlikely as it may seem, an address was listed a while ago from which
one could obtain a copy of the regulations for New York COCOTs.  I
don't have it handy, but it was a division of McGraw Hill, in (!) New
Jersey.  In any case, this has met with complete failure to respond,
and I was hoping anyone who's met with success could clue me in.


Andrew

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Out of Band Signalling?
Organization: The World
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 03:05:12 GMT


Is there any operational or regulatory problem with putting a signal
in the 25 KHz range on the phone line in a home?

My application is to have a main unit communicate with other units
connected to extensions around the house. They would do so during a
call (come to think of it, even when there is no ongoing call),
without being in the audible band.

Any pointers (books, magazine articles, actual devices using this
method) will be most welcome. Also, any hints that this is un-doable,
or will fail FCC, or whatever.


Thanks,

Jon Sreekanth

Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc.           |  Fax and PC products
346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752     |  [phone]
[e-mail]                      |

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 22:25:15 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears " <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beware of the FON Card Charges


  If you are using a SPRINT FON card from a rotary phone or any phone
that does not have touch tone make sure you tell the operator you are
dialing from a non-touch tone capable phone.  I just received my bill
and a three minute call from Austin, TX to Pocono Lake, PA cost $2.18.
It was billed to me as a station to station call.  When I spoke to the
ajustment operator at SPRINT, I was told if you speak to any operator
using the FON card, you will be charged operator handled rates unless
you metioned to the operator that you are calling from a rotary phone.
Beware.


Dennis

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 00:44:19 EDT
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Rates Reported Up, New York Times, 7/25/91


A brief article in the {NY Times} today (7/25) reports on a study by
the Telecommunications Research and Action Center of long distance
telephone rates.  The highlights:

  -- Long distance rates have been going down for years, but no longer.

  -- Since November (1990, I presume), the cost of the "average" long
     distance call has risen:  5% on US Sprint and Allnet, about 1% on AT&T
     and MCI.

  -- Study was based on three sets of sample calling patterns using various
     distances and times of day.

  -- Representatives of the carriers said the study exaggerated rate increases
     and didn't consider available discounts (I presume this means "calling
     plans").  Sprint acknowledged their rates had increased 2.7% overall;
     AT&T said its rates had gone down .8%, but the methodology used in the
     study had resulted in showing an increase.

  -- The study said the choice of calling plan was more important than the
     choice of carrier.

The organization is an 18-year-old (old enough to vote..), Washington-
based, research group.  Does anyone reading this know more about it?


Peter Capek

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Own Your Own Pay Phone
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 22:06:29 CDT


While I was at my local locksmith, I noticed that he had a private
coin operatered phone available for customer use.  I asked, and indeed
they also sold them.

I asked about it and received a photocopy of the sales hype.  Here is
what it said:

Eliminate costly telephone abuse with an inexpensive employee payphone
and you won't mind letting your customers use it too!

Our convenience payphones keep a watchful eye on your phone bills so
you don't have to.  Now you can prevent unauthorized phone abuse,
restrict long distance calling and generate 300% profit on calls.

        It pays for itself and then it pays you.

Our Tongya (pronounced ton-ya) payphones work just like the phone
company's payphones except you keep all the money.  Your employees
and/or customers deposit a quarter to make a local three minute call,
and insert additional quaters to talk longer.  On average that local
call costs about six cents, so each quarter generates 19 cents ... a
300% profit.  If your phone bill contains only $20.00 of abuse calls
per month, our pay phone will bring in $60.00 worth of income on the
same amount of usage.  Imagine, you would go from $240.00 a year
negative cash flow to $720.00 per year income right into your pocket.
Of course if your bills are higher than that, you'll make even more.

    Payphone Techology offers a choice of five different models.

Payphone Techology is an authorized distribtor of semi-private
payphones for AMCM telecommunications and teleconcepts corporation and
carries a full line of accories to suit your business needs.  All of
our coin phones are legal to own in all fifty states, are F.C.C.
approved and require no special installation or phone company fees.

[only 2 models are then described]

Tongya 006 - permits local and long distance (outside your area code)
calls.  Programmable time limit.  One quarter/local. Four quaters/long
distance; works in all area codes, includes owner's bypass keys.  ($599)

Payphone Jr Coin Opp - An excellent value for lower volume usage.
Permits local calls only, allows long distance with owner's security
code.  Tone or pulse switchable.  Auto redial button.  Wall or desk
mountable, one quarter/call.  No time limit. "Non working coin
return".  ($250)

All models receive incoming calls, require no external power, and
simply plug into any standard modular jack.  All Tongya models will
work with call waiting and call forwarding and include two owners'
bypass keys to permit coin-free and long distance calling.

The model they had was the TY-006 and it looked like a large, old
fashioned standard desk phone.  The coin slot was between the cradle and
the touchtone keypad.  It appeared clear that you probably would not
want to put it in a non-secure, non-attended location.

So see -- you too can become a COCOT at a very low cost!

[I have no financial connection with any party concerned, the information here
is based solely on the material I obtained from the dealer, and does not
contain an addresss for AMCM telecommunications so don't write to ask :-]

     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: Paulo Santos <[e-mail]>
Subject: Southern Bell Announces 404/706 Split to Customers
Date: 25 Jul 91 21:21:41 GMT
Reply-To: Paulo Santos <[e-mail]>


An insert in my July phone bill announces Georgia's new 706 area code,
and how the 404/706 split will occur.  This adds some information to
what was published before in the Digest.

The new area code will be created as a split of area code 404 (Atlanta
and North Georgia).  The Atlanta Metropolitan local (toll-free)
calling area will remain in 404, but numbers outside that area will be
moved to 706.  The other Georgia area code, 912, will not be affected.

The new 706 area code will be established on MAY 3, 1992.  Permissive
dialing of numbers in the new area will be provided from MAY 3 to
AUGUST 2, 1992.  After AUGUST 2, 1992, the use of the 706 area code is
required.

After the split, 404 will be totally surrounded by 706.


   Paulo Santos                         Internet: [e-mail]
   Georgia Tech, College of Computing       uucp: ...!gatech!cc!pas
   Atlanta GA 30332-0280, U.S.A.           Voice: [phone]

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

From: Ken Weaverling <[e-mail]>
Subject: COCOT Too Costly to Remove
Date: 26 Jul 91 13:24:12 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


In the July 26, 1991 issue of {The News-Journal} (Wilmington, DE),
there is an article describing a pay phone with drug dealer connection.

"Residents, police, and community groups want owners to remove a
public telephone at 10th and Pine streets that they say is used
primarily for drug deals."

The shop owner also wants the phone removed, but claims he can't
afford to have it removed since "removing the phone would cost more
than $900."

The COCOT is owned by United Teleconnect, based in Brookhaven, PA. The
contract with the store owner apparently prevents him from breaking
the contract without penalty (though the article did not mention how
long the contract would run).

Diamond State (Bell Atlantic) was quoted as saying "We have worked
with the city and its residents to prevent situations like [this]."
and "Diamond State's payphones can be used only for outgoing calls."

Residents have taken their case directly to United Teleconnect. Their
complaints "have fallen on deaf ears."  Another resident was quoted as
saying "United Teleconnect has an I-don't-care attitude toward the
community."


>>>---> Ken Weaverling  >>>---->  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T 800 Directory Removed From Compuserve
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 10:29:59 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I tried to access the AT&T 800 Directory on Compuserve earlier this
week and found that the service appears to have been pulled off of
CIS.  This week's attempt was the first time in a few months that I
have tried to access the AT&T 800 directory, so I don't know how long
that it's been gone.

Does anyone know why the service was pulled and will it ever come
back?  I'd like to write a letter to AT&T to encourage the appropriate
people to reintroduce the service.  It's services like that which set
AT&T above the other carriers.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: "All The Telecom Execs Who Contribute [to TELECOM] Daily"
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 10:24:00 GMT


On 23 Jul 91 22:04:13 GMT, [e-mail] (Steve Shimatzki) said:

> Now I'll admit that I'm a college student, and unlike all the telecom
> execs who contribute daily, I only contribute to the list once in a
> blue moon ... but, I read it faithfully.

I bet a few smaller telecom executives read TELECOM Digest, and maybe
a few bigger telecom executives from smaller telecom companies too,
but the bigger they are, the less they read, and especially the less
they post.

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

From: Mark Boolootian <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need book Discussing SONET, ATM, Frame Relay, etc.
Date: 25 Jul 91 15:32:56 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


The subject pretty much says it all.  Can any of you recommend a book
that explains with some degree of detail things like SONET and ATM?
Any references are appreciated.  I'd prefer email responses (and can
summarize if needed).

Advance thanks,


Mark Boolootian        [e-mail]        [phone]

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

From: Roy Stuart Levin <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: No Handshake Modem
Date: 25 Jul 91 14:46:05 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


I have a friend with a modem (cheapo from Whole Earth) that dials out
on com2, makes a ring, but can't make the final handshake and
connection.  CIS, The Well, and my own phone at home hear the ring but
can't make the handshake.  Any ideas?  Could it be the modem itself?
She disconnected call forwarding and waiting.

It is a $79 internal from Whole Earth.  Anyone else out there have the
same problem?  We tried Procomm and Cmode (from CIS) software.  I'd
like to hear from all modem mavens; reply here or to [e-mail]
Thanks.


[Moderator's Note: Whole Earth is the WELL, is it not? Have you
discussed this with folks there? Is it possible this one unit is
defective? They are generally good about making things right for
customers with problems, or so I have been told.   PAT]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: CLID Hits Melbourne
Date: 26 Jul 91 18:03:36 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


CLID hits Melbourne: I had some phone order changes coming up on
Monday and CLID became available so I ordered it also. It is
$7.50/month but they are giving it away for two months free. Is
Southern Bell limiting Caller ID to the same central office like they
do with call return, or the local calling area or the entire lata?
Will it work with Inter-LATA calls (i.e. does AT&T, MCI, ATC, etc have
the proper connections)? With 800 services that ring on a regular line
(MCI Personal 800, SPrints and AT&T Readyline type services) will the
800 ANI get changed into CLID?

I'll give a report in a few weeks on how it works.


Bill

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

From: "John E. Girard" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 17:56:41 GMT


The oldest method for sending mail into space predates all this
discussion.

Just send it to /dev/null    :-)


John Girard   New Science Associates, Inc.  [e-mail]
VOICE: 415-968-3324 ************************** FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 16:15:00 GMT


So how 'bout one of you HAMsters post some of those genuine MIR space
station e-mail headers and body to TELECOM.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #574
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28486;
          28 Jul 91 0:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10419;
          27 Jul 91 22:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12349;
          27 Jul 91 21:06 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Jul 91 20:49:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #575
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Jul 91 20:49:17 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 575

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: 301/410 Reference Table in Archives [TELECOM Moderator]
    Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News [TELECOM Moderator]
    Information "Big Brother" On His Way [John Higdon]
    A Plea to AT&T (was Re: Blocking Outgoing Phone Calls) [Jim Gottlieb]
    Information Wanted on High Speed Networks [Dhruv Bajpai]
    Telephone Censorship [Carl Kadie]
    Some Old Information About ATC and Family [Bill Huttig]
    Well-Documented FAX Board Recommendations Wanted [Dan Veeneman]
    Ohio Bell Overcharges Credit Card Calls With # Key [Bill Mayhew]
    Rural Switching Equipment [Charles Hoequist]
    Telco Sends OCC Calls to AT&T [Jack Decker]
    Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! [Dan Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 19:36:36 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: 301/410 Reference Table in Archives


David Leibold has supplied the Telecom Archives with a new file which
details the 301/410 split. The existing prefixes are broken down to
show which will stay in 301 and which will go to 410.

Look for this in the archives with the other NPA files. The Telecom
Archives can be accessed using anonymous ftp via lcs.mit.edu. When on
line, you must 'cd telecom-archives'.

And of course an ftp <==> mail arrangement is available for those of
you without anonymous ftp capability.  Write [e-mail]
(Doug Davis) for full details.

Thanks to Mr. Leibold for this latest contribution to the archives,
and the several others he has given us in the past.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 19:22:39 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Freedom!  AT&T Reports the Good News


AT&T's announcement from the company's internal News Briefs describing
their victory in Harold Greene's courtroom:


    AT&T NEWS BRIEFS
    [All items are today's date unless otherwise noted]

    Friday, July 26, 1991

    FREEDOM -- Phone lines were cleared Thursday for the seven
    regional phone companies to provide electronic information such as
    stock quotes and sports scores. ... USA Today, 1A.  [Judge Harold]
    Greene simultaneously stayed his order, however, to permit all
    appeals to be heard, which raised the possibility its effect could
    be delayed for months.  His decision is expected to draw fierce
    opposition.  ... Washington Post, A1.  ... Today's ruling did not
    change the restrictions that bar the Bell companies from entering
    the long-distance telephone industry or manufacturing telephone
    equipment, but the appeals court ruling that prompted today's
    decision also recommended that Judge Greene apply more flexible
    legal standards in considering these restrictions. ... Herb
    Linnen, AT&T spokesman, said the company had never objected to the
    Bell companies' entry into the information services market,
    provided that they remained excluded from the equipment
    manufacturing and long-distance industries. ...  New York Times,
    B1.  ... [The] ruling also moves the regional phone companies a
    step closer to being able to compete for cable television
    customers. ... New York Newsday, p. 5.  ... The 71-page opinion
    noted that an appeals court decision last spring left no other
    choice.  ... Wall Street Journal, B1.  Also all major newspapers.
    Regardless of the legal maneuvering involving the regional
    telephone companies, AT&T plans to offer what it calls a Smart
    Phone, a telephone-and-video-screen device, as soon as next
    summer, Ray Zardetto, a company spokesman, said yesterday. ...
    "You can call up stock reports, for instance," Zardetto said about
    one use for the Smart Phone.  "Whatever part of the stock report
    you want will run across the screen.  Or you can preprogram your
    pizza order from your favorite pizza parlor, push a button and it
    goes across the network to his Smart Phone and it'll be
    delivered."   New York Newsday, p. 35.

                                  ---------

Congratulations!  Now we should really see some progress and
interesting developments in audio/videotext.  Its about time something
went right for AT&T in Greene's courtroom ...

 ... but not everyone agrees.  John Higdon presents an alternative
point of view in the next article of this issue.


PAT

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 13:47 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Information "Big Brother" On His Way


Stories on the front pages of both the {San Jose Mercury} and the {San
Francisco Chronicle} this morning announced the reluctant decision by
Judge Greene to allow the RBOCs to enter the information business.
This is just the next step toward the eventual total control of
telecommunications and electronic information by the seven "Baby
Bells". The actual implementation will be stayed until appeals can be
filed, however a spokesperson for Pacific Telesis (as you might
expect) said that the company would push for the ruling to take effect
immediately.

The RBOCs are slowly inching their way to an even tighter grip on the
telecommunications industry than the old and presumably evil Bell
System enjoyed. RBOC spokespersons hearlded the ruling as the opening
of the door to "wonderful new services", but we have heard all of that
crap before. David Easterly, president of Cox Newspapers, rightly
commented, "If we are going to enter a world in which a great deal of
information passes through telephone lines, then those providing the
phone lines should be neutral; they shouldn't be one of the
information providers." Amen to that.

And of course the Hollings bill, which sailed through the Senate will
now be considered by the House. If the RBOCs are allowed to furnish
network service, the information that travels on that network, and the
equipment that is served by the network, they will control a very
sigificant aspect of the vitality of this nation.

Safeguards? FCC Chairman, Alfred Sikes said the FCC, "will continue to
provide full and effective public interest safeguards" if the regional
Bells enter the information services business. Well, that certainly
makes me feel at ease. Just like the FCC has protected us from COCOTs
and IEC abuses. No, I am afraid that the FCC is too busy trying to
tell broadcasters what is profane and obscene to worry about
telecommunications practices.

Again, write your Congressperson about the Hollings bill. Just say
'no'.


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

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Plea to AT&T (was Re: Blocking Outgoing Phone Calls)
Date: 27 Jul 91 09:01:58 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


[e-mail] (David Barkelew) writes:

> A friend of mine is looking for a gadget that can be placed on his
> phone ... to stop long distance calls from originating from his phone
> number (including blocking access to 0 for operator assisted)...

And don't forget: since AT&T refuses to offer a 950 or 800 number,
this device needs to be able to allow 10XXX 0+ dialing AND monitor the
call to be sure that the caller actually bills the call elsewhere.

Yeah, right.  Come on AT&T.  Stop shooting yourself (and your
customers) in the foot.  With your present arrangement, there is no
way for someone to block long distance calls and allow calls to be
billed to AT&T without the use of special toll terminal trunks
(something most of us don't have in our homes and offices).

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

From: Dhruv Bajpai <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on High Speed Networks
Date: 27 Jul 91 20:19:22 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station


Hello everybody,

    I am looking for information on High Speed Networks, like
PARIS project (IBM) or the CNRI (gigabit testbed inititalive). Any
information on any article or references concerned with hw/sw design
considerations would be most welcome.

Thanks,

Dhruv

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

From: "Carl M. Kadie" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Censorship
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1991 15:01:36 GMT


[This is a copy of a letter I send to my U.S. senators and my U.S.
representative. - Carl]

                              July 17, 1991

I am distressed to learn that the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals has
upheld Senator Helms' restriction on my access to telephone services
(the so-called Helms/dial-a-porn Amendment to the 1934 Communications
Act).

The Helms Amendment violates my First Amendment rights to listen to
what I choose. Like most censorship, the Helms Amendment is justified
by saying that it is needed to protect children. I think it is
obvious, however, that its real purpose is to restrict adults.

The courts are no longer defenders of individual rights. It is now up
to you in Congress to stand up for traditional American values like
freedom of speech/freedom to listen. I urge you defend the First
Amendment and to repeal the Helms Amendment.


Carl Kadie -- [e-mail] -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some Old Information About ATC and Family
Date: 26 Jul 91 18:13:36 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I was going through some old stuff and found a couple of old (approx.
1986) info about ATC and North American Telephone.

North American Telephone is now part of ATC. During the last six
months of 1985, North American Telephone acquired five carriers
Americall, Datel, Entel, Florida Long Distance, and Eastern Telephone.

In another flyer It shows Transcall America and directline as being
owened by ATC.  It says they don't give green stamps ... which at the
time Teltec was giving.

It seems that Teltec merged with NAT and became TELUS, Then ATC merged
with MicroTel and then with TELUS and now southTel.

Currently on the ATC A/400 billing systems is the old MicroTel,
Transcall America, all of the NAT companies are still on the TELUS
system. but they are all on the same switch. SouthTel is still totally
separate.

Does anyone have the dates and all the companies that are now part of
ATC?

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

From: Dan Veeneman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Well-Documented FAX Board Recommendations Wanted
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 15:49:15 CDT


Yes, this is YAPRR (Yet Another Product Recommendation Request):

Can anyone recommend a FAX card for IBM-PC compatibles that has a
*well-documented* programming interface?  I'm looking for something
that can be controlled via C or assembly to both send and receive
Group III.  A modem on the same card is NOT necessary.  I'm not
interested in FAX cards that come with a .EXE that you MUST run in
order to make it work -- I need to be able to roll my own control
programs.


Dan    [e-mail]    uunet!devcom!marcal!dan

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

From: Bill Mayhew <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ohio Bell Overcharges Credit Card Calls With # Key
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 20:21:40 GMT


This hasn't been meintioned yet, so here goes.  I received the
following mailer with my OBT bill last week:

        A Special Notice to Our Customers

If you've made two or more direct dialed credit card calls in swquence
between January 17 and May 23, 1991, and if you used the pound (#)
sign on a touch tone telephone after the first call to avoid redialing
your credit card number, you may have been incorrectly billed by up to
90 cents per call due to an error in our computer software.

If you haven't used the pound (#) sign to make credit card calls,
there's no error and no problem.

We've corrected the software error and have located and _credited_on_
this_month's_bill any misbilling for calls made between March 23 and
May 23.  But, we want to make sure we give the proper credit for all
billing errors that may have occurred.

Therefore, if you used the pound sign method to make credit card calls
between January 17 and March 22, 1991, please call us.  We will then
verify any errors and give you the appropriate credit.

Please accept our apology for any inconvenience this may have caused
you.  The numbers to call to have any errors verified are:

    Residence customers:  1 800 660-9136
    Business customers:   1 800 660-7000

        *  Ohio Bell
           An Ameritech Company


        (c)1991 Ohio Bell.  All Rights Reserved.


Bill Mayhew      NEOUCOM Computer Services Department
Rootstown, OH  44272-9995  USA    phone: [phone]
[e-mail]   ....!uunet!aablue!neoucom!wtm
via internet: (140.220.001.001)

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

Date: 25 Jul 91 09:52:00 EDT
From: Charles (C.A.)Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rural Switching Equipment


Steve Forrette writes:

> a "D5RS", whatever that is.  (This new beast, which I think is a
> "rural" digital switch from NT...

Doesn't seem to be. The closest thing in an NT Product Handbook is
DRS-8, which is a Digital Radio System. NT's rural switches are DMS-1
and DMS-10. Indeed, all the CO switches NT makes now are DMS-something-
or-other.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 22:52:00 EDT
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telco Sends OCC Calls to AT&T


I've seen the comments about COCOT's that accept 10XXX codes and then
route the call to the COCOT operator's preferred carrier, but I found
a better one than that the other day.  A telephone company owned coin
phone outside the former office of the Chippewa County Telephone
Company (and just across the street from the NEW office building
housing their new digital switch) accepts 10XXX codes for certain
other carriers but routes all such calls to AT&T.  I tried dialing
10222-0+ and 10333-0+ (to an out-of-state number) and in both cases I
got the dial tone spurt followed by the musical "AT&T" signature.

Dialing a totally invaild 10XXX code at random, however, resulted in
reaching a recording immediately after the 10XXX code was dialed, so
I'm led to believe that the switch was programmed to accept calls for
MCI and Sprint but for some reason winds up sending them to AT&T.

The number of the coin phone in question is [phone] and the
Chippewa County Telephone Company's business office number is
[phone], just in case any MCI or Sprint reps are reading this
and would like to follow up on it.  I just wonder what the legality is
of an independent telco picking off calls intended for other carriers
and routing them to AT&T.  In fact, if I were AT&T I'd be upset about
this since they probably have to field the occasional complaint from a
customer that thought they were routing their call via a preferred
OCC, only to discover that AT&T was billing them for the call.  If it
were me, I'd refuse to pay the charge and tell AT&T to go collect from
the phone company that screwed up the codes in their switch!


Via D'Bridge 1:1/211  07/25 21:03
Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!umich!wsu-cs!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker


[Moderator's Note: I do not believe small independent telcos are
required to observe equal access to long distance carriers. I believe
that rule applies to the Bell companies only (and maybe GTE).   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone!
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 16:59:00 GMT


On 24 Jul 91 20:46 GMT, [e-mail] (Mary McComb 225 Sparks) said:

> I may be naive, but it never occurred to me that MCI would harrass
> my friends and family with obnoxious telemarketing calls.

I'd hate to see what their Enemies and Ex-Family service would be like :-).

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #575
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00592;
          28 Jul 91 0:53 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15362;
          27 Jul 91 23:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac10419;
          27 Jul 91 22:13 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Jul 91 21:37:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #576
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Jul 91 21:37:08 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 576

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sprint Rate Change [Skip Collins]
    Re: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers [Carol Springs]
    Re: Sprint Puts it in Writing [Jiro Nakamura]
    Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Charlie Lear]
    Re: International 800 Calling [Jim Smithson]
    Re: International 800 Calling [George Battrick]
    Re: Calling USA Toll Free From Abroad [Wolf Paul]
    Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! [Denis Guyon]
    Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! [David Lemson]
    Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch!) [S. Kass]
    Re: Email From Space [Scott Dorsey]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Skip Collins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Rate Change
Date: 26 Jul 91 17:05:55 GMT
Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

>> Then again, AT&T called me to invite me to switch back, and I said,
>> "Sure -- put it in writing."

> When was the last time you saw an AT&T commercial that talked about
> putting it in writing? I suspect that tactic has cause the company
> significant grief. But it have not seen one of those "tell them to put
> it in writing" spots for a long time.

> To think about it, what is there additional to put in writing? The FCC
> filings would say it all. It already is in writing. Even Thrifty Tel's
> bogus rate structure is "in writing" at the CPUC.

Come on Mr. Higdon.  How many of us have day to day access to PUC
filings?  Going miles away to sift through mountains of paper and deal
with unsympathetic bureaucrats just to save a few dollars a month is
something I shall leave to those so inclined.  AT&T's "Put it in
writing" campaign seemed to say to consumers that they would make it
easier for us to make meaningful rate comparisons for our specific
circumstances.  Instead they give us the same run around about only
being able to give rate information over the phone that MCI and Sprint
give.  Alas.


Skip Collins

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

From: Carol Springs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 20:02:11 EDT


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

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

>> Also, they included a "no-strings-attached" $5.00 gift certificate!

> Carol said she sent a polite letter, and didn't get the gift
> certificate.  Perhaps there is still some use for unbridled anger :-)

Perhaps ... however, I just received today a second "valued Sprint
customer" letter, this one with a $10 gift certificate.  I suppose
it's for twice the usual amount either because I have two phone
numbers assigned to the same account or because I had sent Sprint the
aforementioned polite/nasty letter in June.  Sprint had already
credited me $2.40 or so in response to my request for reimbursement of
the difference between evening and night rates for calls placed
between June 3 and the day I heard about the changeover.  I got a
long, apologetic message on my answering machine detailing the credits
for each call.  This whole mess must have been a real headache for
Sprint's customer service people.

Incidentally, the fine print on the back of the certificate says that
it's valid for current Sprint customers from October 1, 1991, to March
31, 1992.  Just to make sure we'll stick around.


Carol Springs    [e-mail]

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

From: Jiro Nakamura <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Puts it in Writing
Organization: Shaman Consulting
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1991 01:20:10 GMT


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

> They did it!  Sprint sent me in the mail a copy of their new (as of
> June 3rd, 1991) Sprint Plus rates.

> For all of you who believed that *no* LDC would ever tell customers
> their rates *in writing*, here are the current Sprint Plus state-to-
> state rates.  (Pat, you may want to put these rates in the archives.)

    Maybe Sprint sent them to you because they knew that they
would be "updated" tomorrow anyway. :-)  Ever wondered why they call it
"Sprint" -- it's because they are always playing catchup to AT&T.  :-)

    I recently decided to cancel my AT&T card after having had the
Universal card for half a year now, so I phone AT&T and told them I
wanted to cancel my card. They took my number, then the operator says
in amazement "your card's already been cancelled", I said "Huh? I never
cancelled it" and she said "Yup, it was cancelled November 1990, we
last sent you a bill in Sept 1990 which came back address incomplete."

    I said that I never got the bill, she said she'd go look for
it on microfiche. About ten minutes of tapping my fingers and she
comes back and has found it! She agrees to send it to me. Today, I
received the bill, the problem was that AT&T had not typed in my city
or zip code on my last address change (Sept, 1990 no less).

    A duplicate, microfiche copy of the bill today. $17.08.  The
cover letter with it doesn't mention anything about late fees or
penalties. I'm surprised since that AT&T hadn't contacted my credit
bureau delinquent office (my last credit report, 3/91 or so didn't
mention it).

    This is why I'm pretty pleased with AT&T. They actually found
a bill from half a year ago in less then ten minutes on the phone,
sent a copy to me in less than a week, and didn't even bother to
damage my credit rating, assess late charges, or even sound angry. :-)


Jiro Nakamura    [e-mail]  Shaman Consulting
[phone]  Voice/Fax/Data

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

From: [e-mail] (David E A Wilson)
Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 06:34:54 GMT


[e-mail] (Robin Kenny) writes:

> Here in Australia the rate and volume of automated contact attempts is
> limited IN LAW to (top of head, references at home) six attempts in
> total no more frequently than each minute.

In the User's Manual of a BIT Blitzer 12E is included an excerpt from
Telecom Australia's Specification 1056 Clause 5.4. What it all boils
down to is:

Maximum number of automatic retries in any sequence = two (+ original call)
if device cannot detect service tones or four (+ orig) if it can.

After an unsuccessful call the line must be on-hook for 60 + 10s [why
not write this as 70s I do not know] before the line is looped to
initiate another call to the SAME number.

There shall be an 'OFF line' period of at least two seconds between
calls addressed to DIFFERENT numbers.

So Robin is correct for calls to the same number. It can be quicker for
different numbers.


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

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

Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?
Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ
Date: 27 Jul 91 16:58:35 NZT (Sat)
From: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> it was written:

> Is this nothing more than a telecom old wives tale, or is there

In France (apparently) it is illegal to autodial a number more than
once per minute, and illegal to redial more than three times in an
hour.

Having rules is one thing. Enforcing them in hardware is another.

I reviewed a Philips badge-engineered V32 internal modem last year,
that had been made by a French subsidiary. It was, through and
through, a pain in the rear.

It stored the "last number dialled" in non-volatile RAM. When I was
testing it by calling a bank of V32 modems (manually swapping the line
cable between each, to evaluate how well it talked to other brands of
V32) I kept getting errors.  Here are examples:

 ATDT643000
 CONNECT 9600
 +++ATH
 OK
 ATDT643000
 ERROR
 ATDT643000
 ERROR
 ATDT643000
 CONNECT 9600

Do you think I could figure it out?!?!?!?!? The manual was worse than
useless. One minute it gave an error, the next minute it connected OK.
Then I couldn't get it to dial at all, even when I did a power-off
reset of the computer. Turned out it wouldn't allow more than three
successful connects to the same number in an hour, either.

The only way to override this system was to flick a momentary-off
reset switch on the back of the modem.

I reviewed eight other V32 modems and quietly gave these internal
abortions back to Philips with the suggestion that if they kept
advertising their PCs, we wouldn't include their modem in the
comparison.


Charlie "The Bear" Lear | [e-mail] | Kawasaki Z750GT  DoD#0221
The Cave MegaBBS  [phone] V22b | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand

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

From: Jim Smithson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International 800 Calling
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 15:33:22 MET DST


[e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre) Writes:

> On AT&T's part, couldn't low-volume international customers be advised
> to advertising the USA Direct number for international calls?  (Those
> operators can dial 800 numbers, can't they?)

Only if the 800 number is serviced by AT&T can it be dialed with USA
Direct.  But you still have to pay for the overseas portion of the
call.

The equivalent MCI service cannot dial any 800 numbers in the states,
but they will make an attempt to find a POTS number you can dial.

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

From: george battrick <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 19:18:10 BST
Subject: Re: International 800 Calling


The main difficulty here is how to contact a US company which only
gives an 800 number in its advertisement.  You would expect to dial
010-1-800-xxx-yyyy, but as has been pointed out, it doesn't work.
(There would be no objection to paying the "international" portion of
the charge, or even a full fee: the requirement is to contact the
advertiser.)

However, it used to be the case that if you dialed 010-1-83-800-
xxx-yyyy, there would be a very long wait, with lots of clicks and
pops, but eventually it would connect.  There was always a very loud
hiss on the line, and the voices were very faint, but you could at
least get a "real" number and call back.  This doesn't work any more
now: perhaps there's an area code 838?

I remember reading of a service whereby you dialed a British number,
and they would connect you to a US 800 number in return for a charge
against your credit card, but I don't have any details and have never
seen them advertise.

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

From: Wolf PAUL <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling USA Toll Free From Abroad
Date: 24 Jul 91 08:41:45 GMT
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe


[e-mail] (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes:

> Since toll-free numbers aren't that common in Europe (even the old
> "Freephone" system in the UK did not seem to be very popular) we
> concluded that people just weren't "into" this 800 business.

That is changing, though, even though one major obstacle remains:

In most European countries, these are not toll-free numbers, but
local-call-charges-apply numbers. And I don't know of any European
country which has free local calling.

Even for local calls, the phone is much more used in North America
than anywhere in Europe; I know a lot of people over here
(specifically in Austria, Germany, France, Holland and UK, the
countries where I have spent time and have friends) who consider the
telephone something of an "emergency communications" facility -- you
don't use the phone for things you can do by letter, or in person.
This too is changing, albeit slowly.


W.N.Paul IIASA, [e-mail], [phone] (till Jul 26, 1991)
ALCATEL/ELIN, [e-mail], [phone] (as of Jul 29, 1991)
Home: Kirschenallee 113, A-1220 Wien-Austria, Europe;  Tel. [phone]

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

From: Denis Guyon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 21:41:59 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> I agree with you that MCI should try to confirm the information that
> they are given before placing such telemarketing calls.  However, in
> the case where MCI got your name from one of your friends/family, who
> is to blame?  It seems to me that your friends/family share the blame,
> since it's *them* who gave out your name.  As the old saying goes,
> with friends like these who needs enemies?

I've always told my family and friends not to give out my phone
number.  Several years ago my parents gave out my phone number to
someone that I preferred not have it.  Somewhat prior to that they
gave it out to someone to which it did not matter and on that
occaision I spelled out to them that I did not like this practice.  It
just so happened I was moving to a new apartment about that time, and
it was free or very cheap (I forget which) to just get a new phone
number, so I did.  I told all my friends but I refused to tell my
parents.  So I called them, but not as often as they would like (about
once a month or less) and each time they wanted to know my new number,
and I told them why I was not giving it.  After about six months I
finally gave them the new number and the problem has not happened
again.

Now I have two phone lines, one listed, and only the answering machine
uses the listed one.  Far more telemarketing calls come into the
listed one than on the other.  I also use the listed line to call out
to any place I am not absolutely positive will not get or use my
number.


Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- [e-mail]

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 22:23:12 GMT


[e-mail] (The Squire, Phish) writes:

> You've heard MCI's Friends and Family promotion: If you're an MCI
> customer, and you list your friends and family, you get n% off when
> you call them at certain times. And if they're not an MCI customer,
> you can give them their name and phone number, and they'll call and
> sign them up! Great?  Nope!

I have MCI, and called MCI Customer Service to sign up for Friends and
Family.  I wanted to use it to talk to my parents, who also have MCI.
The lady took my name and number, as well as my parents' name and
numbers, and signed us up.  They never called my parents, just sent
them the same little note (Welcome to F&F, want to sign up some more
friends and family?) that I got.  I'd say it's worth it - no hassles
yet, (I did get called by AT&T last month to switch to them) and the
discount is nice (although small).


David Lemson   University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant
Internet : [e-mail]         UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson
NeXTMail : [e-mail]      BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 14:35 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch!)


[e-mail] (Phil Wherry) writes:

> It would probably interest readers of the TELECOM Digest to know that
> C&P Telephone (DC-MD-VA) has now enabled the use of the Call Return
> (*69) and Call Repeat (*66) services on all subscriber lines. If you
> subscribe to these custom calling features, nothing has changed. If
> not, you can still use the features -- but you will be billed $0.75
> each time you invoke a feature.

The same is true in my part of NJBell country.  I discovered this a
while before they notified me officially, and I used the service many
times (mostly getting "... service cannot be used ... out of the
service area ...").  Pleasantly enough, I wasn't billed for any of the
calls.  I don't plan to use it again, though.  At 75c a shot,
regardless of whether the call connects, it's not worth it to me.


Steve Kass/ Math&CS/ Drew U/ Madison NJ/ [e-mail]

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

From: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 12:42:22 GMT


(Lloyd W. Taylor) writes:

> NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the
> Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and
> they are going to be *connecting*to*AppleLink*from*space*.

   I think that NASA should take all the McIntoshes up into space.
And leave them there.


scott

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #576
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03938;
          28 Jul 91 2:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18171;
          28 Jul 91 0:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15362;
          27 Jul 91 23:20 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Jul 91 22:47:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #577
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Jul 91 22:45:50 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 577

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: When Local Telco Bills For LD Carrier [Denis Guyon]
    Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Gabe M. Wiener]
    Re: 800 ANI for NON-answered Calls? [John Higdon]
    Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier [Linc Madison]
    Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default [Ken Weaverling]
    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Dan Jacobson]
    Re: Bellcore Acronyms - Help Needed [Marian J. Murphy]
    Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup [Gerry Lachac]
    Re: Toll Saver Feature [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query [Steve Kass]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Denis Guyon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When Local Telco Bills For LD Carrier
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 21:59:08 GMT


[e-mail] (Joshua E. Muskovitz) writes:

> Does the local carrier have the right to kill your local service if
> you don't pay the long-distance portion of your all-in-one billing?
> This doesn't seem right.  If your dispute is with the distance
> carrier, and you are paying the local portion, doesn't the local
> carrier HAVE to give you service?

> [Moderator's Note: No they do not have the right to kill local service
> based on non-payment of anything but their own charges. But you must
> specifically tell them *what* you are not paying and *why* (where the
> LD carrier is concerned) or your remittance will be taken as a short-
> payment on the entire bill.  PAT]

A few years ago I had over $1000 in fraud billings show up on my bill
from several different LD carriers.  I contacted the local phone
company (Ilinois Bell) about it and they instructed me to contact the LD
carriers to run the credits through.  I did.  AT&T and Sprint promptly
applied credits, though more came in on the next bill and I had to
call again.  All this was apparently because someone figured out my
calling card code (which was with the local carrier then).

The big problem was there were some odd-ball companies applying
charges as well.  Some of these were places that only dealt with hotel
rooms, for instance.  One company was exclusively operating in Mexico.
When I called these companies, they refused to apply any credits
because I would not give them any more information than they already
had (though they could not find even that).  One company said it was
against their policy to give credits.  Three companies offered to give
credits but I never could figure out if they showed up because.

The Illinois Bell bills did NOT detail incoming credits.  This mixed
in with the taxes also not being detailed by carrier meant that I
could not figure out which carriers had applied credits and which had
not.  I talked to the manager of customer service who claimed she
could not do anything about it.

Next I called the Illinois Bell office in Chicago and ask for the law
office and got one of the lawyers at the low end of the totem pole.  I
explained to him exactly what had happened and how it was there was no
action I could do to correct this (and also mentioned that Customer
Service was not even trying to make any criminal investigations).  I
also mentioned I'd be contacting the FCC if this matter did not get
straightened out.  He said he'd check into it.

About 25 minutes later the Customer Service manager called ME and told
me she would apply a credit to my entire current balance (which I had
refused to pay in whole because there was not enough detail to
calculate EXACTLY what was really due), and that I should call her
back if any more such billings showed up.

The only other time I had to call the lawyer types was to get "NONE"
to be my long distance carrier and they worked quick miracles for
that, too.


Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You did well by contacting the corporate attorney
when you were unable to get the service reps off their duffs. That is
a technique I have long used ... that, and appealing direct to the
Chairman's Office. About three years ago, Sprint was going to sue me
(well actually, the firm I where I am employed, since I maintain the
phones there among other duties) for $18,000 for non-payment of the
bill for our T-1, WATS, tie-lines, etc. They got the check, cashed it
and misapplied it -- then couldn't find where they misapplied it
because the check endorsement was illegible ... so they wanted *me* to
pay it again! I told them to write it off and learn a lesson from
their experience. When I got a final notice before disconnection I
called their attorney and told him 'just try me out ... pick a date
next week when you want to litigate this ...' I got the credit on my
next bill, *seven months* after I started asking nicely for it.   PAT]

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

From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone?
Reply-To: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1991 04:50:57 GMT


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

> Most TT chips 'know' about 1633, and lots of applications make use of
> it.

What applications make use of the ABCD keys?

As I recall, the Autovon keys aren't actually labeled ABCD, or at
least that's what I remember when I saw an Autovon phone on my last
trip through the Smithsonian.


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.   [e-mail]
[e-mail]          [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 23:00 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: 800 ANI for NON-answered Calls?


Will Martin <[e-mail]> writes:

> Is the ANI equipment so expensive and elaborate that this application
> seems doubtful? Or is it simple enough that this scheme is likely?

ANI equipment is neither expensive nor elaborate. It is transmitted
right up front and is available to the recipient before the call is
answered. ANI delivery is now very common to sizeable customers and
the equipment for its processing is hardly a major expense. It is
actually very possible that your described scam is taking place.

> All in all, it seems like a good reason to make as many calls as
> possible from a work phone sitting behind a PBX that confuses or
> mangles ANI data!

Do not put much hope in that. PBXes neither confuse nor mangle ANI
data. With a very small amount of effort, the recipient can identify
the source of the call.


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


[Moderator's Note: At our office, all outgoing trunks are identified
only as the main listed number. I guess that is because of the way IBT
bills us. I know this is true because I have experimented from home
with call screening the office, blocking only the main listed number.
No matter what line the office used to call me back, they were blocked
from getting through.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 01:38:54 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> When I recently moved from one apartment to another about a mile away,
> GTE set up the service just fine (was I surprised!) except that I
> found out later my 1+ carrier was AT&T even though GTE service, GTE
> repair, and Sprint all said their records showed I was served by
> Sprint.

> How is the 1+ carrier actually determined?

This is old hat for most Digest readers, but in case anyone doesn't
know, you can determine who your 1+ carrier is by dialing 1-700-555-4141.
There's no charge, and you'll hear a recording saying something
analogous to "Thank you for using <XYZ Carrier>."

Similarly, you can find out what 10XXX carriers you can use by dialing
10XXX-1-700-555-4141.  Of course, it would take you rather a long time
to try all 1000 possible codes.

Note that "700" is a special "area code" (Special Access Code) which
maps differently on each carrier.  Other "700" numbers may incur heavy
charges comparable to "900" numbers.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]  =  ucbvax!tongue1!linc


[Moderator's Note: Except if you are lucky, some local telcos
intercept invalid codes right after the 10xxx part without waiting for
more data. Even then, a thousand is a bit much to roam through.   PAT]

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

From: Ken Weaverling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch!)
Date: 27 Jul 91 14:03:59 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


> C&P Telephone (DC-MD-VA) has now enabled the use of the Call Return
> (*69) and Call Repeat (*66) services on all subscriber lines. If you
> subscribe to these custom calling features, nothing has changed. If
> not, you can still use the features -- but you will be billed $0.75
> each time you invoke a feature.

Diamond State Tel (Bell Atlantic) has been doing this for a few years
now, but it is much cheaper.  From the Wilmington, DE phone book, pg 7:

Call Forwarding $2.50/mo or $.25 per activation
Repeat Call      1.75/mo or  .25 per activation
Return Call      2.00/mo or  .25 per activation
Priority Call    1.75/mo or  .25 per day list is active
Select Forward   2.00/mo or  .50 per day list is active
Call Block       5.00/mo or  .50 per day list is active

You must be careful with charges tied to a list.  If you turn off the
service (for instance, with *80 for Call Block), but do not first
delete the numbers from your list, you will continue to be charged
each day, since the list of numbers are still stored.

Also, with Call Block, if you have Caller ID in your area, you can use
Call Block to find out number of last person who called you. I once
used it to find out who was calling me and hanging up after one ring
(before my Caller ID box got the number).  I Call Blocked the last
call, and it told me what the number was!


>>>---> Ken Weaverling  >>>---->  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell does not offer 'per instance of use'
billing on features. It is strictly month-to-month here. And if you
block 'last call received' without reference to the number itself,
then Illinois Bell refers to it as a 'private entry' in the directory
you can review, without reading off the actual number.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 16:45:00 GMT


On 24 Jul 91 17:56:34 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Platt) said:

> People have received severe shocks by being in contact with a
> grounded object and a pipe or piece of wire, even if the pipe or
> wire was not struck by the lightning itself.

I think I'll save my trip to the restroom until this thunderstorm is
over ... I'm not into pee-on-the-electric-fence laughs today.


[Moderator's Note: About two years ago, a passenger on the Chicago
Transit Authority (our subway system) was electrocuted when he, in his
drunken stupor, chose to urinate while waiting for the train to
arrive. He urinated out onto the tracks, and it splashed onto the
third rail, which conducts only a few hundred volts of direct current.
The electricity traveled back up the urine stream and struck him dead.
Maybe this submission should have been sent to PGN entitled "The Risks
of Having to Go to the Bathroom While Riding the Subway."  :)   PAT]

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

From: Marian J Murphy <rigel![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bellcore Acronyms - Help Needed
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 13:27:27 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> I have been looking at a diagram called "Bellcore's Standard
> Interfaces" (Figure 8-3) in a Bellcore book called "The Impact of
> Evolving Communications Technologies".  The diagram essentially shows
> the Bellcore standards adopted between various telecoms network
> elements and the use of CCS7.

> The problem is, not all of the acronyms used in the figure are
> explained in the book.  Would some Bellcore guru know what the
> following acronyms are?

>    BCR        RUSI        SSP
>    FCIF        SCCS        TOP
>    LUSI        SEAS        UPL
>    NMA        SOP        USL

I tried to email this but it kept bouncing back.  Here's a posted
version.

I can help with most of these:

BCR - Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
FCIF - FACS Component Interface Format
LUSI - ?
NMA - Network Monitoring and Analysis
RUSI - ?
SCCS - Switching Control Center System
SEAS - Signal Engineering and Administration System
SOP - Service Order Processor
SSP - Service Switching Point
TOP - Task oriented practices
UPL - ?
USL - ?

Hope this helps a little.


Jay Murphy   Bellcore

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

From: Gerry Lachac <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup
Organization: Dialogic Corporation
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 13:11:30 GMT


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

> "Daniel R. Guilderson" <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Two questions:

>>     1)  Why did touch-tone go up 69% ?

> I don't know. It went to zero here.

I only wish New Jersey Bell would do this.  Back when I lived with my
parents a couple of years ago, they had rotary and I used to use a
touch-tone phone and my modem.  One day NJB decided to send some
letters "politely" inquiring if we were using touch-tone, and if we
wished to, to pay them for it.  I wouldn't have paid, but my parents
had the fear of the monolithic "phone company".

And while I'm ripping NJB to shreds, I've recently moved into a new
place where I had call waiting put in.  I was using *70 to shut it off
for modem calls when all of a sudden it stopped working.  Seems that
NJB wants to charge me extra $$ for having the ability to turn it off.


gerry

EMAIL:   [e-mail]
USMAIL:  Dialogic Corp.
300 Littleton Rd Parsippany, NJ
PHONE:   [phone] ext 193

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll Saver Feature
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1991 01:25:56 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: I think AT&T finally took the attitude 'if you
> can't beat them, join them.' The feature is very common and all the
> other answering machines had it, etc. I still personally feel that
> using a system of coded rings to obtain information without having to
> have both ends off-hook (thus having to pay for the call) is fraud.

Well, considering that the entropy of the information thus obtained is
EXTREMELY low (i.e. "1" bit), my guess is that the phone companies
will learn to live with it.

Actually, by the very same reasoning, not getting charged for
no-answer must be fraud, too.  After all, you have received exactly
the same amount of information (1 bit): e.g. Is there a party to
answer the phone, or not.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: The one situation cannot be helped; that is the way
the system operates. The other, where you deliberatly structure the
ringing, is a different case entirely.  But watch for the telcos to
one of these days impose a 'call attempt' charge just for these
reasons. Larry King was/is a prime example of an abuser.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 14:27 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query


Tad Cook writes:

> [e-mail] writes:

[request for info on auto-answer phone]

> Let us assume that there is someone there to talk to the caller.  How
> does the speaker phone know when to go back on hook at the end of the
> call?  Does it automatically go back on hook after a period of
> silence?  Will room noise keep it perpetually off hook?

  In this case there will always be someone there.  Bed-ridden means
room-bound, as well.  As for going back on hook, it should work just
like an answering machine.  The auto-answer phone listens to the
caller, not the callee, to decide when to disconnect.


Steve Kass/ Drew U/ Math&CS/ Madison, NJ/ [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #577
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06224;
          28 Jul 91 3:05 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21262;
          28 Jul 91 1:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18171;
          28 Jul 91 0:27 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Jul 91 23:43:02 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  SPECIAL REPORT: Tolled and Toll Free Services
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


I hope you will enjoy this special report prepared by our regular
correspondent David Leibold dealing with toll free and tolled services
around the world.  This is the article he metnioned the other day when
he asked for input from interested parties.  Thanks, David!

PAT

 Subject: List of Toll-Free and Tolled Services in various countries
 From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
 Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 23:39:26 EDT
 Organization: Brave New World, Delray Beach, FL, USA


[Here is the first edition of the toll-free/tolled codes list;
thanks to all who participated ... any followups, clarifications,
etc would be appreciated.]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Toll-free, local rated and specialty toll services             26 July 1991
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The following indicates access codes and numbers used within various
countries for toll-free and special paid services. The dialing codes
shown represent how they would be dialed within the country involved.
Generally, it is not possible to access another country's domestic
toll-free or specialty network directly. Where an international access
is available, it is normally done by using the domestic services which
then forward the call to the destination country.

Where possible, the number of digits has been indicated with 'n'
(a number from 2 to 8) or 'x' (any number). An ellipsis (...)
indicates that there are a variable number of extra digits, or
possibly a conflict in the reports of numbers of digits used.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                Toll-free or equivalent local charge services
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


=================
A u s t r a l i a
=================

008 xxx xxx       (that is how Telecom recomends it be written
                  to differentiate it from STD area codes
                  which are written with area codes (0x) thru
                  (0xxx) and numbers n xxxx through nxx xxxx.

0014 ttt xxx xxx  International Toll free access from Australia
                  (ttt is reported as "800" or other toll-free
                  access code; or, ttt may not be present at all)

Brendan Jones:

"... I have dialled international toll free to the USA (Fred Pryor
Seminars) and I dialled verbatim: 0014 800 125 385."

(Canada Direct uses 0014 881 150 - djcl)

=============
B e l g i u m
=============

11 xxxx

=============
D e n m a r k
=============

800 xxxxx
8001 xxxx         (charged as local call)

=============
F i n l a n d
=============

9800 xxxxx (...)  PTT as local service provider
0800 xxxxx (...)  Private phone company as local service provider

Kauto Huopio:

"(I _think_ that 0800 numbers are only for the local calling area."

haa:

"...but many service givers have more [digits than 5] in theis mnemonics)."

(haa also mentions 9800 costs the same as a local call (dialable from
all areas in Finland) while 0800 are truly toll-free and dialable
from all private telco areas)

===========
F r a n c e
===========

05 xxxxxx         (Numero Vert)
                  [note: this is outside area code 1, so from Paris
                  16 05...]

05 19 xx xx       these numbers terminate outside France

36 63 xx xx       Local call rate (Numero Azur)

Allan G. Schrum:

"`11' is computer directory information (Minitel)
 `12' is voice directory information (equivalent to 411)"

===========================
G e r m a n y   ( w e s t )
===========================

0130 xxxx (...xx)

Mickey Ferguson:

"I was over in Germany for three months, and the number is 0130-...
To use ATT, it is 0130-0010, and U.S. Sprint is 0130-0013 (easy to
remember :) For general toll-free number listings, pick up a copy
of the International Herald newspaper (I think it is available in
the US as well as most places internationally) and in the sports
section is usually an ATT add for dialing the US from various countries.
Of course, chop off the exchange and only use the "area code" number."

=============
I r e l a n d
=============

1800 xxxxxx
1850 xxxxxx       (local rate)

=========
I t a l y
=========

167 xxxxx         (digits length?)

Colum Mylod:

"I'm not 100% sure about the length of digits for Italy. One way to
check these is to get a copy of an *international* edition of the
weekly magazines like TIME, all ads and little contents. But they do
goof up regularly, like printing Paris numbers as (01) xxxxxxxx when
they mean (1) xxxxxxxx."

===========
M e x i c o
===========

91 800 xxxxx....

=====================
N e t h e r l a n d s
=====================

06-0xxx
06-0xxxxxx
06-4xx(x)

Ralph Moonen:

"06-0229111 = AT&T USA direct
And also Sprint & MCI have operator services on 06-022xxxx

Side note: It used to be possible to call 06-022xxxx to Denmark, and then
use the CCITT no. 4 signalling system to phreak calls to anywhere in the
world."

Peter Knoppers:

"06-11 This is the Dutch equivalent of 911, it is free when dialled
       from a phone company operated payphone, otherwise the charge
       is one unit, DFL 0.15, about US $ 0.08. There were discussions
       about making such calls free from any phone, but I haven't
       followed them recently. Calling a toll-free number from a
       payphone requires a deposit of one coin, which is returned
       after the call.

The total length of the numbers varies from 4 to 10 digits.

The dash indicates the secondary dial tone.
It is not possible to reach 06 prefixed numbers from abroad."

=====================
N e w   Z e a l a n d
=====================

0800 xxx xxx

[e-mail]:

"That is through the state telco, Telecom New Zealand. Clear Communications,
the recently started alternative LD carrier, does not offer a toll-free
service as yet."

When Clear offer one, it will more than likely be to the subscribers
existing number (eg Dial toll free 050-04-654-3210) as they are not
in control of number issue. 0800 is strictly Telecom at this stage."

=========================
N o r t h   A m e r i c a
=========================

1 800 nxx xxxx    Access to toll free numbers can vary according
                  to region, state or country ie. not all 800
                  numbers are accessible to all regions

                  The nxx prefix portion of the 800 number presently
                  determines which long distance carrier or 800
                  service company will handle the call (and in
                  some cases determine the geographical region)

=========
S p a i n
=========

900 xxxxxx

Michael Klein, BellSouth Telephone Operations:

"(N.B. The number for ATT direct in Spain is 900-99-00-11.
The payphones are all push-button but generate pulses.
It takes forever to get connected.)"

===========
S w e d e n
===========

020 xxxxxx        (without dialtone after '020').

=====================
S w i t z e r l a n d
=====================

04605 xxxx        (not toll-free but metered at lowest rate)
155 xx xx         ("green number")

[also a new one something like 122...]

Jim Smithson:

"Here in Switzerland there is nothing exactly equivalent to US 800 service.
I see the PTT is now encouraging the use of "green numbers" beginning with
155.
The direct marketing ads on TV often give the order number for Switzerland
as a number such as 155 XX XX.
The access number for MCI Call USA is for example 155 02 22.
But there are two problems with this that I don't think MCI was aware of
when they asked the PTT for "a toll free" number.

1.      When calling from a model AZ44(older model) payphone
        All numbers which begin with a "1" are treated as "service"
        numbers and the payphone begins to sound a "cuckoo clock
        noise" once the 155 is entered. The "cuckoo clock noise"
        is to alert operators on the "service numbers" that the caller
        is using a payphone(fraud protection). This noise is quite a
        distraction when calling someone in the USA using MCI Call USA.
        This is one reason(not the biggest one) I cancelled my MCI Card.

2.      The newer style TelcaStar phones are programmed to block the
        keypad after 3 digits are dialed of a "service number".
        It used to be that the only numbers beginning with "1" were
        "service numbers" and all "service numbers" were 3 digits.
        The PTT is aware of this problem and are said to be considering
        what instructions to give the manufacturer of the payphones.

AT&T USA Direct has an access number of 046 05 00 11
This is not a free call, but the time is metered at the lowest rate.
This number does not suffer the "cuckoo clock noise" problem."

(Canada Direct uses 046 05 83 30 - djcl)

===========================
U n i t e d   K i n g d o m
===========================

0800 xxx xxx      Toll-free
0345 xxx xxx      Local rate



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                       Tolled/Specialty Pay services
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=================
A u s t r a l i a
=================

0055 x yxxx       where y=0-4,8 means the number is Australia
                                wide (and costs more),
                        y=5     means the number is only state wide,
                        y=6,7,9 means the number is for the
                                capital city only.

=============
F i n l a n d
=============

9700 xxxxx        PTT-operated
0700 xxxxx        Private telco-operated

haa:

"cost ranging from about 0.5 USD to 5 USD per minute."

===========
F r a n c e
===========

36 65 xx xx       (5 message units each call for up to 140 seconds)

Olivier Giffard:

"These are for various information services as
well as chat lines and so on."

=====================
N e t h e r l a n d s
=====================

06-9 xx...
06-321 xx...
06-8 xx...        (3 to 40ct/min)

Peter Knoppers:

"Other codes (such as 06-9) precede special tariff calls (similar to 900 in
the US). The highest special rate is (currently) DFL 0.50 / minute."

=========================
N o r t h   A m e r i c a
=========================

1 900 nxx xxxx    (various rates, depending on provider)
1 (npa) 976 xxxx  (in many area codes, connected through regional telco;
                   in some areas, the call requires the area code where
                   depending on the intra-area dialing used)

(other exchange prefixes within area codes such as 540, 720 or 915
are used for other pay services such as group chat, other types of
recorded messages, etc. These vary depending on the area code within
North America, and not all regions in North America have these.)

===========
S w e d e n
===========

071 x xxxxx

Dan Sahlin:

"The "900"-numbers in Sweden all start with 071.
The charges are related to the next digit, as follows.

code       SEK/minute
0712xxxxx     3,65
0713xxxxx     4,90
0714xxxxx     6,90
0715xxxxx     9,90
0716xxxxx    12,50
0717xxxxx    15,30
0719xx       varying fees, cannot be dialled directly but needs operator

Numbers starting with 0713-0717 can only be dialled from phones connected
to AXE exchanges. At present about half of all phones in Sweden are
connected to such exchanges.

Another special toll number is domestic number information: 07975
(6,90 SEK/minute)."

===========================
U n i t e d   K i n g d o m
===========================

0836 xxx xxx
0898 xxx xxx

J. Philip Miller:

"Rate seems to be uniform as 34p per minute cheap rate,
45p at all other times."


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                              Contributors
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Thanks go to the following who read TELECOM Digest and have
contributed to the preceding information:

* Charlie  (cavebbs.gen.nz!clear)
* Mickey Ferguson  (SCRVM2.vnet.ibm.com!FERGUSOM)
* Olivier Giffard  ([e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail])
* haa  (zen.cs.hut.fi!haa)
* Kauto Huopio OH5LFM  ([e-mail])
* Brendan Jones  ([e-mail])
* Michael Klein  (gatech.edu!blsouth!klein)
* Peter Knoppers  (duteca.et.tudelft.nl!knop)
* Robert Lindh  (ericom.ericsson.se!uucp!eos.ericsson.se!Robert.Lindh)
* J. Philip Miller ([e-mail])
* Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen  (attbl!hvlpa!rmoonen)
* Colum Mylod at ORACLE Europe  (nl.oracle.com!cmylod)
* Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell  ([e-mail])
* Dan Sahlin  ([e-mail])
* Allan G. Schrum  (gatech.edu!rdream!ags)
* Jim Smithson  ([e-mail])
* David Wilson, Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong  ([e-mail])

Any further correspondence, updates, etc. regarding this list should
be sent to [e-mail] or [e-mail].

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                             End of Listing
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02960;
          28 Jul 91 15:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02915;
          28 Jul 91 13:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id af06980;
          28 Jul 91 12:38 CDT
Date:     Sun, 28 Jul 91 12:20:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #578
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Jul 91 12:20:02 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 578

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [David Lesher]
    Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Mike Riddle]
    Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Mike Riddle]
    Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [John Higdon]
    Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Denis Guyon]
    Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves [Denis Guyon]
    Re: Toll Saver Feature [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone?
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 8:32:11 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


{what uses the ABCD? Autovon..}

> As I recall, the Autovon keys aren't actually labeled ABCD, or at
> least that's what I remember when I saw an Autovon phone on my last
> trip through the Smithsonian.

For Autovon, the telco equivalent of /dev/null, a black hole, or money
paid into a Teamster's pension fund, the buttons were:

    P  _riority
    I  _mmediate
    F  _lash
    FO _lash-_verride

with the last one being used only in the event of war, the rule book
said. Each one knocked off lower priority calls to complete yours.

Now, HEARING, once you got the circuit -- that's a different
problem ...


[e-mail]                          (305) 255-RTFM

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

From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone?
Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1991 14:25:16 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gabe M
Wiener) writes:

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

>> Most TT chips 'know' about 1633, and lots of applications make use of
>> it.

> What applications make use of the ABCD keys?

The last time this thread made its way through the net, someone talked
about ham radio repeaters using them for control purposes.  Someone
else alluded to their use by Mother for system control, although
absolutely no detail was given.

The Autovon (now called something else and restructured) had different
labels on the keys: FO, F, I, and P.

Autovon was a multiple-level precedence system.  Part of the class
marks at the switch were which levels a particular line was authorized
to use.  Most people, and all indial from base PBXs, generally, were
restricted to "R"outine precedence, which was the default and
therefore had no associated key.  The others, in ascending importance,
were Priority, Immediate, Flash, and Flash Override.  There was a
structured decision matrix, routinely ignored by those who had the
ability, to decide which level was appropriate.

 From Priority through Flash, the system would look for an open path
to the other end, and if one didn't exist it would preempt someone
else, starting with the lowest precedence in use.  Flash Override was
ruthless.  The switch took the most direct route, preempting any lower
precedence in its path.  Open lines via alternate routing weren't
considered.

War Story: the general was on the phone and got cut off.  He handed
the receiver to his communication contoller (me) and said "find out
who cut me off."  So I did what he could have, i.e., hung up and
waited.  Ring. Ring.  Answer.  "This is the Command Center with a
Missile Display Conference."  Told general, who very sheepishly left
me alone the rest of the night.


Mike Riddle, Capt (USAF, Ret), and ex-CCO on the Looking Glass

            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]                  |  Nebraska Inns of Court
ivgate!inns![e-mail]  |  [phone]
Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet            |  3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 21:41:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext
From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>


In comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Moderator writes:

[ much deleted ]

> Although Judge Greene had originally ruled against the BOC's, he was
> directed by the Appeals Court to reverse himself and permit the
> telephone companies to enter this new area.

[ more deleted ]

> We'll never see the Bell System again ... but maybe some of the damage
> of the past few years can be undone if the good news this week is any
> indicator of things to come.

A couple of years (or more) ago, AT&T had a "write us what you think"
about similar questions.  Well, I did.  I essentially said what you
did: Judge Greene made bad law and worse telephone policy and that the
ideal solution was to put Humpty-Dumpty together again.

Within limits, and with proper supervision, the concept of "natural
monopoly" still rings true.  Unfortunately, too many regulators forget
what their job is supposed to be.

You'll get many flames, I imagine, so I wanted to let you know someone
agrees with you.

(And by the way, I'm a local regulator for cable-TV, not that we have
much to do these days.  It comes from being on the city council.  :-)


Mike
            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]                  |  Nebraska Inns of Court
ivgate!inns![e-mail]  |  [phone]
Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet            |  3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 01:07 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext


TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]> writes:

> The big (and good!) telecom news this past week was that the Baby
> Bells are now free to begin offering audiotext services; i.e. 900 and
> 976 style programs. A spokesperson for Illinois Bell said the company
> will begin offerings of this sort as soon as technical changes have
> been made which will permit them to do so and when some last minute
> marketing studies have been completed which they hope will indicate
> the best direction to take in this new endeavor.

That this is good news is in the ear of the hearer. As it now stands,
independent providers have offered audiotext services, subject to
restriction upon restriction, mainly imposed by the very telcos that
are now rejoicing in the decision that allows them to compete in this
arena.

Pac*Bell for one capriciously disconnects or reclassifies 976 and 900
providers who "violate" various non-specific company standards.
Frequently PB will back down when pressed for details and
specifications (because there are usually none), but now with
competition at stake, the company will be much more aggressive at
disconnecting its competitiors. And given Pac*Bell's track record in
such matters, I wonder how many of the current audiotext providers are
now going to suffer financially detrimental outages of "unknown"
origin that will drive them out of business. I ask you, would you
really want your competitor to also be your supplier?

> Here's hoping that between their efforts in Appeals
> Court and the federal legislature they succeed in repairing much of
> what at one time was the world's greatest phone network.

It still is. Why is it inferior? COCOTs do not count, as they have
nothing to do with the network. Since divestiture I have noticed
improvements in telephone service that have come to pass at a rate
that far surpasses progress realized in "The Bell System".

Long distance is faster, better, and cheaper than at any time that Ma
Bell was in charge. Yes, you can get screwed at hotels and other
places, but again this has nothing to do with divestiture -- it has to
do with poor regulatory control, and even more importantly, consumer
ignorance. In fact, virtually every item you can name as a liability
of divestiture is probably related more to public attitude and
disinterest than to anything else. At least now if you are getting
screwed you can go somewhere else. Before divestiture you took what
you got. Now the only place you CANNOT go somewhere else is with the
product provided by the RBOCs: local exchange service.

But even local service has improved. Pac*Bell, for one, is MUCH more
responsive in its repair department, is MUCH more responsive it its
marketing department, and provides overall MUCH more satisfactory
service than it did as Pacific Telephone.

> We'll never see the Bell System again ... but maybe some of the damage
> of the past few years can be undone if the good news this week is any
> indicator of things to come.

Thank heaven we will never see the Bell System again. I remember that
even admitting in public that you knew what 'originating register',
MF, 'frames', or even 'cable pairs' meant was risking trouble. While
today, I routinely discuss CO equipment with Pac*Bell personel, in the
Bell System days, NO one was to know anything about that sort of
thing. And why should they? Mother just took care of us, providing all
that was needed for telephone service. Is this what you want to see us
return to?

Pac*Bell and the RBOCs are just drueling at the possibility of being
able to control it all once again. And how many times must it be said:
when you control the network, you have a completely unfair advantage
over all the other players? And when they are gone, what is to stop
you from playing the game anyway you like (such as in the old days)?

And PLEASE (said in a Roger Rabbit style) do not fall for that tired
old line of how great and wonderful these services will be if the RBOC
wizards are allowed to shower their super-advanced technology on the
people. Where was all this power and technology when it was the Bell
System? While independent companies were trying (under the Carterphone
decision) to sell the public electronic PBXes, Pacific Telephone was
still offering cord boards (and very mechanical PBXes). If it were not
for divesture, this message upon completion, could very likely be sent
out at the breathtaking speed of 300 bps.

Remember, the only technical advantages that the RBOCs enjoy over
ordinary mortals arise out of the fact that they own the network. They
buy their technology from the same suppliers as the rest of us
(Western Electric is no longer a factor), and I think that the
Moderator or anyone else would be hard pressed to cite a single
significant technical advancement in the last ten years to come from
an RBOC, rather then from the industry at large.

If RBOCs want to run local monopolies, they should not be allowed to
branch out in all of these other directions. They should not provide
long distance, terminal equipment, information services (as
originators), voice mail and answering services, or any other content
or content processing aspects of communications--except on one
condition. That condition is that the local monopolies be opened up to
all competitiors. If, as a hypothetical information provider, I am
forced to compete with my exchange service provider and carrier, I
believe I should have the option to go elsewhere for that service if
it becomes necessary.

As long as the RBOCs can keep everyone off their LEC turf, they should
not be allow to run roughshod over everyone else's.


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

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

From: Denis Guyon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 21:18:56 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: IBT has since modified the hours the phones will
> operate coinless to be 7:30 PM to 4:00 AM I believe.   PAT]

Even so, this still constitutes a form of discrimination against the
less economically fortunate of our society, who not only are forced to
live in the affected areas, but also are forced to take off shift jobs
that result in them coming home at all hours of the day or night.

Class-action law suit time.

 ++number_of_ways_stupid_drug_war_has_screwed_law_abiding_citizens;


Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- [e-mail]

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

From: Denis Guyon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 20:55:49 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Leibold) writes:

> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

>> 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.

> As for 800, a talk show in Canada some years back said they didn't go
> to an 800 number because they claimed that the phone company would get
> overloaded with calls, and that more meaningful results happened if
> people had a financial stake in what they were about to say over the
> air.

If it is that important to say or ask, pay for the call.  I bet the
proportion of crank calls goes way up when 800 is used.

Of course the locals get free or very low cost calls.  It might be
nice if they could make ALL calls get billed the same no matter where
they came from (maybe using 900 service?), though I don't know this is
a particular problem.

> Rogers Cable in Toronto had a practice of taking phone numbers of
> callers to their talk shows. Just before a caller was to go on air,
> Rogers would phone the caller back, and they would be on air shortly
> thereafter.

That was nice.  Try giving them a number in Hawaii and see if they
call back.  Being as it was local I bet they figured it was low enough
cost to do that.

It would certainly serve to cut down on the crank calls, because they
know what number you are at.  But it won't help for anonimity
regarding controversial topics.


Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 01:22 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Toll Saver Feature


On Jul 27 at 18:00, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> I think eventually in the next few years it (and Larry King's gimmick of
> letting it ring until he is ready to talk) will cause the telcos to
> tariff a 'call attempt' surcharge pf a penny or two for each minute or
> fraction thereof of unanswered ringing which will be waived on calls
> answered within, say, one minute.  PAT]

I, for one, am damned sick and tired of being nickeled and dimed to
death for every single move I make. How about a "dial tone charge" for
the fact that you utilized some switch service for simply taking your
phone off the hook? How about a "busy signal charge"; after all,
information was conveyed about the status of the line and certainly
facilities were utilized. Or how about a "mis-dialed charge", an
"abandoned call charge", a per-use "call waiting charge", a per-phone
"ringing current charge" for wear and tear on ring current generators,
a "bandwidth utilization charge" based on your voice requirements, or,
as some have even suggested before, a "data rate charge" based on the
type of modem you use.

Call attempt charges have one interesting side effect. They are an
incentive for the telco to NOT improve its successful call completion
statisitics. The telco would be paid twice: once for the unsuccessful
call and again for the completed one. I think you will find in any
situation where call attempts are billed, successful call completion
is the pits. Example: PacTel Cellular in Los Angeles. Three attempts
is typical to complete a call. And you get billed for each and every
one.

Bad idea, Pat.


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


[Moderator's Note: You may recall a number (maybe thirty?) years ago,
GTE operating companies had a 'report charge' of 75 cents on
international person-to-person calls which did not go through if you
wished to find out from the operator WHY it did not go through and
WHEN you would be able to reach your party (should the other end have
provided that information to your operator).   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #578
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab05681;
          28 Jul 91 16:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11576;
          28 Jul 91 14:53 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02915;
          28 Jul 91 13:46 CDT
Date:     Sun, 28 Jul 91 13:19:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #579
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Jul 91 13:19:01 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 579

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? [Denis Guyon]
    Re: Sprint Puts it in Writing [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: No Handshake Modem [John Higdon]
    New CRTC Report: Summary of Their "Viewer Mail" [David Leibold]
    Interesting Bronx Findings [David Leibold]
    Area Code 510 and Splits in General [Steve Forrette]
    Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Aaron Anderer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Denis Guyon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 21:24:01 GMT


[e-mail] (Not Leon D Zetekoff) writes:

> If Cell One doesn't want to talk (it may depend on who you're getting;
> is there a way you can talk yourself through to their engineering
> department?)

Try this tack to get to engineering: claim you are a salesman for a
company that sells transmitter spectrum analyzers or interfere
rejection systems or something.  This should at least get you out of
the customer service office.

I've applied this technique on cable TV companies and it works.


Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 02:48:04 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Puts it in Writing


Jiro Nakamura writes in issue 576:

>    I recently decided to cancel my AT&T card after having had the
> Universal card for half a year now, so I phone AT&T and told them I
> wanted to cancel my card. They took my number, then the operator says
> in amazement "your card's already been cancelled", I said "Huh? I never
> cancelled it" and she said "Yup, it was cancelled November 1990, we
> last sent you a bill in Sept 1990 which came back address incomplete."

I've had two FON cards for several years now. (One for business calls
and one for personel calls.) I got the FON card because AT&T wouldn't
let me get a phone card without a phone number. (I didn't want it
associated with my apartment phone number since I move out in the
summer.)  The FON cards were billed to the same account and the bill
was mailed to my "business" PO Box in Alex City.  I was very pleased
with their service, and so one fall designated them as my 1+ carrier
when I moved back into my apartment. I gave my school (Auburn, AL)
address, and phone number, so there was no reason to connect me with
my FON cards.  After this I got no more bills from U S Sprint.

A month or two later I called Sprint,and asked them what was going on.
The operator informed me my both accounts were still separate but both
bills were being sent to Auburn, Hawaii.  She could understand my
Auburn bill being sent there but couldn't explain how that affected my
other account.  Anyway she corrected the mistake and the new bill came
in, minus any late fee, in a few days.  I was very pleased with the
customer service personel, and how quickly they fixed the problem.  I
was never put on hold, as one reader complained.

I should note I didn't push the issue with AT&T, they stated they
had to bill to a phone number so I thanked them and called Sprint.

BTW A few years ago I was running some fiber in MCI duct work.  MCI
had a splicer on hand in case we cut their fiber that was already in
the duct.  One afternoon I needed to make a call to arrange for some
additional equipment, and so I started looking for a phone.  The fiber
splicer said I was welcome to use his cell phone.  When I pulled out
my FON card I got some really funny looks.  I ended up having to
getting an MCI card also.


Pat Turner           KB4GRZ            [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 02:20:16 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


hpubvwa![e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

> Ringback tone is not synched with ringing voltage in modern digital
> offices.  The 5ESS that serves my home is the same way.  The ringback
> tone is completely separate from the ringing voltage.  When the called
> number is determined to be non-busy, the caller is connected to
> ringback tone, and that tone source may be at the silent interval.
> Ringing voltage is put on the line immediately, which is why on
> digital offices like the GTD5 and 5ESS you can startle callers about
> half the time by answering the phone during the first ring.  They will
> swear that the phone never rang.

This feature used to annoy several of my friends in Anchorage.  My
answering machine would answer on the second ring if there were
pending messages.  Nine times out of ten though, the CO would hand off
ringing voltage before the calling party would hear ringback.  Thus my
machine would appear to answer on the first ring.

One person, who almost always called from a pay phone, was especially
distressed at losing quarter after quarter when I wasn't home (or
screening my calls).

I haven't noticed a similar situation here in Minneapolis, but then,
I'm not using my own answering machine anymore, and it's hard to
predict just when my roommate's Taiwan WonderPhone will answer.


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


[Moderator's Note: Generally if you hang up *instantly* when you hear
the line being answered -- within a second or so -- you will still get
your money back. But wait two or three seconds, then it is lost.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 01:55 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: No Handshake Modem


On Jul 27 at 19:14, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Whole Earth is the WELL, is it not? Have you
> discussed this with folks there? Is it possible this one unit is
> defective? They are generally good about making things right for
> customers with problems, or so I have been told.   PAT]

I do not believe that the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link in Sausalito is
affiliated in any way with the Whole Earth Access department store
chain in the Bay Area. Whole Earth Access sells computers, cameras,
tools, and other household goods.

You have to understand that 'Whole Earth' is a chic name to use in
this neck of the woods -- very politically correct.


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


[Moderator's Note: Well, a few years ago I received a very nice large
book from the Quality Paperback Book Club entitled 'Whole Earth'
(something?) and I think it was a catalog from that chain of stores
you mentioned ... but there was a discussion in it of the 'Whole Earth
Lectronic Link' ... and for whatever reason in my own mind I put the
two entities together as one. I do not have the book any longer to go
back and review what I read. This is going to drive me crazy all
afternoon looking for that book! Who did I give it to?  Grrrr...  PAT]

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

Subject: New CRTC Report: Summary of Their "Viewer Mail"
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 01:43:35 EDT
Organization: Brave New World, Delray Beach, FL, USA


The CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission)
has released a new report entitled "Te^te a` Te^te", a report on
Comments, Inquiries and Complaints made to the CRTC in the areas of
Broadcasting and Telecommunications. This is something of a spinoff
from a section of their last year's annual report.

Included are appendices giving a summary of how to file a complaint
with the CRTC whether in broadcasting or telecommunications.

For copies of the report, contact CRTC Information Services, Ottawa,
Canada, K1A 0N2 or call a CRTC office such as [phone] or (416)
973.CRTC.

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

Subject: Interesting Bronx Findings
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 01:49:54 EDT
Organization: Brave New World, Delray Beach, FL, USA


Some time ago, the situation of Bronx changing from 212 area code to
718 was mentioned (while the 917 area would be used for cellular and
pager numbers). Interestingly enough, I took a list of prefixes in 212
and 718, and checked out what would happen if the 212 Bronx numbers
were to join 718. It seems that there would only be two conflicts in
prefixes, namely 740 and 999 (there are some common prefixes such as
555 and 976 which don't count). As this was data collected from late
last year, there may be a few more conflicting prefixes, or New York
Telephone decided to keep Bronx prefixes from conflicting with 718 in
case they had to move Bronx onto 718.

There seem to be only 77 prefixes serving Bronx in any case, again
from information compiled late last year; perhaps enough for 718 to
easily absorb if the proposed 212/718/917 split is done as was
suggested.


replies: [e-mail]
also:::: [e-mail]  seems to work now (!)

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 02:05:10 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code 510 and Splits in General


I just did some experiments in trying to call area code 510 (to be
split from 415 in a couple of months).  I found that Pacific Bell
(calling from 916/983) didn't recognize this, and intercepted call
attempts before handing off to the IXC.  The Sprint FONcard system
accepted 510, and put the call through to the (now-in-415) number.
MCI VisaPhone rejected it, and the AT&T operator wouldn't even try the
number, since she "knew" that a number of the format X10 just couldn't
be an area code.  (I can't try the AT&T calling card computer, as
Pacific Bell rejects it at my local switch).

Here's a general question about area code splits in general: What
happens to LEC calling cards that are based on your phone number?
Will there be a specific time when the calling card number changes
from 415 to 510, or will both versions of the card work during the
grace period?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: In the case of the 312/708 split a few years ago,
people in 708 got new cards issued to them in phases during the grace
period. Generally they got one card each from AT&T and IBT. They were
able to start using them when they got them, and following the grace
period only the 708 version of the card would work.   PAT]

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

From: Aaron Anderer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
Organization: Spies in the wire, [phone]
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1991 21:22:32 -0700


[Moderator's Admonition: **BEFORE YOU READ ANY FURTHER** : I have not
tried this (yet, but I may some day soon when I have some time.) I do
not vouch for the instructions given, and although I want to hear of
your successes (and particularly your failures before I start the
project!), I do not want anyone saying TELECOM Digest or the Moderator
said this scheme would work. Like caveat emptor, but this time it is
'let the hardware hobbyist beware'. Now with that in mind, let's get
out our old junked up modems we don't mind sacrificing; and get over
to the local electronics outlet before they close for the day. Good
luck and please *do* report your results!   PAT]

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

I recently saw this on a BBS and though it was interesting. Do you
think it would work?

*************************************************************************
            How to upgrade your 2400 baud modem to 9600 baud.
                 (US Robotics compatible of course)

                                06/7/91


Be sure to turn off your modem before you begin.

First of all, you need to go to your nearby electronics store, don't
try to go to Radio Shack, their parts have their own model numbers and
you'll have a hell of a time getting the parts you need.  This
upgrading of your modem will not work on old Hayes modems, but they
will work on any clone maker of modems (Everex, Practical Peripherals,
Anchor, ATI, Intel, etc.)  It will only work with modems with the
Intel chipset.

This technique widens the band width by using a different chip that is
similiar to the chip already in your modem.

Parts Needed:
16550 UART
L4313545  IC
SC11020CN IC
L8730183  IC

First of all, check to see if your biggest chips are soldered or
socketed.  if they are soldered, you'll have to de-solder the chips
before you begin.  After you get that done, replace the 8250 UART with
the 16550 UART. (16550 UARTs are required for 9600+ speeds).  The
other one or two chip(s) are needed to replaced with INTEL L4313545
instead of the chip that is already there.  If your modem has another
socket or more, than you are in luck, you can purchase a chip from US
Robotics, and make your modem faster than 9600.  If you don't have the
socket, than you can only go 9600.

I'll get the chip number to you in the next edition and explain how
and where to install it.  I am working on a way for the people (like
me) that do not have the extra socket in their modem to speed up the
rates.  I am working on a way to piggy back the chip.  I'll get back
to you.  There should be a 22 pin chip on your modem also with a model
number of SC11005CN or some where close to it.  Replace it with the
SC11020CN.  Also, replace the L8630173 with the L8730183 chip.  If you
have any suggestions or questions, you can locate me through
Compuserve USER ID 74702,97524.

             *****OPTIONAL, LAP-M Error correction*****

Adding error correction is rather simple.  For this these parts are
necessary:

Potentiometer. This is a 5k audio taper variable resistor.

Capacitor. Any non-polarized 1.0 to 1.5 uf cap should do.

100 ohm resistor - quarter or half watt.

Wire

Solder, soldering iron, etc.

Solder one end of the capacitor to PIN 1 of the phone line input jack

     |-------------------|
     |                   \ line in         ::
     |                   \ phone in        ::
     |-----------|||||||||            pin 1^



If your modem is external, the diagram looks like this.


     |------------------|
     |                 /|
     |                 ||RS-232 port
     |                 \|                  ::
     |                |-|line in           ::
     |                |-|             pin 1^
     |                |-|phone in
     |                |-|
     |------------------|

This should be on the back of the modem.  Pin one should the farthest
on the bottom left.

Solder the other end of the capacitor to the center lug of the
potentiometer (there are three lugs on this critter). Solder one end
of the resistor to the PIN 4 of the line input jack. Solder the other
end of the resistor to either one of the remaining outside lugs of the
potentiometer. Doesn't matter which one.

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

ADDITION TO ORIGNAL FILE - 6/15/91

First, a personal recomendation. _THIS WORKS!!!_ I have been plagued
with 2400 baud for some time. I hate waiting for the transfer to
finish so that i can use the phone.  Threw the gismo together in about
10 or 15 minutes, took another five to adjust the pot for best results
on my worst conection, and guess what? No more slow connections!

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

Have Fun!

I am working on cheap ways to install V.32/V.42bis on your modified modem


*************************Updated, 6/16/91********************************

Installing V.42bis:

1) You will need to purchase a 27C512 ROM chip.
2) You will need to purchase a Sony CXK58257P-12L (or equivalent) Ram chip.
3) Install the Rom in the Supervisor (SUP) socket.
4) Install the Ram in the Ram socket.
5) Make up two 3 pin jumpers for P9 and P10 with pins 1 and 2 jumpered
on one and pins 2 and 3 jumpered on the other.  Connect the vacant pin 1
on the one to the vacant pin 3 on the other with a jumper wire.
6) Remove the jumpers on P9 and P10.
7) Install the jumper with pins 1 and 2 connected together on P9.
8) Connect the jumper with pins 2 and 3 connected together on P10.


Aaron Anderer
[e-mail] (Aaron Anderer)


[Moderator's Parting Shot: Well, if this works, I'll accept happy
notes from any of you who try it, and I imagine Mr. Anderer will also
want to hear from you. If it fails and you ruin a perfectly good modem
or otherwise blow out your computer/terminal in the process, remember
my original warning. Novices: try it with old junk stuff first that
you don't mind losing.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #579
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02110;
          29 Jul 91 2:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28351;
          29 Jul 91 1:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14043;
          28 Jul 91 23:55 CDT
Date:     Sun, 28 Jul 91 23:47:36 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #580
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Jul 91 23:47:29 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 580

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Dave Mc Mahan]
    Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Stuart L. Labovitz]
    Re: 900 MHz Cordless Phones? [David Lemson]
    Re: 900 MHz Cordless Phones [Tad Cook]
    Re: Sprint Price Change [Stan Young]
    Re: No Handshake Modem [Stan Young]
    Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: Freedom!  AT&T Reports the Good News [Al Donaldson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Mc Mahan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 23:30:03 GMT
Organization: Dave McMahan @ NetCom Services


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Aaron Anderer)
writes: >

> [Moderator's Admonition: **BEFORE YOU READ ANY FURTHER** : I have
> not tried this (yet, but I may some day soon when I have some time.)

Sounds too good to be true, so it probably is.

> I recently saw this on a BBS and though it was interesting. Do you
> think it would work?

I think if you knew exactly what you were doing and what to look for,
it might just work.  For the rest of us mere mortals, it looks like a
good way to trash a modem.


> ADDITION TO ORIGNAL FILE - 6/15/91

> First, a personal recomendation. _THIS WORKS!!!_ I have been plagued
> with 2400 baud for some time.

Can we get some names and addresses on these personal observations?
Not to be totally skeptical, but this looks like those dumb bulk mail
chain letters that try to sell me soap.  They have all sorts of
glowing testimonials from "Ken - River City, IA" or "Mr. & Mrs. D.L.
Smith - New York City".  Can you imagine trying to ever locate these
folks if they ever did exist in the first place?  Can we get a name,
address, and phone number of the guy that originally wrote this?

> Installing V.42bis:

> 1) You will need to purchase a 27C512 ROM chip.

Great!!!  Got any idea what we should burn into the old ROM set, or
will just any old random bit combination work?  Please don't tell me
that this newsgroup is advocating the copying of an existing modem ROM
chip, this scabbing software and breaking all kinds of federal, state,
local, and moral laws?  Can we get an address for where to buy this
chip from or a commented source code listing that we can assemble?
(We need comments and source because we are trying to ensure we do a
legal job here and not just download some pirated modem ROM code.)

[  Bunches of jumper modifications deleted here  ]

This probably does work if you have the exact modem that the original
guy used (whoever he is) and the same revision of PC board.  Don't you
think they might have a few versions of this PC board floating around,
and some may not work?

> [Moderator's Parting Shot: Well, if this works, I'll accept happy
> notes from any of you who try it, and I imagine Mr. Anderer will also
> want to hear from you. If it fails and you ruin a perfectly good modem
> or otherwise blow out your computer/terminal in the process, remember
> my original warning. Novices: try it with old junk stuff first that
> you don't mind losing.   PAT]

This sounds like excellent advice, PAT.  Thanks for at least adding
your own caveats to the posting.


Dave McMahan   [e-mail]   {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!mcmahan


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

Subject: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
From: Stuart L Labovitz <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 19:12:05 EDT


[e-mail] (Aaron Anderer) writes:

> I recently saw this on a BBS and though it was interesting. Do you
> think it would work?

>             How to upgrade your 2400 baud modem to 9600 baud.
>                  (US Robotics compatible of course)
>                                 06/7/91
> Be sure to turn off your modem before you begin.

[...]

> [Moderator's Parting Shot: Well, if this works, I'll accept happy
> notes from any of you who try it, and I imagine Mr. Anderer will also
> want to hear from you. If it fails and you ruin a perfectly good modem
> or otherwise blow out your computer/terminal in the process, remember
> my original warning. Novices: try it with old junk stuff first that
> you don't mind losing.   PAT]

Well, Pat, since you asked, here is a message from Toby Nixon (of
Hayes) concerning this procedure (excerpted from a recent comp.dcom.
modems posting) ...

 ] From: [e-mail]
 ] Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
 ] Subject: Re: yellow/black in phone line needed for LAP-M?
 ] Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 ] Date: 24 Jul 91 10:35:08 GMT
 ] References: <[e-mail]>
 ] Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

 ] In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Craig
 Lemon) writes:

 ] >         I have a question to present to the experts here from the Amiga
 ] > world (not the magazine silly :-).  There has been a "hack" posted to an
 ] > FTP site that supposedly describes "How to hack your 2400 to a USR
 ] > compatible 9600".  This file is simply a description of adding LAP-M to
 ] > your existing V.22bis modem.  As I understand it there are some crucial
 ] > portions missing (like what to program the microcontroller with!).

 ] That file is bogus.  Ignore it.  All it describes is a perfect good
 ] way to destroy your modem and have to buy a new one.  Even the
 ] "authors" "Compuserve" address is bogus -- Compuserve addresses are
 ] octal, and the "address" given contains digits higher than 7.

 ] 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]

Well, draw your own conclusions, but I tend to trust Toby Nixon....


Stuart L Labovitz         home:  [e-mail]
  (insert standard               or   dayvb!valinor!stu
   disclaimer here)       [ formerly: [e-mail] ]
                 work:   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Toby's comment about Compuserve addresses was a
GOOD observation I missed.  I'll take his word on it also. As our
other correspondent in this issue mentioned, if everything worked out
just right, it *might* be possible to get to 9600 baud. I am not at
all sure I would risk it. Does anyone remember the hack many years ago
which converted the Hayes Micromodem II so it would run 450 baud or
300 baud? A simple jumper change was all that was needed, although you
lost 110 baud in the process, but who cared about that.   PAT]

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 MHz Cordless Phones?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1991 19:15:31 GMT


[e-mail] (James J Dempsey) writes:

> I remember reading about some new cordless phone in Popular Science a
> few months ago which claimed to have better audio quality, better
> security and better range as a result of using a newly-FCC approved
> frequency of around 900MHz instead of the 49MHz cordless phones

You probably read about the developments in Spread Spectrum digital
transmission and the spread spectrum range that is in the 900 MHz band
in between current cellular freqs.  This is a digital transmission
scheme that has great security (it's not a coincidence that it was
developed by the US military years ago), but relatively high cost.

Several companies have been producing radio modems utilizing this
technology, including the LAWN, which basically is a fairly short
range 9600 bps modem.  You can attach it to your serial port, attach
another to a printer, and have a wireless LAN.  The problem with
making phones that use this is that it's still fairly costly for the
circuitry that digitizes, processes, etc. as well as having range that
people are used to with cordless phones.  (You need higher power at
that high frequency) For more information on spread spectrum, check
out books such as Korkosz' Spread Spectrum Communications.

Expect to see it in the next few years, though, as batteries get
lighter and the technology is improved.


David Lemson   University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant
Internet : [e-mail]         UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson
NeXTMail : [e-mail]      BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD

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

Subject: Re: 900 MHz Cordless Phones
From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa![e-mail]>
Date: 28 Jul 91 21:52:28 GMT


James J Dempsey <[e-mail]> writes:

> I remember reading about some new cordless phone in Popular Science a
> few months ago which claimed to have better audio quality, better
> security and better range as a result of using a newly-FCC approved
> frequency of around 900MHz instead of the 49MHz cordless phones
> currently use.  However, I haven't seen anything like this in the
> stores.

> Does anyone know what the story is on this new frequency and when
> (if?) we will see phones that use it on store shelves?

I'm pretty sure I saw a new cordless headset type phone in a recent
issue of the Hello Direct catalog that was supposed to operate around
the 33 cm band.  It showed an executive sitting in his fancy office
with this large headphone contraption on his head.  I think the
antenna was supposed to be in the headband.  I'm not sure if this was
spread spectrum or not.

I wonder if it has a problems working around those new wireless LANs
that use the same spectrum?

You can get a Hello Direct catalog by dialing 800-HI-HELLO  (800-444-3556).
For those outside of the USA (not sure where they are legal), you can
call directory assistance.  I think they are in San Jose, CA (area
code 408).


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]
Subject: Re: Sprint Price Change
Date: Sun Jul 28 19:10:24 1991
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stan Young)
Organization: Pecan Pi, Doraville, Georgia


After reading about the Sprint changing the rates, I decided it was
time for me to check rates again.  So I took a fairly typical bill,
and called Sprint, MCI, and AT&T.  I gave each carrier the same
information (destinations, minutes per destination, number of calls to
each destination, and time of day) and asked them for the cost of the
calls under their best plan for my calling pattern.

In a matter of a minute or so, the Sprint salesperson had analyzed the
calls, and proposed a plan, and told me what the calls would cost
(with applicable discounts, etc.)  The MCI salesperson did the same.

Then I called AT&T.  Now, I should mention that I used to work for
AT&T around the time of divestiture.  It was almost like old times  :-(.

I gave the "salesperson", Ms. X, the same information as the other
carriers.  She tells me that I need the Reachout America plan.  I
asked how much calls would cost under the plan.  She told me it would
be "35% off."  (I may have the percentage wrong.)  "Off what?" I
asked.  "35% off."  "How much would the calls I made be under this
plan?"  "35% off."

This was the same sort of thing that I got the LAST time I'd called
AT&T to check rates.  So I did what anyone who's dealt with AT&T for
any length of time would do - I asked for a supervisor.  SHE REFUSED
TO PASS THE CALL ON TO THE SUPERVISOR!

So I hung up, called back, got another salesperson, asked for a
supervisor, and explained the whole problem - what I wanted, and the
behaviour of Ms. X She had to call an operator to get the rates (!),
but she was able to get the information to me quickly, with the
standard apologies about Ms. X's performance.

I've had problems with Sprint over the years, and problems with MCI,
but they've always been system problems.  Every problem I've run into
with AT&T since the breakup seems to be people problems.  <sigh> I've
NOT ONCE been able to get anything done without talking to a
supervisor.

Years after divestiture, AT&T still has a ways to go ...


Stan Young                                {emory, slammer}!pecanpi!syoung

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: No Handshake Modem
Date: Sun Jul 28 19:12:45 1991
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stan Young)
Organization: Pecan Pi, Doraville, Georgia


In article <[e-mail]> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!
rsl (Roy Stuart Levin) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 574, Message 13 of 16

> I have a friend with a modem (cheapo from Whole Earth) that dials out
> on com2, makes a ring, but can't make the final handshake and
> connection.  CIS, The Well, and my own phone at home hear the ring but
> can't make the handshake.  Any ideas?  Could it be the modem itself?
> She disconnected call forwarding and waiting.

A suggestion -- if the modem has two RJ-11 jacks, make sure that the
phone line is plugged into the one marked WALL or LINE, not the one
marked PHONE.  Failure to make this connection correctly can lead to
exactly the symptoms you describe.  (Some modems work with either
jack, but I've run into the problem a LOT over the years.)


Stan Young {emory, slammer}!pecanpi!syoung

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

From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext
Date: 28 Jul 91 23:07:16 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


> The big (and good!) telecom news this past week was that the Baby
> Bells are now free to begin offering audiotext services; i.e. 900 and
> 976 style programs. A spokesperson for Illinois Bell said the company
> will begin offerings of this sort as soon as technical changes have
> been made which will permit them to do so and when some last minute
> marketing studies have been completed which they hope will indicate
> the best direction to take in this new endeavor.

Is this ruling limited to the scummy/scammy audio services, or is it
now open season on private BBSs and modem users, who will be shut down
with business rates, modem-specific tariffs, and specially-engineered
line impairments that don't affect voice, so the RBOCs can get rid of
the free competition before they launch their own modem-based online
services?


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: In the case of Illinois Bell at least, they have
never expressed any real interest one way or the other regarding local
BBS programs here. They did get annoyed with Doctor Ripco, but that
was about all.  Anyway, BBS' are no real competition; the telco
services will be so much more involved, with many more offerings than
a BBS operator could ever provide without a huge budget.  PAT]

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

From: Al Donaldson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Freedom!  AT&T Reports the Good News
Reply-To: Al Donaldson <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton VA (USA)
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1991 15:43:42 GMT


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

> AT&T's announcement from the company's internal News Briefs describing
> their victory in Harold Greene's courtroom:

Does Judge Greene have an exclusive franchise for making judgments on
the telecom industry?  Why was he involved, again, and not one of his
peers?

Even in Class A baseball, you don't get the same umpires for every
game.


Al


[Moderator's Note: Beginning back in the late 1970's when Greene had
some personal animosity for one reason or another toward AT&T he made
it known to aquaintances in the Justice Department he also knew to be
anti-Bell that he would gladly entertain them in his courtroom.
Somehow over the years his role as self-proclaimed expert on telephony
has come to be accepted and cases involving the telcos 'just manage'
to get routed to him. I think AT&T should have handled him the same
way IBM dealt with the federal judiciary in the threat against their
organization: IBM flooded the court with so much paper to read (it
literally arrived by the truckload daily at the clerk's office) that
some law clerks may still be sorting through it for all I know.  :)
According to my former neighbor and former Chairman of AT&T Charles
Brown, they only decided to give up the fight when it became obvious
Justice and Judge Greene would have kept at it for years if necessary,
until AT&T was bankrupted in the process of defending themselves.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #580
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab06466;
          29 Jul 91 4:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31369;
          29 Jul 91 3:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad26749;
          29 Jul 91 2:05 CDT
Date:     Mon, 29 Jul 91 1:09:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #581
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Jul 91 01:09:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 581

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Toll Saver Feature [John Higdon]
    Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Marc Unangst]
    Re: New GTE Dallas Directory Fun [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas [Peter da Silva]
    Pac*Bell and ISDN [John Higdon]
    PacTel Cellular in Atlanta [Bill Berbenich]
    Need Help With Billing Record Format [Rick Farris]
    Book Review: SIGNAL - Communications Tools [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 13:38 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Toll Saver Feature


Telecom Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: You may recall a number (maybe thirty?) years ago,
> GTE operating companies had a 'report charge' of 75 cents on
> international person-to-person calls which did not go through if you
> wished to find out from the operator WHY it did not go through and
> WHEN you would be able to reach your party (should the other end have
> provided that information to your operator).   PAT]

Yes I remember that. In fact I thought something similar went on
today, even on domestic calls. Shows how much I make person=to=person
calls.  But that sort of thing is right and proper. On P-to-P, an
operator is in control of the call and can determine how and why the
call did not complete. Information about the availability of the
called party is useful data and far more that the sort of thing
obtained by a simple non-answer of the phone.

All a person learns with toll saver is that he has no messages.
Telephony tradition in this country holds that if a person has no
messages, he does not pay. If your telephone rings and you choose to
NOT communicate by NOT answering it, should you be charged as well?
Where is the distinction between that and toll saver?

Another point to consider: many OCCs still do not have hardware answer
supervision. It is possible to have an answering machine without toll
saver answer, indicate no messages, and disconnect all without being
billed, since the "supervision time out" was not exceeded. What do you
think about that?


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 21:09:41 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Southern Bell in the Atlanta area has a per-call version of three-way
calling available.  Just dial *71 or 1171 before you dial the first
phone number.  Once the first party is on the line, it's just like
always, flash the switchhook, dial the second (third) party, flash
again and you are all three connected.  I believe the charge is 75
cents per use.

I have used this occasionally.  It has been around for at least five
years in my area.  CLASS services are not permissive like this where I
am (yet?).


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

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

From: Marc Unangst <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1991 22:13:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> bbs.aaron_a@doomsday.
spies.com (Aaron Anderer) writes:

[how-to file deleted]

DON'T DO THIS!!!!  I repeat, DON'T DO THIS, except on a modem and
computer you don't mind breaking!

This article is complete and total bullshit, Pat, and I'm surprised
you posted it without even giving it a cursory once-over.  That's all
you need to spot that it won't work -- for example, what could V.42
possibly have to do with the yellow/black wires on your phone line and
a potentiometer?

The "V.42 modification" is nothing more than a simple noise filter.
I'm not at all sure what the "V.32 modification" is, but I can tell
you that it won't give you real V.32.  All you'll do is ruin your
modem.  In addition, the "CompuServe address" that the "author" gives
is obviously bogus -- it has the wrong number of digits, and
CompuServe addresses are octal; his address has a "9" in it.  I
wouldn't trust this guy farther than I can throw him.


Marc Unangst    [e-mail]    ...!hela!mudos!mju


[Moderator's Note: Well I did give it its fifteen seconds of
consideration, like I do all messages here. How do you suppose I came
to write the disclaimer message?  I know my readers here well enough
to know that if the modification would not work, the truth would be
out in circulation within an issue or two later ... it always works
that way here.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 21:07:06 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New GTE Dallas Directory Fun
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> I was recently in Dallas, visiting my parents and attending my high
> school reunion.  While there, I chanced to glance through a bit of the
> GTE phone book which had recently been delivered.  A few noteworthy
> bits of trivia:

> ... [it lists] an] explanation of features like cancel call
> waiting (70#, or 70 <four-second pause> from rotary), with no mention
> of the fact that the feature may not be available on your phone.  (My
> parents have CW but not CCW; 70# gives fast busy.  This is from 214-466).

Cancel call waiting probably WAS available from your parents' switch.
But GTE, in their infinite wisdom, considers it a separate feature
from call waiting!  That's right, you have to pay several dollars
extra a month if you want it.  Isn't it interesting that virtually the
only people that use it are modem users?  It's kind of a disguised
modem surcharge, no?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 04:21:12 GMT


I still don't know why you can't call 800 numbers from outside the US
when you're willing to pay for the call. It seems strange that there
is no mechanism for just dialling +1 800 nnx xxxx and paying regular
international long distance rates...


Peter da Silva   Taronga Park BBS  [phone]/n/8/1   Taronga Park

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 15:28 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Pac*Bell and ISDN


An example of an LEC's beneficence in matters of technology can be
found in the current and proposed offerings of ISDN in Pac*Bell land.
If you had plans for using ISDN at home as an efficient conduit for
telecommuting, forget it. There is a two-line minimum. You might as
well order a second POTS. The D channel is not available. Usage
pricing (for customer data) is such that you really are money and time
ahead to simply use a second analog line.

So why is Pac*Bell even bothering to offer ISDN? Simply so that it can
have another bauble to offer with Centrex. It is targeted to the small
and medium sized business (the two line minimum) that wants to have
feature phones with Centrex. Five-line electronic phones sporting
Centrex extensions are a snap.

Since Centrex service is the only area that Pac*Bell sees any use for
ISDN (at least as far as its own interests are concerned), its tariffs
are set up accordingly. Other vendors, suppliers, service providers,
or VARs that could make use of ISDN for customers are just out of
luck.  Pricing and availability are carefully manipulated by Pac*Bell
so that it alone benefits from the technology.

And people want to give companies such as Pac*Bell MORE freedom to
control services? No thanks.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: PacTel Cellular in Atlanta
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 20:55:42 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Well, just when I began to think that all was rosy in my dealings with
PacTel here in Atlanta, they go and start to screw up.  While I never
doubted Mr. Higdon's problems with said organization, I thought their
Atlanta cellular operation was somehow a twin son of a different
mother.  So here's the news.

I just got a mass-mailed form letter from PacTel Cellular stating that
they will no longer be offering their corporate rates (real good 'n
cheap rates, at that) to new customers.  Further investigation reveals
that even grandfathered customers will only be able to maintain the
corporate rate on their existing accounts.  The letter said that the
change would become effective July 1, 1991.  Guess when I got the
letter?  No fair peeking!  I got it on July 26.  Bah humbug!

This follows rather closely on the heels of PacTel Cellular's
announcement that effective August 1, peak hours will become 7 A.M.
(maybe 8) to 10 P.M. weekdays.  Peak hours were 7 or 8 A.M. to 7 or 8
P.M., I don't recall which.  I assume that PacTel is just matching
Bell South's peak/off-peak hours which have been in effect for over a
year now.

Also, PacTel says they have a number of new rate plans in effect.  I
haven't asked about these new plans, but I would guess that they are
more expensive since PacTel is eliminating their LEAST expensive rate
plans for new subscribers (i.e. the corporate rates).

In all fairness, PacTel Cellular has excellent coverage here in metro
Atlanta and I am a very satisfied customer.  I don't think there is a
rate plan anywhere else in the U.S. where I can get all of the custom
calling features and voicemail for $20/month and 0.32/0.22 per minute
(peak/off-peak, respectively).  Unanswered and busy calls are not
billed and neither are forwarded (busy/no-answer/or unconditional)
calls.  I have never been charged airtime locally for activating or
deactivating any feature.

I won't be dropping PacTel as a result of this, but then again I am
being grandfathered in under the old corporate rate plan described
above.


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

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

From: Rick Farris <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 17:46:41 PDT
Subject: Need Help With Billing Record Format
Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 00:46:34 GMT


After seeing an article here on comp.dcom.telecom about getting your
AT&T bill on computer disk, I called PacBell to see what services they
had available.

Lo and behold, but PacBell just started their "Custom Billing Disk"
program, where for a $100 setup fee and $15 a disk, you can have your
phone bill delivered on disk each month, with both PacBell and
long-distance carrier information.

Unfortunately, the billing disk itself is unreadable by MS-DOS (and
tar and cpio), and you have to use a program they supply to generate
reports. Their reports are better than a paper bill, but they don't
serve all my needs, so I'd like to do my own database scavenging.

The access program they provide claims that it is supplied to PacBell
by "Pereline Data Systems".  Does anyone know what the format of the
billing records are?

Here's my progress so far:

41                  Starts each record
6192596793          My phone number
\0x02               ?
01                  Record Number
01
910614              Date of call -- 6/14/91
102439              Time of call -- 10:24:39
\0x14               decimal 20 - 10ths of a minute? (2 minute call)
DD                  Dial Day
6192596793          My phone number again
BAKERSFLD C         Almost every record has this ref to Bakersfld
6192988881          Number called
SAN DIEGO CA
\0x23               decimal 35, $0.35 for call
0
ZZZZZZZZ            I don't know whether this is a marker or rubout
00000
6192596793          And finally my phone number again.

Does this ring any bells?


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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 0:53:50 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: SIGNAL - Communications Tools For Information Age


I found the book I thought I had lost! To recap to date:

A writer discussed a modem which performed badly. He said it came from
the 'Whole Earth' people. He was writing to us from the WELL.

I responded saying I thought the WELL (Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link)
was affiliated with 'Whole Earth', the maker/distributor/seller of the
modem in question ... and had he asked on line for assistance.

John Higdon replied saying 'Whole Earth' was a poliically correct term
in common use in California, and that likely there was no affiliation.
This got me to thinking, and I knew I had seen a reference to the WELL
in a catalog of some sort published by some 'Whole Earth' organization
on the west coast. But alas, my books are forever disappearing as
people borrow them and forget to return them and I forget who borrowed
them, etc ...

After a search, *it* has been located:  Ta - la !  And Higdon was
probably correct. I see no mention of modems or computer equipment
(for sale) in the catalog, but there is a lot of real interesting
stuff which makes the book worth a mention in the Digest.

Here is how the cover reads of this large (226 page, 11x14 inch paper
back) book:

                    "A Whole Earth Catalog"

     SIGNAL: Communications Tools For the Information Age

     Edited by Kevin Kelly, Forward by Stewart Brand


Copyright 1988 by the Point Foundation, and published by Harmony
Books, a division of Crown Publishers. The paperback edition was
distributed by Quality Paperback Books.

They give their address for comments and to subscribe to their other
publications as:
                    Whole Earth Review
                    27 Gate Five Road
                    Sausalito, CA  94965
                    Phone: [phone]

The book is filled with numerous commentaries about communications
tools available, and ways/places to order same. Included in the
products offered are books, magazines, software and various hardware
products including copy machines, fax machines, etc.

One section of the book discusses BBS programs, and the use of BBS' as
a way to disseminate news and editorial comment quickly. In the
section dealing with computer online resources, we find on page 73 a
full page discussion of The WELL. I quote from comments written by
John Coate, described in the caption to the picture of him included in
the article as 'on line party host and Welcome Wagon Chairman':

"I work at the WELL, Whole Earth's online computer conferencing
network. The WELL itself sits in an air-conditioned closet at the
Whole Earth office. A bunch of phone lines come into the building.
There's a modem for each phone line ..."

And his discussion continues for a few paragraphs then we read:

"WELL is the collaborative brainchild of Whole Earth's Stewart Brand
and Larry Brilliant, best known for his work with the SEVA Foundation
and head of Network Technologies (NETI).  Whole Earth and NETI each
own half of the WELL."

He concludes by noting that 'the telephone company makes more money on
the WELL than we do', and he gives advice for signing up with the
service by calling 415-332-6106 with your modem and entering 'newuser'
at the login prompt.

Overall, SIGNAL is a very unusual and very interesting catalog. I
think you would enjoy reading it. It covers all sorts of topics
relating to communications tools and provides references to numerous
other publications of interest to telecom professionals.

Your best bet for ordering it would be direct from the Whole Earth
people in Sausalito, CA at the address shown above if you cannot find
it at your local bookstore. The phone number to call for more
information about their products or to order a catalog is 415-332-1716.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #581
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17766;
          29 Jul 91 23:14 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23823;
          29 Jul 91 21:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16944;
          29 Jul 91 20:20 CDT
Date:     Mon, 29 Jul 91 19:55:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #582
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Jul 91 19:55:20 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 582

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Douglas Mason]
    Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Mike Andrews]
    Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Mike Berger]
    Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Colin Plumb]
    In the Early Days: 450 Baud [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: No Handshake Modem [Jeff Carroll]
    Racel-Milgo, INS Modem Equipment Information Needed [Steve Urich]
    Re: International 800 Calling [Frederick G. M. Roeber]
    Re: Telco Sends OCC Calls to AT&T [John R. Levine]
    Re: ATC Billing [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old One Still Works? [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 05:58:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services UNIX System


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

>> Installing V.42bis:

>> 1) You will need to purchase a 27C512 ROM chip.

> Great!!!  Got any idea what we should burn into the old ROM set, or
> will just any old random bit combination work?  Please don't tell me
> that this newsgroup is advocating the copying of an existing modem ROM
> chip, this scabbing software and breaking all kinds of federal, state,
> local, and moral laws?  Can we get an address for where to buy this
> chip from or a commented source code listing that we can assemble?
> (We need comments and source because we are trying to ensure we do a
> legal job here and not just download some pirated modem ROM code.)

About six or eight months ago I saw a file on a BBS that supposedly
was the code to US Robotics ROM set.  It said something like "Burn
your own chip and make your own v.42 modem!".  I was going to download
the file to see if it was for real, but I had told the sysop that the
file appeared to be anything but legal, and he deleted it before I
could get it.  :-)

I would venture to guess that the archive file with the ROM code in it
probably had the instructions simular to the ones we saw with it, so
it was a complete "kit" to pirate your own USRobotics modem.


Douglas Mason                                    [e-mail]
Software Development and Support                 [e-mail]
Freestone, Inc. - Redwood City, CA  94063        +1 415.368.0191

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

From: Mike Andrews <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
Organization: Chinet - Chicago public access UNIX
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 04:43:50 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> bbs.aaron_a@doomsday.
spies.com (Aaron Anderer) writes:

>            How to upgrade your 2400 baud modem to 9600 baud.
>                 (US Robotics compatible of course)


Pat!  How could you not recognize this as another BBS legend?

Let's just apply a bit of Occam's Razor: if it is so easy to change a
U.S. Robotics 2400 modem into a 9600 V.32bis one, howcum it took USR
themselves over a year of intensive R&D to bring one out?  And there
they were making do with the Rockwell chip set when they just could
have used an "Intel" chip?  (I worked as a tech support rep for USR at
the time the V.32 came out.  Take my word for it.  The 9600 modems are
completely different creatures than the 2400s.)

The "LAP-M" mod described is nothing more than a common phone line
noise filter.

This article reminds me of similar nonsense from my youth: Did you
know that you could convert a Black and White TV to Color by just
replacing the picture tube?  That you can make a 250' wireless phone
into a handheld cellular by just changing the antenna?

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

From: Mike Berger <berger@iboga>
Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 17:36:16 GMT


[e-mail] (Marc Unangst) writes:

> In addition, the "CompuServe address" that the "author" gives
> is obviously bogus -- it has the wrong number of digits, and
> CompuServe addresses are octal; his address has a "9" in it.  I
> wouldn't trust this guy farther than I can throw him.

Uhhh. the giveaway to me was that you were supposed to plug in a
blank EPROM.  Just what was that supposed to do?


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

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 12:28:16 -0400
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


Ask Toby Nixon ([e-mail]) for his opinion.  He recently said
in comp.dcom.modems that the posted instructions (I assume these are
the same ones that have been floating around BBS's lately) were a good
way to render a modem inoperational.

Of course, if it worked, I don't suppose Hayes would be terribly
pleased, but Toby is an engineering type and is unlikely to be quite
that forthright about trashing the competition.


Colin


[Moderator's Note: As a matter of fact, some comments by Toby appeared
in the Digest Sunday night responding to this scheme.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 09:41 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: In The Early Days: 450 Baud


I remember running 450 baud on a Hayes Smartmodem (the original)
without any changes.  Just send it AT at 450 baud and off you go.  The
other end has to be set up to receive it though, and it, in my case,
it was.  It was Jim Ayres BBS in Mill Valley, and the year was 1983.
450 baud seemed fast :-)


[Moderator's Note: I had a Hayes Micromodem II attached to an Apple
II-Plus on which I ran my BBS "Lakeshore Modem Magazine" (1983-85). I
had to cut a trace and add a jumper as I recall to get 450, but I then
offered it as an option to 300 for callers who also had made the mod.
The Apple II running the BBS at the library (1981-85) was also using a
Micromodem II, but I never converted that one, so it stayed at
110/300.  Those were the days! And when 1200 baud started becoming
common at a cheap price, we were in ecstasy!  PAT]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Handshake Modem
Date: 29 Jul 91 21:26:27 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


In article <[e-mail]> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!
rsl (Roy Stuart Levin) writes:

>> I have a friend with a modem (cheapo from Whole Earth) that dials out
>> on com2, makes a ring, but can't make the final handshake and
>> connection.  CIS, The Well, and my own phone at home hear the ring but
>> can't make the handshake.  Any ideas?  Could it be the modem itself?
>> She disconnected call forwarding and waiting.

    Check to make sure your El Cheapo is supposed to be Bell 212
compatible. Europe is heavily populated with perfectly good modems
that can't handshake with ours at the lower baud rates.

    I have a modem at home that will not handshake with certain
machines, but I'm almost positive that that has to do with
misalignment in a CO in Seattle, or overloading of the subscriber
lines, such that the answering modem can't detect my carrier.


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The new topic spawned by the original comment
quoted above (who is Whole Earth, the WELL, etc) has generated many
replies of its own, and an issue of the Digest later tonight will
include several of them.    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 6:44:34 EDT
From: Steve Urich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Racel-Milgo, INS Modem Equipement Information Needed
Organization: Beyonet Network


Greetings,

I posted this twice on comp.decom.modems and only got a reply on some
other equip. that I had included. I deleted that from this post and
still need info for the rest of the equip. Thanks a bunch for helping.
I am interested in information for the following equipment:


    Racel-Milgo Com-Link III
    Model# 4404-85A and 4404-85C

    INS  (From Mobile Alabama)
    SNA/SDLC Loop Adapter


Can I get the phone numbers for these companies?  Any information is
much appreciated. I would like to get in touch with these companies
and get more written information on the specified equipment.

Please reply via E-mail, and thank you.


Steve Urich    WB3FTP    wells!beyonet![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: International 800 Calling
Date: 28 Jul 91 08:17:44 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Ralph W. Hyre) writes:

> Few of the posts I have seen on this topic express the desire for the
> company to pay for the international portion of the call; the callers
> are just potential customers trying to contact the company.

My Citibank credit card statements now say "605-335-2222 Call Collect"
instead of the 800 number.  In fact, their new cards now have both
numbers, with the 605 noted "Outside the U.S. only Call Collect."

So there are companies willing to extend the free customer service
calls to overseas customers.

Of course, calling collect from Switzerland requires *booking* the
call.


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]

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

Subject: Re: Telco Sends OCC Calls to AT&T
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 28 Jul 91 00:34:24 EDT (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> [Moderator's Note: I do not believe small independent telcos are
> required to observe equal access to long distance carriers. I believe
> that rule applies to the Bell companies only (and maybe GTE).   PAT]

Independent telcos will eventually have to offer equal access.  Some
already do -- I believe that Rochester Tel, for example, does.  GTE
does also, in their usual half-assed way.

My cousin at the small telco in western Vermont (the one with the
Party Line Attack Ladies) is not too thrilled about equal access
because it will be quite expensive for him.  For many years, he handed
all toll calls to New England Tel who in turn passed the out-of-state
ones to AT&T.  A year or two ago AT&T installed dedicated trunks to
him from their center in Manchester NH, even though his call volume is
small, apparently because NET was charging so much to forward the
calls.

It's easy to program his switches to separate AT&T calls from NET
calls, since that depends on the dialed number, not the number of the
caller, but per-subscriber routing would require expensive upgrades.
His routing tables are pretty small -- he told me that AT&T insisted
that he block obviously invalid numbers where the prefix after the
area code starts with 0 or 1, and it made his routing tables almost an
order of magnitude bigger.  At this point he has no billing agreements
with any of the OCCs.  I asked what would happen if I called him
collect via Sprint, and he said he doesn't think Sprint would know
where to send the bill.  I keep meaning to try it.

One possibility for equal access is the Indiana Switch approach.  All
of the independent telcos in Indiana have formed their captive LD
carrier called Indiana Switch.  Switch, in turn, has a single point of
presence in the middle of the state to which all of the real LD
carriers are attached.  This lets the telcos pass all their toll
traffic to Switch, which can then either handle it directly for
intrastate calls, or else pass it to the subscriber's preferred
carrier based on the ANI info passed.

This has the major advantage that the telcos' switches need not be
upgraded for equal access -- they pass 1+ traffic to Switch the way
they used to pass it to AT&T or Indiana Bell, and a single smart CO at
Switch handles the equal access.  I don't think this allows 10XXX
dialing, but it's better than nothing.  The last I heard, Vermont
Switch looked unlikely due to regulatory and financial problems, but
for small and undercapitalized telcos it's an attractive approach.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 22:08 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATC Billing
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


[Discussion of some OCC billing and charge practices from a hospital
underway...]

> Having had a very recent experience with ATC while in the hospital I
> wonder what their bill will be for a 22 mile 'as-the-crow-flies' call.

> Moderator's Note: Many hospitals today are just like a lot of hotel
> and motel chains:  *everything* has to be a profit center for them. It
> is a very shortsighted way of doing business.   PAT]

Well, I've seen this sentiment expressed here in the past, and I'd
like to add my comments:

One of the reasons you are subjected to AOS abuse when staying at many
hotels/motels/hospitals is very simple: AT&T and the LEC's will not
share a piece of the pie with the property unless its a very large
customer.

At one time, AT&T/BOC's paid a commission on operator assisted calls
from a property to the owner.  Standard operator assisted rates
applied, and were well know.  Simple, direct, and satisfactory to all
concerned (in most cases).

No so today.  AT&T and the LEC's will not, under any circumstances,
file a tariff giving small/individual properites such an arrangement,
despite the fact that they discount their services at the drop of a
hat under every other circumstance.

If you are Holiday Inns, you can cut a very large deal with AT&T and
get this service (which they have in fact done). Not so for the small
guy.

Answer?  Use an AOS.  They pay based on a negotiated arrangement.

All of this assumes that the property wishes to receive some form of
revenue stream from its investment in PBX technology.  Most now feel
that way ... just to pay a portion of the ongoing costs of maintaining
the services.

My opinion is that AT&T could deal with this problem in a very
straight forward manner if they so choose.  Ditto LEC's.  Neither
seems inclined to do this, though.  Sigh.

You could always use your AT&T or LEC card.  You would pay the same
rate for calls placed from your room as you would for a pay phone.
Life would be simple again.

BTW - Ditto this for COCOT's and AOS's.

Regards,


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]


[Moderator's Note: The original idea behind the commission to the
hotel for handling the LD traffic was it was easier to have the hotel
handle the billing and collection for 'transients'. After the call was
completed, the operator would always call back to quote 'time and
charges' so the hotel could write up a billing ticket, etc. And if the
hotel guest skipped without paying, the hotel had to cover the charge
unless they could show that AT&T failed to quote T&C in a timely
manner prior to the guest skipping on them.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 00:05:23 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old One Still Works?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> At that time, AT&T will sell verification services to LECs for
> Intra-Lata calls billed to AT&T Cards (as it already does for
> Intra-Lata calls billed to Universal Cards) and will buy verification
> services from the LECs for AT&T calls billed to a LEC card.

How much will the verification cost the other carrier?  It would seem
as if Pacific Bell is banking on making money on this service.  They
are heavily promoting their card as the only card based on "your own
familiar phone number" and that it's the only one you need to call
from anywhere, to anywhere.  They even depict a person in London
making a call from a phone booth, in addition to New York and San
Francisco.  They also emphasize that it is accepted by virtually every
long distance carrier, and imply that you don't need to carry or
remember the cards of the long distance carriers, even if you want to
use their networks.

So, what would the motivation for this be, other than to make a profit
on the verification services?  Anyone know the exact per-call charges?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #582
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21012;
          30 Jul 91 0:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04670;
          29 Jul 91 22:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23823;
          29 Jul 91 21:30 CDT
Date:     Mon, 29 Jul 91 20:48:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #583
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Jul 91 20:48:44 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 583

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [John Higdon]
    Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Bruce Klopfenstein]
    Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News [Leland F. Derbenwick]
    Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News [Bob Frankston]
    Information "Big Brother" On His Way [[e-mail]]
    Omniscient AT&T Phone Operators [rec.humor.funny via David Ptasnik]
    Re: Calling USA Toll Free From Abroad [Rupert Mohr]
    Address Wanted Please: PC Dialog [Brian Crawford]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 00:41 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext


On Jul 28 at 23:47, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> Anyway, BBS' are no real competition; the telco
> services will be so much more involved, with many more offerings than
> a BBS operator could ever provide without a huge budget.  PAT]

Pat, read what you just wrote. Where is all this money to finance
these fabulous services going to come from? The regulated ratepayers,
who by and large will have no interest in them? Or will it only come
from those who use the services per se? If so, and they cost so much
to provide, who could afford to use them? Money does not fall as manna
from heaven (at least for businesses that do not have a captive
regulated base to dip into.)

Of course private BBSes are competition. Why do you think there have
been these cases already trying to force them out of existence by SWBT
and the like? For the nickels and dimes that would be realized by
getting the slightly higher business rates? Private BBSes will be a
number one target for destruction when the Bells really gear up for
on-line services.

And not all 900/976 providers are scam artists. Some happen to provide
very satisfied customers with quality service. So when the LECs start
gunning for the competition, no one will be safe.

But someone please answer the question: where do these bottomless
resouces that we keep hearing about in connection with LECs come from?
Outer space? God? A printing press in Grandma's basement? You do not
get something for nothing. If the telcos are going to provide
expensive, elaborate, and "involved" services that ordinary mortals
could not dream of offering to the public, where DOES the money come
from? Before I hear anymore about how wonderful this all is, I want,
nay I demand, an answer to that question.

I suggest you check out Material Enterprises (a subsidiary of NYNEX)
before you answer.


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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 23:36 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


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

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

>> The big (and good!) telecom news this past week was that the Baby
>> Bells are now free to begin offering audiotext services; i.e. 900 and
>> 976 style programs.

[deletions...]

>> We'll never see the Bell System again ... but maybe some of the damage
>> of the past few years can be undone if the good news this week is any
>> indicator of things to come.

[deletions...]

> Pac*Bell and the RBOCs are just drooling at the possibility of being
> able to control it all once again. And how many times must it be said:
> when you control the network, you have a completely unfair advantage
> over all the other players? And when they are gone, what is to stop
> you from playing the game anyway you like (such as in the old days)?

As a veteran of the early days of interconnect and an ex-telco
employee, I have to agree with John's assessment of the situation.
The local telco's have proven their willingness to manipulate the
system they exert control over for their own gain time and time again.

Examples?

OK, we'll forget the historical stuff and deal with real situations
happening today:

Intra-LATA long distance rates: Most always much higher that
comparable OCC distance rates.  Why?  Because they always siphon off
the 1+ call when its intra-LATA unless you dial 10XXX first (and then
they try of restrict intra-LATA competition thru the state PUC's). No
need to discount when most customers dial the way they've been taught
over the years with 1+ and you are guaranteed the traffic.

Touch tone: The cost of a call is actually reduced when touch tone is
used on a modern digital central office ... because facility holding
time is reduced.  For this you pay a premium?

Centrex: Telco services that may allow competition with centrex are
intentionally overpriced (DID trunks).  AIOD is withdrawn, rather than
perfected.  Centrex customers are given near residential rates, and in
some cases, even lower ... and then the telcos tell us they are
cross-subsidizing residential services with business and toll revenue.

Also, centrex requires the construction of otherwise unecessary cable
and transmission facilities just to get all the additional CO lines
out to the customer ... which is then figured into the rate base all
of us pay for.

Voice Mail: Telcos will not provide call forward no answer service to
others, but will provide it for use with their own voice mail systems
 ... that you pay for month to month to month.  Equivalent
interconnection and CO access are either unavailable or tarriffed at
artificially high rates ... so no one can really compete.  SMDI
interfaces for centrex voice mail are almost unheard of ... just try
and get one.

The list goes on ... operator services ... directory services ...
billing services ... credit card database access by others ...
subsidized rent in telco building for unregulated subsidiaries ...
access to business office records by unregulated subsidiaries ... all
manipulated to allow the telco to control that market segment by
stifling competition.

Just try and get access to the telco's billing stuffers they use to
tout their "innovation new voice mail services" for your voice mail
service.

You want to see where this will lead?  Just look at some of the tricks
pulled by GTE in CA, FLA and OH.  I've seen GTE salespeople
intentionally arrange tariff violations for centrex customers so they
could buy premise telephone equipment from GTE along with their
centrex.  I've seen GTE give away free directory listings to customers
to induce them to buy centrex.  All with tacit management approval.

GTE is less regulated than the BOC's right now.  I have the same
probelms with many of the other non-BOC LEC's.  Alltel, United and
Centel are essentially not bound by most of Judge Greene's rulings,
and are working the system to their exclusive advantage.

I have also seen deliberate acts of sabatoge of service by telco
personnel to demonstrate the inferiority of PBX's installed by other's
 ...all of which they are very careful to obscure.  Sue them?  How?
They have more lawyers than I do customers.  They even designed the
legal and regulatory framework they operate under.  For every witness
I bring in they will bring in ten to say otherwise ... and then stall
until I bleed to death ... (pardon the sarcastic note here, but it's
true ... I've learned this through bitter experience).

I have no problem with the telcos setting up unregulated subsidiaries
as long as they are completely at arm's length ... and the telcos
allow independant companies the same privileges and access given their
subsidiaries.  That's what the coming Open Access Architecture was to
be about, but the ridiculous tarriffs proposed to the FCC by the BOC's
for these services was the end of that dream.

That's right.  I'm saying competition by the telcos is OK ... but the
playing field has to be completely level.  No other way will work.

Personally, I don't think the telcos will allow true competitive
environments to occur.  They still think they are entitled to the
entire market on their terms.  They also appear to be truly frightened
of working with others to create enhanced services ... they want to
control them.  Perhaps they are concerned that their inefficiency and
bloated bureaucracies will be revealed to the world if they open the
door, even just a crack, to a truly competitive environment.

Yes, I am highly opinionated about this matter.  That opinion is a
result of dealing with the telcos for 20+ years in the business.  I
also think its a real shame.  The telcos are afraid to spend money
developing innovative services and advancing the level of services
available to their captive customers that only they can provide.
Instead they want to go for what they see as a "sure thing" in markets
they think they are entitled to control which have little to do with
providing switching, access and transmission services.

Just when do you think I will be able to do ISDN or frame relay from
my home in GTE-land?  Not soon! GTE wants to invest more money in
competing with the PBX market rather than innovate.  They also want to
take over the cable TV business while they're at it.

I'll now wipe away the little flecks of foam from the corners of my
mouth that tend to form when I get started on this topic.


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: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext
Date: 29 Jul 91 16:40:46 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


How can one get a copy of Judge Greene's decision?


Bruce C. Klopfenstein          |  [e-mail]
Telecommunications Department  |  [e-mail]
318 West Hall                  |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green State University |  [phone]; 372-8690
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  fax [phone]


[Moderator's Note: *Which part* of the MFJ? All of it? You'll have
plenty of reading!  Or did you want specific references, etc?  Would
someone please post the address to order copies, along with relevant
copying charges.  Thanks.    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 18:58:09 EDT
From: Leland F Derbenwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Freedom!  AT&T Reports the Good News
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> AT&T's announcement from the company's internal News Briefs describing
> their victory in Harold Greene's courtroom:

I don't think our Moderator read the quoted articles too carefully.

>     FREEDOM -- Phone lines were cleared Thursday for the seven
>     regional phone companies to provide electronic information ...
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The RBOCs are the winners.  AT&T, according to the article, was
neutral about this case:

> ... Herb Linnen, AT&T spokesman, said the company had never
> objected to the Bell companies' entry into the information services
> market, provided that they remained excluded from the equipment
> manufacturing and long-distance industries. ...

The "smart phone" also discussed in the article was going to be
offered regardless of whether the RBOCs or other information providers
were involved:

> Regardless of the legal maneuvering involving the regional
> telephone companies, AT&T plans to offer what it calls a Smart
> Phone ...

> Its about time something went right for AT&T in Greene's courtroom

I can second that, but this court decision had essentially nothing to
do with AT&T, pro or con.  From how it looks to me, and as the quoted
articles stated, it really didn't involve us.

Speaking strictly for myself,

Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ
[e-mail]  or  <wherever>!att!cbnewsm!lfd


[Moderator's Note: I do not think AT&T was quite as, uh, neutral as
you give them credit for. Although yes, the decision affected the
RBOC's, some industry people viewed it as a victory for (what I shall
call) the Historic 'Telephone Company'. Yes, the Bell System has been
dismembered, but blood still flows thicker than water, and there is
much loyalty among executives who worked together for many years and
who have a common dislike of 'the outsiders' who have tried to
infringe on what they perceive as exclusively telco territory (the
business of carrying information over a wire) in recent years. In most
cases, a victory for the RBOCs is a victory for AT&T, and vice versa.  PAT]

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

From: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News
Date: 29 July 1991 10:19 -0400


My impression is that ATT wasn't necessarily a foe of the breakup
having seen more possibilities in escaping from the local regulations
that hobble RBOCs than in maintaining the local loop.

We'll see what it will be like competing with the companies providing
the wires. How does one compete with the RBOC in providing payphone
services?  (See my previous posting about IMR).

Anyone remember the DAA's (Data Access Arrangements?).  I've still got
a few gathering dust in my basement.  These were devices that
purported to protect the sacred mysterious network from the evil
modems.  (Strange, they weren't needed for ATT-provided modems).

We'll see what happens when CO-VMS meets PC-based answering machines.
Guess who'll win.

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

Subject: Information "Big Brother" On His Way
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 14:06:49 -0400
From: [e-mail]


> I always referred to it as the Hollings bill.

Apparently, Sen Hollings has introduced several bills that pertain to
the phone companies.  S-173, as passed by the Senate, is the one about
lifting restrictions on manufacturing (modifying the consent decree).

US Senate: 202 224 3121
Hollings:  202 224 6121

For text of the bill:

Public Info Office of Commerce Committee: 202 224 4115

(They didn't answer when I called.)

chris

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Omniscient AT&T Phone Operators
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 10:58:57 PDT


Found in rec.humor.funny, for the benefit of those who don't read that
group.

 > Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
 > Subject: Omniscient AT&T Phone Operators

AT&T phone operators know everything -- they really do.  This really
happened to me in Salt Lake City, Utah.  This being my first trip to
the States, I was a bit unfamiliar with the workings of the phone
system.

So, I see a payphone, put in a quarter and dial the number, let's
say 44-41-552-8467 - overseas phone call to the UK.  I get the AT&T
operator.

"You're calling overseas ?"
"Yes ... that's right" (OK, so they have digital exchanges here, too)
"You know you have to put some money in ?" (How did she know it was a
payphone?)

So I put in another two quarters - heck, I don't know how much it
costs ...

"Oh !", she says, "You're from Scotland !"
"Erm - yes ... but how did you know ?"
"Well, you put in 75c and you need about five dollars for that call."

Made my day -- I had a smile on my face all the way to San Francisco.


Edited by Brad Templeton.  MAIL your jokes (jokes ONLY) to [e-mail]
Attribute the joke's source if at all possible.  A Daemon will auto-reply.

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

Subject: Re: Calling USA Toll Free From Abroad
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 17:59:02 MET DST
From: Rupert Mohr <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Rupert Mohr <[e-mail]>


The service 0130 ( = 800 ) is free for the caller in Germany. There
are NO LOCAL CHARGES any more since 1990.


addresses:  uucp   [e-mail]  IP: 192.33.254.1
            cis    72446,415            Fax [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 05:22:27 -0700
From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Address Wanted Please: PC Dialog


Would someone please forward the address to the company who makes a
product called PC Dialog?

Thanks.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #583
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24247;
          30 Jul 91 1:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14192;
          29 Jul 91 23:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04670;
          29 Jul 91 22:37 CDT
Date:     Mon, 29 Jul 91 21:55:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #584
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Jul 91 21:55:18 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 584

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS? [Tom Gray]
    Re: 900 Mhz Cordless Phone [Tad Cook]
    Re: Email From Space [Gary Morris]
    Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier [Tom Perrine]
    Re: Plain Old Telephones [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Comment on German Phone System(s) [Rupert Mohr]
    Re: 900 MHz Cordless Phones? [Thomas Farmer]
    Boardwatch Magazine on RBOC Gateways [Peter Marshall]
    Robot Operators, Voice Response Collect Calls [Eric Weaver]
    Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol [Jim Williams]
    Cursor Keys With VT-100 [Frank Stuart]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS?
Date: 29 Jul 91 16:10:42 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> portal!cup.portal.com!Will@
uunet.uu.net writes:

> Can someone tell me about any standards that might exist for digitized
> voice on the PC?

> Software standards: What are the standard formats for representation
> of voice data?  How is compression handled?

> Hardware standards: Unlike the Mac, the PC seems to be a pretty sorry
> platform on which to record and playback the human voice.  What
> products are available to record and playback voice?  Specifically,
> I'm looking for those products that do an acceptable job of playing
> and recording human voices, at the lowest possible cost.

There is a association of manufacturers developing products for voice
applications for the PC. They are develping this under the title MVIP
bus (Multi-vendor Integration Bus). You can get PC boards today to
digitize and compress voice.

Natural Microsystems of Natick MA is coordinating the group and mkes a
line of boards for voice processing purposes.


Tom Gray

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

Subject: Re: 900 Mhz Cordless Phone
From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa![e-mail]>
Date: 29 Jul 91 16:35:37 GMT


In a recent issue of Telecom Digest, I wrote:

> I'm pretty sure I saw a new cordless headset type phone in a recent
> issue of the Hello Direct catalog that was supposed to operate around
> the 33 cm band.  It showed an executive sitting in his fancy office
> with this large headphone contraption on his head.  I think the
> antenna was supposed to be in the headband.  I'm not sure if this was
> spread spectrum or not.

I talked to the Hello Direct folks today.  They said that it in fact
does operate at 900 Mhz, but that it is a cordless headset that plugs
into an existing phone, not a complete phone.  It is called the
Cordless Headset, and it sells for $399.  They told me that it does
not use spread spectrum, although I am not certain if the person I
spoke with knew what spread spectrum was.


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]   or, [e-mail]

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

From: "Gary Morris @wayward" <telesoft![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Reply-To: telesoft![e-mail]
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 16:23:55 GMT


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

> So how 'bout one of you HAMsters post some of those genuine MIR space
> station e-mail headers and body to TELECOM.

Here's one I received (the date is 0 because they had just gotten the
equipment and hadn't set the date/time yet).  I had sent a message to
Musa the day before asking if they would still be at Mir during STS-37
in April, since we wanted to arrange a Shuttle to Mir amateur radio
contact.  This is his reply.  W5RRR is the Johnson Space Center
Amateur Radio Club station.

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

*** CONNECTED to U2MIR-1 [Jan-30-91  11:58:30]
Logged on to U2MIR's Personal Message System

You have mail waiting.

Msg # Stat Date     Time  To     From   @ BBS  Subject
   33 P    00/00/00 00:00 W5RRR  U2MIR         STS-37
   20 PR   00/00/00 00:00 U2MIR  W5RRR         STS-37 Shuttle flight in Apr

CMD(B/H/J/K/KM/L/M/R/S/SR/V/?)>
r 33
Stat   : PR
Posted : 00/00/00 00:00
To     : W5RRR
 From   : U2MIR
@ BBS  :
BID    :
Subject: STS-37

WE ARE GOING BE HERE TILL 20 OF MAY, 73 MUSA


CMD(B/H/J/K/KM/L/M/R/S/SR/V/?)>

                   --------

Gary Morris                  Internet: [e-mail]
KK6YB                        UUCP:     ucsd!telesoft!garym
TeleSoft, San Diego, CA      Phone:    [phone]

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots!tots.Logicon.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier
Date: 29 Jul 91 19:29:57 GMT
Organization: Logicon Inc., San Diego California


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

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

>> When I recently moved from one apartment to another about a mile away,
>> GTE set up the service just fine (was I surprised!) except that I
>> found out later my 1+ carrier was AT&T even though GTE service, GTE
>> repair, and Sprint all said their records showed I was served by
>> Sprint.

>> How is the 1+ carrier actually determined?

> This is old hat for most Digest readers, but in case anyone doesn't
> know, you can determine who your 1+ carrier is by dialing 1-700-555-4141.
> There's no charge, and you'll hear a recording saying something
> analogous to "Thank you for using <XYZ Carrier>."

> Similarly, you can find out what 10XXX carriers you can use by dialing
> 10XXX-1-700-555-4141.  Of course, it would take you rather a long time
> to try all 1000 possible codes.

Hmmm. I just tried 1-700-555-4141 from our (Rolm) PBX and got a
strange (to me) acting intercept. Here is the message:

"Your call can not be completed as dialed. please check the number and
dial again. 2 A G"

Then after a five second pause, I got the same message, without the "2
A G", followed by a *regular* busy signal.

Our alleged long distance service is MCI ("Slowest call setup times,
Guaranteed!")

Using 10XXX-1-700-555-4141 for AT&T got me the correct recording.

Is this a PBX configuration problem I should report, or YAMW (Yet
Another MCI Weirdness)?


Tom Perrine (tep)   |Internet: [e-mail] |Voice: [phone]
Logicon - T&TSD     | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep     |  or : [phone]
P.O. Box 85158      |GENIE: T.PERRINE               |  FAX: [phone]
San Diego CA 92138

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 23:54:18 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plain Old Telephones
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> I am looking for some Plain Old Telephones.  Can anyone here suggest
> where I might be able to purchase some?

> Specifically, I'm looking for a few Princess model phones, in white
> (or, if all else fails, black, but no other colors), with 12-button
> touchtone pads, either incandescent or LED dial illumination, and real
> bells that go "brrr...ing" instead of "bleat, bleat".

Last month, I saw a good selection of the real Western Electric phones
at the AT&T Phone Center, of all places.  These are the ones that they
give you if you want to LEASE a phone from them.  They had the
standard tone and pulse desk sets, Princess, plus tone and even rotary
Trimline units, all in assorted colors.  I asked if they were
available for purchase, and they are, but this was not encouraged.
They were all refurbished models, but looked like new to me.

It was really amazing how the AT&T rep tried to steer me away from
these.  She had a response for each of my questions on this point.
Although I did not agree with much of what she had to say, I was
impressed at her training and confidence in what she had to say.

Her:    The new models have a two year warranty, but if you buy one
        of these older ones, it only has a three month warranty.

Me:    Yea, but the old ones will never break!

Me:    The Western Electric model is made in America, where the
        new AT&T models are made in China or Korea.

Her:    It doesn't matter where they are made; they all are made to
        AT&T's stringent Quality Assurance standards.

Me:    This old model is nice and heavy, feels really sturdy.  That
        one is made of flimsy plastic.

Her:    Sir, weight does not necessarily mean quality.

Me:    Yea, but they sure stay on the desk when you stretch the
        handset cord!

Her:    Perhaps you would like one of our extended handset cords.

We just had to agree to disagree on this point.  But, if you're
interested in real Western Electric phones from a convenient retail
outlet, check out your AT&T Phone Center.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 21:51 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


Gordon L. Burditt   <sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon> writes:

>> The first two entries in the Fort Worth residential listings are:
>> A, M.
>> and
>> AAARGH, A. A. 309 College St.

>> Does anyone think that Aaargh is a real last name?

Of course not.

I suspect this individual lives in one of the areas around Dallas/Ft
Worth served by GTE.  The name expresses his experience with GTE
quality services, not doubt.  This is the natural response to dealing
with a GTD-5 CO.

Regards and grins from a GTD-5 victim...


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: Mon, 29 Jul 91 17:58:14 MET DST
From: Rupert Mohr <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Rupert Mohr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Comment on German Phone System(s)


[e-mail] (Wolf PAUL) writes:

> A rather amusing observation on the German telephone system(s):

> A recent article in my daily paper pointed out that the German
> telephone company, TELEKOM, uses an advertising slogan in West Germany
> (the former FRG):

> Ruf doch mal an!

> ("Just call!", or "Why don't you call!")

> Even though TELEKOM has taken over the East German (former GDR) phone
> system, they carefully refrain from using that advertising slogan in
> East Germany. Every extra call is one too many, as things are now!

Of course the Telekom in Germany uses this slogan in East and West.
The Telekom Bus (a mobile bureau) has it printed on the side, even
when driving in the five news countries.

(And by the way: I had no real problems to get through to (for
instance) Zwickau. In Zwickau they have ISDN switching now. The lines
to Zwickau are still old fashioned.)


Rupert
addresses:  uucp   [e-mail]  IP: 192.33.254.1
            cis    72446,415            Fax [phone]

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

Subject: Re: 900 MHz Cordless Phones?
From: Thomas Farmer <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 22:10:15 NZD
Organization: Orb Systems Unlimited, NZ


[e-mail] (James J Dempsey) writes:

> I remember reading about some new cordless phone in Popular Science a
> few months ago which claimed to have better audio quality, better
> security and better range as a result of using a newly-FCC approved
> frequency of around 900MHz instead of the 49MHz cordless phones
> currently use.  However, I haven't seen anything like this in the
> stores.

I assume this is referring to the CT2 style phone. This is currently
being trialled where I live using technology from GPT. Motorola also
have products based on CT2.

It could also refer to CT3, which is by Ericcson and even better. (IS
that spelt correctly?)

If you want to read an article I wrote about this, please mail me.


[e-mail]  aka  Thomas Farmer          Ph.+64-4-796306

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 11:48:03 -0700
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boardwatch Magazine on RBOC Gateways


 From {Boardwatch Magazine}, 6/91, p. 8:

Ameritech was the ONLY ... (RBOC) to pass entirely on the concept of
an ONLINE GATEWAY service. Actually PacBell also bowed out after soem
early maneuvring but Ameritech stated flatly that there was no
incentive to pay for an online gateway to services that could be
dialed directly. Developments since then have proven them quite
accurate with all but US West giving up on the faltering gateway
concept.


Peter Marshall

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

From: Eric Weaver <[e-mail]>
Subject: Robot Operators, Voice Response Collect Calls
Organization: Sony Advanced Video Technology Center
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 18:29:14 GMT


Have many people run into this before?  It appears that some operator
assistance bureaus are using voice-response systems.  Is the WHOLE
process automated, or do they have a live op at the beginning to keep
you from putting a message in the name field?

Story:

Last night, I was up at KFJC when the programmer on duty was trying to
do a telephone interview with a fellow who had to call in collect due
to being in jail at Terminal Island (followups to alt.conspiracy on
this part ... :-).  Somehow he cut the fellow off due to the vagaries
of the new phone system wherein the patch's line selector and the desk
set and the key system don't like each other.  There was much cursing
of the phones, the engineers, and things in general.  Soon the fellow
called back.

Out of frustration, Dave (the host) just punched the thing right up on
the air and said hello and was greeted with: "This is the CommNet
automated operator.  You are receiving a collect call from ... <<ah,
Clem>>.  To accept, press 2 now," and Dave gave this helpless armwave,
having no way to send a DTMF from the phone patch, "or say YES at the
tone."  He said a short YES and it didn't understand him and repeated
the spiel.  The second time he said a very carefully enunciated
"YESSSS" and it said "Thank you for using CommNet" and put the call
thru.  By this time, there were four of us standing out in the hallway
fretting, and we all exhaled in unison.


Eric Weaver   <[e-mail]>
Sony Advanced Video Technology Center
677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35 Beautiful Industrial
San Jose, CA 95134   [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell uses that system also. The caller is
told by synthesized voice to dial 11 to place a collect call, or 12 to
place a third-party billed call. For collect calls, he is then told to
record his name. The called party gets the recording played for him
with a request to punch certain buttons, etc.   PAT]

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

From: JIM WILLIAMS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol
Organization: University of Nevada, System Computing Services
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 23:58:57 GMT


Could any of you give me any information on SITA and the ALC protocol.
My early info suggests that SITA is a consortium or non-profit
organization based in Paris that has provided the equivalent of a VPN
for many years for the airline industry.  And ALC is sort of a
pre-X.25 kind of protocol that is used by SITA.

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

From: "[e-mail]"@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Cursor Keys With VT-100
Date: Mon Jul 29 13:39:47 CDT 1991
Organization: Auburn University Engineering


I'm writing an aspect script for procomm that uses the cursor down
keys.  Since I'm emulating a vt100, I looked up the code for cursor
down (esc-[-B), and sent it with the TRANSIT command.  When I execute
the script, all that shows up on the screen is the B and a bad pf key
error (esc-# is used for pf keys).  Do I have to send the characters
at a certain rate or pre- or post- fix some- thing or what?  BTW, the
machine on the other end is an IBM mainframe.


Frank   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #584
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26997;
          30 Jul 91 2:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22402;
          30 Jul 91 0:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac14192;
          29 Jul 91 23:44 CDT
Date:     Mon, 29 Jul 91 23:35:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #586
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Jul 91 23:35:10 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 586

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Southern Bell Customer Newsletter [Arnold Robbins]
    Billing for Transaction Processing (was Toll Saver Feature) [Vance Shipley]
    Changing Cellular Telcos [Ed Hopper]
    Bellcore Acronyms - Thanks [Brendan Jones]
    Re: Book Review: SIGNAL - Communications Tools For Info Age [Jorn Barger]
    Re: Whole Earth [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Whole Earth [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: Whole Earth [Dave Levenson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Arnold Robbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Southern Bell Customer Newsletter
Date: 29 Jul 91 14:59:18 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta


Just got my newest bill from Southern Bell.  A number of interesting
stories were part of the newsletter this time.  There is always a
newsletter with several blurbs about different services to buy and
things Southern Bell does for the community, and so on.  One of the
articles is:

            Georgia's New Area Code

Telephone use in Georgia has increased so rapidly -- caused by
increased population and the use of services like fax machines and
mobile telephones -- that we are running out of telephone numbers.

Southern Bell will establish a new area code -- 706 -- in Georgia in
May 1992.  The territory currently designated by the 404 area code
will be split.

Customers in the Atlanta Metropolitan local calling area will continue
to use the 404 area code.  Customers outside the Atlanta Metropolitan
toll free calling area will use the 706 area code.  The 912 area code
[South Georgia -- ADR] will not be affected by this change.

We realize the transition to a new area code will take some getting
used to.  So, between May 3, 1992 and August 2, 1992, you can dial
EITHER 706 or 404 to reach numbers in the new area.  After August 2,
1992, the use of the 706 area code is required.

We are announcing the new area code far in advance to allow customers
to plan for the change.

And there's a cute little colored map showing the different area
codes.

                       ----------

Another article noted:

        COUNTYWIDE CALLING FOR SOUTHEN BELL CUSTOMERS

As required by legislation enacted by the Georgia General Assembly and
by order of Georgia Public Service Commission, beginning July 1, 1991,
you will be able to make calls within your county free of toll
charges.

On July 1, calls within your county boundary that were previously
long-distance calls are now local calls.  Therefore, no itemization or
toll charages will appear on your telephone bill for calls within your
county.

If you currently use the "1" plus 10-digit dialing or "1" plus
seven-digit dialing, you should continue that same dialing pattern
with the implementation of countywide calling on July 1.

In addition, you can obtain a telephone number within your county by
dialing 411 for Directory Assistance with applicable charges applying
to these calls.

                           ----------

A double sided insert, with two different items on it:

        SOUTHERN BELL `LINKS UP' GEORGIA WITH
        TELEPHONE CONNECTION CHARGE DISCOUNT

Southern Bell now offers a program to make the connection of telephone
service more affordable for low income individuals in Georgia.

The program, called Link-Up Georgia, is funded by the Federal
Communications Commission and provides eligible individulas with a
50-percent reduction on residential telephone service connection
charages.  As an added incentive, Southern Bell has offered to waive
the remainder of those connctions charges.  Hwoever, you may be
required to pay a deposit.

In order to receive this discount, you must meet the following
requirements:

  -- You must be receiving assistance from Medicaid, or receive food
     stamps and be listed as head of household, or receive the
     Senior Citizen's discount from your local gas and/or power
     company.

  -- You must not be claimed as a dependant for federal income tax
     purposes on any other person's federal tax return unless you
     are over age 60.

  -- You must be the recipient of the above programs and have the
     telephone service billed in your name.

If you know of someone who might qualify for this discount, please
have them contact the Southern Bell business office at 780-2355.

                       ----------

And the other side:

        SOUTHERN BELL OFFERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Southern Bell now has a program to aid low income individuals who
would like to have telephone service but need assistance with the
monthly payment.

The program, called LifeLine, is funded by the Federal Communications
Commission, and Southern Bell.  Eligible individuals will receive a
$7.00 credit on their monthly local access charges.

In order to receive this credit, you must meet the following
requirements:

  -- You must be receiving assistance from Medicaid, or receive food
     stamps and be listed as head of household, or receive the
     Senior Citizen's discount from your local gas and/or power
     company.

  -- You must have the telephone service billed in your name.  If
     you do not have telephone service and meet the above
     requirements, you might qualify for Southern Bell's Link-Up
     Georgia Program. (See reverse side)  [Above ---ADR]

If you think you or someone you know might qualify for ths program,
please contact the Southern Bell business office at 780-2355.


Arnold Robbins                 AudioFAX, Inc.
2000 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 200 / Marietta, GA. 30067
INTERNET: [e-mail]  Phone:   [phone]
UUCP:      emory!audfax!arnold  Fax-box: [phone]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billing for Transaction Processing (was Toll Saver Feature)
Organization: Xenitec Consulting Services, Kitchener, ON, CANADA
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 15:18:50 GMT


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

> [Moderator's Note: I think AT&T finally took the attitude 'if you
> can't beat them, join them.' The feature is very common and all the
> other answering machines had it, etc. I still personally feel that
> using a system of coded rings to obtain information without having to
> have both ends off-hook (thus having to pay for the call) is fraud. I
> think eventually in the next few years it (and Larry King's gimmick of
> letting it ring until he is ready to talk) will cause the telcos to
> tariff a 'call attempt' surcharge pf a penny or two for each minute or
> fraction thereof of unanswered ringing which will be waived on calls
> answered within, say, one minute.  PAT]

This will be a much bigger issue as the ISDN is realized.  Transaction
processing capabilities will allow information flow without even
setting up the call.  Already we are seeing more information flowing
without charge such as CLID.  In the future TCAP messages will be able
to pass much information between terminals and switches, this will
allow great advances in intelligent networks.  Unfortunately we will
be bogged down by the traditional impediment to new services in the
public network: how do we charge for it?  Here's hoping that it
doesn't take too long to clear it up and pass it through the
regulatory bodies!


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

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

Subject: Changing Cellular Telcos
From: ED HOPPER <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon 29 Jul 91 10:01:26 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575


In February, 1990, I bought my first cellular phone.  As is customary,
I ended up with a one year contract with one of the carriers.  In this
case it was Houston Cellular (the A carrier).  I got the "AT&T
Corporate" rate of about $0.24 per minute during prime time.  The
monthly rate, including detail billing and "extended coverage area"
(north to Huntsville, East to Beaumont as local calls) was $32.00.


All was well and good until I moved to Pearland, a small Houston
suburb, 20 miles due south of downtown.  It appears that since
Pearland was in Brazoria County, it was not included in Houston
Cellular's coverage area.  They could not legally put towers in this
area.  In addition, the A carrier that can serve this area hasn't put
service up this far north (the Galveston licensee).  As I work in the
middle of town (Greenway Plaza), this problem was somewhat bearable as
I spent a lot of time well within HC's coverage area.

I put up with the poor Pearland service for a long time.  I could get
some service, but it was pretty weak and cut out easily.  Finally,
about three or four months ago, I called Houston Cellular to (1)
Inquire about the expiration of my one year contract and (2) to
complain about the poor service in this area.  The HC people advised
that my one year obligation had been met and that they had "rolled
over" my contract to another one year obligation.  They also provided
the information above.

Due to changes in job responsibilities, use of my cellular phone while
in the area of my home became more critical.  After having three
critical calls disrupted due to the coverage problems, I called HC to
complain again and to ask about their plans to resolve the problem.
They promised me a call back from "engineering" within a couple of
days.

Several days passed and no callback.  I called GTE Mobilenet and spoke
to their customer service.  They were, of course, happy to talk to me
about switching.  They DID have the right to cover the Brazoria County
area.  Additionally, they too had an "AT&T Corporate" rate.  Not a big
surprise considering that GTE is changing out all cellular switches to
AT&T.  The AT&T rate with GTE is actually a little better than with
HC.  Monthly at $25 a month including detail billing, extended
coverage area (Lake Charles, La to about 100 miles west of Houston)
was also better and they threw in "Mr. Rescue", a roadside auto
service outfit.  Per minute rate with GTE: $0.23.

They told me that HC would break the contract if I complained enough.
I spoke to my attorney, a former HC customer, and he advised that such
"automatic renewal" contracts are of dubious legal standing and
difficult to enforce. HC had given in to him on behalf of several
clients who had similar situations (i.e., poor service at their home
address).

I sent off a certified letter detailing my contacts with HC, their
failure to meet their call back committments and my notice of
cancellation.  I then had GTE reprogram my phone.  Service is far
better with GTE.

A few questions:

1. How do these rates compare with others?
2. Does anyone else have experience with breaking one of these auto-renewal
   contracts?  (for cause)

By the way, I was never asked by either cellular carrier to prove my
employment by AT&T. No one asked for a business card, ID card, etc.


Ed Hopper

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

Subject: Bellcore Acronyms - Thanks
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 14:13:08 +1000
From: [e-mail]


Thanks to all those who helped me with the acronym list (I emailed you
all - I hope you got my personal thanks).  I ended up with three or
four variations on some acronyms, but in the context of the diagram in
which they were used, I could narrow it down to one definition.
Here's the list:

BELLCORE ACRONYMS

BCR    Bell Communications Research
FCIF    FACS Component Interface Format *
    (FACS = Facility Assignment and Control System *)
LUSI    Local User System Interface
NMA    Network Monitoring and Analysis System
RUSI    Remote User System Interface
SCCS    Switching Control Center System *
SEAS    Signaling Engineering and Administration System *
SOP    Service Order Processor *
SSP    Service Switching Point *
TOP    Transactions-Oriented Protocol *
UPL    User Program Layer
USL    User System Language

* = belongs to Bellcore

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: Mon, 29 Jul 91 09:36:00 CDT
From: Jorn Barger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Book Review: SIGNAL - Communications Tools For Information Age
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences


I expect you'll get some much better responses than this one, but all
those Whole Earth things started out in bed together, I'm sure.

The old Whole Earth Catalog of the 1970's had Whole Earth Access as
its mail order arm, and they had a storefront, too.  Whole Earth
Electronics (?) spun off from there at some point, and their
"Coevolution Quarterly" became the Whole Earth Review (and they had a
WE Software Review in there, too.).  The WELL is also their creation,
but may be financially independent now.

I think they may maintain copyrights on the Whole Earth name: back in
their heyday I remember it started turning up all over the place, but
I think they put a stop to that.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 09:25 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Whole Earth


The connection between Whole Earth Access, Whole Earth Catalog, Whole
Earth Review, and WELL (Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link) and any other
Whole Earth things is tenuous at best.

Some were built up and spun off, others were licensed names.

The WELL doesn't typically provide specialized product support for
things bought at Whole Earth Access (a very interesting place to shop
for lots of things.)


edg

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Jul 91 17:14:21
Subject: Re: Whole Earth

In the TELECOM Digest, the Moderator writes:

> He concludes by noting that 'the telephone company makes more money on
> the WELL than we do', and he gives advice for signing up with the
> service by calling 415-332-6106 with your modem and entering 'newuser'
> at the login prompt.

     If you do not live in the Bay Area, a much cheaper way to reach
the WELL is to dial your local CompuServe CPN access number. (CPN is
CompuServe's own packet switching network.) Enter WELL at the "Host
Name:" prompt, and you're off. Cost is $4.50 hour, which is cheaper
than most interstate LD.


[Moderator's Note: And less expensive still might be using Telenet's
PC Pursuit. That comes down to about $1 per hour with a thirty hour
and thirty dollar minimum per month. For information on PC Pursuit,
call their marketing department at 1-800-TELENET. I don't think PC
Pursuit is available from outside the USA, and in any event it would
not be very cost effective.   PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whole Earth
Date: 30 Jul 91 02:48:29 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> You have to understand that 'Whole Earth' is a chic name to use in
> this neck of the woods -- very politically correct.

In this neck of the woods, there is a health food store in Princeton,
NJ, that goes by the name The Whole Earth, but it's been there longer
than it was politically correct to say: "politically correct" around
here!


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


[Moderator's Note: I did not think it was ever politically correct to
refer to the concept of political correctness, or to even acknowledge
that such a thing as political correctness existed. I thought that
mention of political correctness was only acceptable when the phrase
was used by crude and rude individuals such as myself, during our
fascist musings in the aliens.from.another.world.talk newsgroup. These
days I've been keeping busy offending the sensibilities of artists,
and its hard to be as crude all the time as I would like.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #586
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27001;
          30 Jul 91 2:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22402;
          30 Jul 91 0:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14192;
          29 Jul 91 23:37 CDT
Date:     Mon, 29 Jul 91 22:34:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #585
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Jul 91 22:33:55 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 585

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Voicemail Vandalism [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    "Free" Touchtone and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue [Mark Seiden]
    Dual Voice and TDD Answering Machine [Curtis E. Reid]
    Line Noise Battle [Peter Dachnowicz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 02:24 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud


        For years, telephone security people protested that publishing
the methods of phone fraud artists would only make the crooks smarter
and harder to catch.  However, now it seems that phone number fraud
has become so rampant tht AT&T provided a press release with its
official pronouncements on how to avoid being personally defrauded.
Sad to say, after waiting a week to see if the press would bother,
I've not noticed any publication of AT&T's effort.  That lack of
publication tends to indicate how naieve the press itself is in such
matters.  Here's the text for readers here who probably care a bit
more:

"FOR RELEASE MONDAY, JULY 22, 1991

    "BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- Thousands of American consumers are being
ripped off every day by telephone con artists who trick them into
revealing their calling card numbers or accepting long distance
charges.

     "AT&T is offering tips to consumers on how to avoid becoming a
fraud victim.  For starters, the company advises customers to be on
the lookout for calling card number thieves in public places and to
hang up on suspected telephone scam artists.

     "The annual bill for telephone scams directed at consumers is
estimated by industry experts at $1 billion.

     "Saying the best defense against toll fraud is an educated
consumer, AT&T is offering tips on how telephone customers can avoid
two principal forms of fraud: Calling card and third-number billing
scams.

     "This telephone toll fraud occurs when someone places an illicit
toll call by 1) charging the call to a stolen calling card number, or
2) tricking an innocent victim into accepting the toll charges.

                       Calling Card Fraud

     "Calling card thieves usually find their victims in busy public
places such as bus, train or airline terminals.  The victim can be any
unsuspecting caller who makes a calling card call from a public phone.

     "Frequently, card number thieves simply stand close to their
victim in order to watch the calling card digits being entered on a
touch-tone phone.  If a caller verbally provides calling card
information to an operator, the thief tries to listen in.

     "A thief may even use binoculars to scan the nu{bers from the
calling card or to watch as the victim punches in the calling card
digits on a touch-tone phone.

     "Some unwary customers receive a call at home from a fraud artist
posing as a phone company or law enforcement investigator.  The fraud
artist requests the customer's calling card number and provides a
phony explanation of a supposed toll fraud investigation or problems
with the company's database that require investigators to "activate"
the customer's calling card number.

     "Customers should know that no telephone company -- including
AT&T, other long distance companies, and local phone companies --
would ever ask a customer for a calling card number or Personal
Identification Number (PIN) over the telephone.  Phone companies
already have that information.

     "After stealing calling card numbers, the thieves usually find an
available public phone from which they sell discounted long-distance
calls to locations around the world.

                   Third-Number Billing Fraud

     "A different toll fraud scam involves what AT&T officials have
labeled the "Just Say Yes" scam, in which victims are convinced to
accept charges for calls made by someone else.

     "A thief impersonating an investigator calls the victim at home
and asks for the customer's cooperation in a telephone company
investigation.  The thief always has a plausible explanation, such as
a criminal investigation or service disruption problems.

     "The victim is then asked to "just say yes" when the operator
calls them to accept charges for a series of international calls.  The
impostor reassures the customer that they won't be billed for the
calls.  In some cases, victims are promised substantial credit or cash
payment as an incentive to cooperate.

     "If the customer is reluctant to cooperate, the imposter may try
intimidation by threatening to cut off phone service.

                       Everyone Pays

     "Every day many innocent consumers become victims of telephone
fraud.  Customers should always protect the security of their calling
card number.  Customers should also know they are responsible if they
willingly accept third-number charges.

     "Because many of these charges are costly to collect, long
distance companies lose millions of dollars to fraud every year.  This
drives up the cost of doing business, and as a result, all of the
company's customers become victims of this crime.

     "Telephone toll scam artists do not discriminate.  Everyone is a
potential victim, from corporate executives at the airport, to
salesmen on the road, to teenage shoppers at the mall, to housewives,
to home-bound elderly people.

                     Calling Card Fraud Tips

     "AT&T offers these tips to avoid calling card fraud:

  o "Make sure no one can see you keying in your calling card number or
    overhear you reading the nu{ber to the operator.  Whenever possible,
    use a phone that reads your calling card automatically.

  o "Do not use your telephone calling card as identification for
    purchases.  Use some other identification to avoid sharing your
    calling card number with a merchant.

   o "Beware of individuals who call you at home requesting telephone
    calling card number verification.  AT&T and other telephone
    companies will never ask for your card number over the phone.  Your
    long distance and local phone companies already have that
    information in their billing records.

  o "If you suspect that your telephone calling lard has been lost,
    stolen or otherwise compromised report this immediately to your
    long distance company.  The company will immediately cancel your
    calling card number and issue you a new card.   AT&T customers may
    dial 1-800-CALL ATT.

                 Third-Number Billing Fraud Tips

     "Third-number billing fraud often occurs under the guise of an
"investigation."  AT&T has these tips on third-number billing fraud:

  o "If you receive a call from anyone claiming to be a phone company or
    law enforcement investigator asking you to accept charges, simply
    hang up immediately.

  o "Telephone companies or law enforcement officials will never call
    customers and ask them to accept collect or third-party charges as
    part of an investigation.

  o "If you suspect you are a victim of third-number billing fraud, you
    should report this immediately by calling the number for billing
    inquiries that appears on your phone  bill.

                          CONSUMER TIPS

     "Telephone fraud is growing around the country both in public
locations and even in the privacy of your own home.  Thieves can steal
your calling card number.  Con artists may try to trick you into
accepting international long distance charges.

     "AT&T offers the following tips to consumers when calling from
public phones:

                     Calling Card Fraud Tips

  * "Make sure no one can see you keying in your calling card number or
    overhear you reading the number to the operator.  Whenever possible,
    use a phone that rexds your calling card automatically.

  * "Do not use your telephone calling card as identification for
    purchases.

  * "Beware of individuals who call you at home requesting telephone
    calling card number verification.  AT&T and other telephone companies
    will never ask for your card number over the phone; they already have
    that information in their billing records.

  * "If you suspect that your telephone calling card has been lost, stolen
    or otherwise compromised report this immediately to your long distance
    company.  The company will immediately  cancel your card number and
    issue you a new card.  AT&T customers may dial 1-800-CALL ATT.

     "AT&T offers these tips for customers who may receive suspicious calls
at home from so-called "investigators":

                 Third-Number Billing Fraud Tips

  * "If you receive a call from anyone claiming to be a phone company or
    law enforcement investigator asking you to accept charges, simply
    hang up immeriately.

  * "Telephone companies or law enforcement officials will never call
    customers and ask them to accept collect or third-party charges as
    part of an investigation.

  * "If you suspect you are a victim of third-number billing fraud, you
    should report this immediately by calling the number for billing
    inquiries that appears on your phone bill.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 02:17 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voicemail Vandalism


        Petty criminality by wire has now become so rampant in the
United States that it's hardly even remarkable any more.  Here's a
story from <AT&T Newsbriefs> for July 22 pointing up how serious the
results can be for taxpayer dollars.  It's a sad commentary that
America by and large has still not found out it must manage its own
telecommunications; that the technology spawned from almost eight
years of demonopolization isn't stimply consumer appliances one plugs
in like a toaster:

"UNPLUG -- A prankster who intercepted and rerouted confidential
telephone messages from voice mail machines in City Hall [Houston]
prompted officials to pull the plug on the phone system. ... The city
purchased the high-tech telephone system in 1986 for $28 million.  But
officials forget to require each worker to use a password that allows
only that worker to retrieve or transfer voice messages from their
"phone mailboxes," said AT&T spokesman Virgil Wildey.  Dallas Times
Herald, A20, 7/20. ... As a result, Wildey said, someone who
understands the system can transfer messages around, creating chaos.
San Francisco Chronicle, A5, 7/20.

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

From: Mark Seiden <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Free" Touchtone and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue
Date: 29 Jul 91 19:02:44 GMT
Organization: Seiden and Associates, Inc, Stamford, CT


I've been historically too cheap (as a matter of principle) to pay the
extra $2/month/line in perpetuity for a feature that decreases the ne
company's costs of switching calls, namely touchtone.  (I don't mind
the extra time to dial, nor does my modem, and naturally, the physical
phones support both interfaces.)  (I understand and deplore the
concept of a monopoly pricing for value of service rather than cost of
service.)

I was recently surprised to discover that touch tone had been
magically enabled on my previously non-tone lines.  Something free
from the phone company?  naaah...

Since I'm not a total dumbass, I called the business office to ask
them how much touchtone costs (not to report that they'd given me a
free gift) and they told me how it was now FREE, but they had (with
PUC approval) just gotten through an increase in the cost of basic
service by several dollars per month, and now touchtone was no longer
optional (though I could choose not to use it...)!

(So much for "Plain Old" Telephone Service).  How long before they
make pay for call waiting, three way calling, and other services I
don't want?  How long before the cable company forces me to pay for
premium services?  (Actually I'm a holdover in other respects ... no
cable TV and no microwave ...)

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 18:03 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dual Voice and TDD Answering Machine


Our college (National Technical Institute for the Deaf) has developed
specifications for having a dual voice and TDD answering machine.
This answering machine should be able to receive both voice and TDD.

As far as I know, no such machine exists.  But, NTID went ahead and
developed the specifications in the hope a machine exists somewhere.

If you know of any brand that will satisfy the following specs, please
respond to me at [e-mail] and we will investigate
it.

Criteria for answering devices/systems compatibility with the "A T & T
System 85" telephone system used at RIT.

ALL ANSWERING DEVICES/SYSTEM MUST:

1. Be one line only (two or more lines, machines will not work).

2. Be able to answer System 85 ringing, on campus and off campus (off campus
calls ring twice; on campus calls ring once).

3. Be able to answer System 85 intercom rings (three short rings).

4. Be compatible with RJ11C jacks.

5. Be able to release the line (disconnect) upon call completion.  In
the System 85, either the caller or the callee can disconnect the
call, on or off campus.  However, sometimes the answering equipment
will not "release" a call that has been disconnected by the caller.

6. Each piece of "new" equipment considered must be tested for
compatibility before purchase.

ALL ANSWERING DEVICES/SYSTEMS MUST MEET THE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

1. Only dual cassette based answering machine using "C" size audio
cassettes shall be used.

2. A standard "G" style handset (round ear and mouth pieces) shall be
connected in parallel with the answering machine microphone and
speaker to permit easier TDD programming of the outgoing cassette and
decoding of a TDD signal from the incoming cassette.

3. The outgoing cassette tape must be able to record and transmit an
outgoing message of at least 60 seconds.

4.  The incoming cassette tape must be able to record and play back
incoming messages for at least 15 minutes.

5.  The incoming and outgoing cassette tapes must be able to record
and play back TDD tones as specified by the baudot code [the baudot
code specifications are in TELECOM archives] and human voice
frequencies at least at the minimum performance level required by the
RIT telephone system.

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

From: Peter Dachnowicz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Line Noise Battle
Date: 29 Jul 91 23:26:03 GMT
Organization: The Graphics BBS (2D,3D,GIF,Animation) +1 908/469-0049


I've been having a quite a war with NJ Bell as of late; hopefully
somebody will be able to steer me in the correct direction.

        First a bit of backround. We have four lines comming into the
house.  Three of them are used for voice and one for data. When using
the data line for v.32 connects there seems to be alot of noise and
the modems never connect. When calling at slower speeds (no v.32) the
modems are able to connect. Now here's the trick: when plugging the
modem into any of the other three voice lines and calling with the
modem, using v.32 I can connect fine.

        The phone company has been here four times now and reports no
problem despite the fact I can demonstrate this problem in front of
them. They say all the lines are not guaranteed for data quality and
its a bonus that the other three can handle the high speeds. They
suggest going with a data-quality lines (BTW, what does that entail
and at what price?

        What type of tests can I ask for? I've never seen any printout
of their findings despite me asking. Also it seems they only test at
the pole and never check at my junction box, at least with any sort of
equipment. This is what they say has been done and this is just the
repairman's word as I have no way to prove this: Gave me a new pair,
respliced my line down to the exchange.

        Any suggestions? I'm at wit's end.  Please address all
follow-ups to email as I have a full time job and can't keephead of
this group  :)


Thanks,

[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #585
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29385;
          30 Jul 91 3:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31595;
          30 Jul 91 2:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac22402;
          30 Jul 91 0:55 CDT
Date:     Tue, 30 Jul 91 0:43:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #587
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 30 Jul 91 00:43:20 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 587

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    News From Up North [Jack Decker]
    Partyline Regrade Persuasion [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Paul Buder]
    Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone?  [Bud Couch]
    Re: Pac*Bell and ISDN [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: International 800 Calling [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Bruce Klopfenstein]
    Re: 800 ANI for NON-answered Calls? [Bob Yazz]
    Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Chip Rosenthal]
    Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Beware of the FON Card Charges [Bob Yazz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 04:11:00 EDT
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: News From Up North


The following messages were recently posted in the Fidonet "MDF" (Main
Distribution Frame) echomail conference.  Since most TELECOM Digest
readers probably don't have access to this conference, I thought I'd
forward these over and see if they are of interest to anyone.  If the
Moderator approves and if there is any interest, I may forward some
more of these over from time to time (the MDF conference has a pretty
low message traffic volume so this probably would not happen very
often).

[Moderator's Note: Yes, please send them along for review from time to
time. Many Digest readers may not realize it, but several copies of
each issue do in fact go to Fido sites for reposting on local BBS'
connected through Fido ... and of course we do get regular submissions
from people who read the Digest on that network also.   PAT]

All of the following items were originally posted by Bill Boogaart on
23 Jul 91:

  Subject: Digital Capabilities

Canadian business customers now have access to bulk data transfer or
desk-top video conferencing as easily as dialling a phone call and
without the cost of dedicated facilities, according to Telecom Canada.

While the service has been available on a limited basis for the past
year, it is now widely available through member companies of Telecom
Canada and will be extended cross-border into the U.S. and
internationally. Bi-directional public switched dialling to the U.S.
is also now available through AT&T. By year end, interconnections with
other carriers will follow.

Where usage cannot justify dedicated facilities, Telecom Canada's
Digital Switched Network (DSN) now provides a cost-effective
alternative. DSN can be accessed through Centrex Data, ISDN, and other
switched T1-based services.


   Subject: Bell Canada seeks to extend WATS

Bell Canada wants to give its big business customers discounts of more
than 50 per cent on U.S. bound phone calls according to the {Toronto
Star}.

Bell filed with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission on July 10 for permission to extend the coverage area of
its Wide Area Telephone Service (WATS) to the U.S. If approved the
discounts would come into effect Dec 1, 1991.

Under Bell's plan, heavy telephone users, usually large and medium
sized companies, would save between 10 and 50 per cent on U.S.
directed calls.


 Subject: New Long Distance Company

Several former executives of Rogers Communications Inc. have
established a new long distance phone company called VisionTel
Communications Inc., according to the Financial Post.

As a reseller, VisionTel can begin operations immediately, unlike
Unitel Communications Inc., Rogers' subsidiary which is embroiled in
hearings before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission.

VisionTel's founders include chief executive Ted Chislett and
president Giorgio Abbondi, both former executives with Rogers Network
Services, a subsidiary of Rogers. George Rayner, vice president of
network operations, designed Rogers' Cantel Mobile Communications
Inc.'s cellular network.


 Subject: BC Tel After 1-800 Change

British Columbia Telephones (BC Tel) has filed with the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications to change the way it provides
1-800 service to Canadian customers.

The company has applied for rate reductions of 20 per cent to 30 per
cent for 1-800 service in Canada and also wants the option to provide
this service over regular business lines.

In addition, BC Tel wants to change the way service area coverage is
defined. Currently zones are based on broad geographical areas. BC Tel
would like to see area codes used to designate service areas. The
company would also like approval to introduce a new service for
smaller customers called 800 ENTRY.


   Subject: Larry Speakes Joins Nortel

Larry Speakes, former official spokesman for U.S. president Ronald
Reagan, has joined Northern Telecom Ltd. as vice president,
communications, according to the Financial Post.

His new responsibilities include advertising, media relations,
corporate contributions amd executive speech writing. He served the
White House for six years until 1987 when he joined Merrill Lynch &
Co. as vice president, communications. He resigned that position in
April 1988 after his book, Speaking Out, revealed he had fabricated
quotes and attributed them to Reagan.


   Subject: Rural Modernization Program Ends

AGT Limited's Rural Modernization Program (RMP) was completed June 28
within the five year schedule and substantially under budget.

The program was initiated in the spring of 1986 with an original
budget of $356.7 million. It's estimated final cost is around #320
million.

With the completion of this program, AGT is now the first
all-private-line network in North America.

AGT provides telephone service to the entire Province of Alberta with
the exception of the City of Edmonton which is serviced by ED TEL.


Via D'Bridge 1:1/211  07/26 22:07
Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!umich!wsu-cs!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 00:11:46 cst
From: Jim Redelfs <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Partyline Regrade Persuasion
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


With the availability of sufficient cable facilities, the number of
party-line subscribers have dwindled significantly and continues to
do so. With the availablility of Local Measured Service, partline
service is no longer offered to new subscribers in my area and those
current partyline subscribers that MOVE their service are not given
partyline service.  They are offered measured service (private line)
instead.

You might find it interesting how the phone company handles
"grandfathered" partyline subscribers in the Omaha area.

As the number of partylines decrease, there are frequently several
"bridged alone" (no partymate) in each Central Office.

Perhaps once a year, the business office calls these subscribers and
offers them a free regrade to private line service - and offers Local
Measured Service which, if the lowest-useage package is chosen, costs
LESS than their partyline service.

Many choose to regrade but those "bridged alone" subscribers that KEEP
their partyline soon find themselves with a NEW partymate!

Based on "my" Central Office (outside Omaha - heavily rural), I would
estimate that at least HALF of these regrouped subscribers, having
been used to virtually private service for quite a while, shortly call
the business office and ask to be regraded!  I believe there is NO
charge for such a regrade.


JR
Tabby 2.2
MacNetOmaha(402)289-2899 Proud member Omaha SuperNet (1:285/14)

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

From: Paul Buder <sequent!techbook.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone?
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 02:59:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail].
columbia.edu> writes:

> What applications make use of the ABCD keys?

I remember in the mid 70's I found that the electronics to generate
the 4th column tones were built into every phone (this was still when
all phones were Bell phones).  All one had to do was connect a switch
over the right two points in the phone.  If long distance information
was called, free then, and the D key was pressed I would become an
information operator!  One had to listen for a soft click and say "Can
I help you?" or something appropriate to my teen age years.


[e-mail]  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!paulb
Public Access UNIX at [phone] (1200/2400) Voice: [phone]
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks  Paul Buder


[Moderator's Note: I really don't think that would work today. Any
comments from knowlegeable readers?   PAT]

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on my Phone?
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 03:55:46 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Gabe M Wiener <gmw1@cunixa.
cc.columbia.edu> writes:

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

>> Most TT chips 'know' about 1633, and lots of applications make use of
>> it.

> What applications make use of the ABCD keys?

> As I recall, the Autovon keys aren't actually labeled ABCD, or at
> least that's what I remember when I saw an Autovon phone on my last
> trip through the Smithsonian.

It's been over twenty years, but it seems to me that the phones used
on the 412L and 417L switches that North Electric (not NorthERN) built
for the Air Force in the sixties, _were_ labeled "ABCD".

These switches had another "endearing" characteristic; the switches
were non-blocking, but the trunk assignments were prioritized. If all
trunks were busy, any request from a line with a "higher" line number
than active calls resulted in the dropping of the "low" priority trunk
call. Guess who had the "higher" line numbers?

I often wondered if some grunt someplace lost a fire support request
because the general wanted a pizza.


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

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell and ISDN
Date: 29 Jul 91 23:47:35 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


> And people want to give companies such as Pac*Bell MORE freedom to
> control services? No thanks.

Just hope the alternate dialtone providers have more foresight.
Teleport is or is about to be able to offer you alternate phone
service in several states, CA included.

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International 800 Calling
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 03:04:26 GMT


[e-mail] (ED HOPPER) writes:

> 2.  It is an objective (at least, I believe of AT&T) that 800 = Free
> Call.  [...] They never wanted a customer coming to them and
> saying "How come I was charged $8.00 to call 1-800-555-XXXX???".

But there's no expectation of "free 800 service" from outside the
country. It's not even offered there. So this isn't a problem.

> 3.  It is AT&T's assumption that the customer (i.e., the recipient of
> the 800 number calls) will be smart enough to tailor his advertising
> to accomodate the 800 service he is ordering.  In other words, don't
> advertise a domestic US 800 number in Sweden.

Even AT&T hasn't been smart enough to do this!

> 1.  800 toll free service, dialable from Sweden is available.  The
> company our Swedish friend wanted to call didn't choose to buy it.

With good reason ... it probably costs a bomb and doesn't buy much in
sales per country. For all countries it'd be a different matter, but
it'd be outrageously complex compared to just providing +1 800 nnx
xxxx.

Point two is just parochialism on the part of the long distance
companies.

Point three is parochialism on the part of the advertisers, including
again the long distance companies.


Peter da Silva  Taronga Park BBS  [phone]/n/8/1   Taronga Park

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext
Date: 30 Jul 91 03:42:20 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


 From article <[e-mail]>, by bgsuvax!klopfens@
cis.ohio-state.edu (Bruce Klopfenstein):

> How can one get a copy of Judge Greene's decision?

> [Moderator's Note: *Which part* of the MFJ? All of it? You'll have
> plenty of reading!

Actually, I meant the 72-page recent decision only (although the rest
would make interesting reading).


Thanks.

Bruce C. Klopfenstein          |  [e-mail]
Telecommunications Department  |  [e-mail]
318 West Hall                  |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green State University |  [phone]; 372-8690
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  fax [phone]

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 ANI for NON-answered Calls?
Date: 30 Jul 1991 04:10:09 GMT


When I had an 800 number (1-800-SCUMBAG, and yes, thank-you, I've
already changed it) from Telecom USA, I got billed for unanswered and
incomplete calls all the time.  (They kindly fixed my bill but not, I
think, their equipment.)

My point is that the company that the original poster called might
have been billed for his unanswered calls -- in which case his calling
number would have appeared on their bill.

Indeed, this opens the possibility of calling the 800 number from a
payphone and just leaving it off the hook.  (I once heard of someone
doing just that to an 800 number whose obnoxious voice mail system
promised -- both falsely and endlessly -- that a human would come on
the line.)

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Inc.
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 03:45:57 GMT


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

>> 1) You will need to purchase a 27C512 ROM chip.
> Great!!!  Got any idea what we should burn into the old ROM set, or
> will just any old random bit combination work?

No -- just install it as-is from the factory.  I believe it is supposed
to be the data source for when the modem is marking.


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

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

From: Ken Abrams <samsung!athenanet.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 16:26:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> bbs.aaron_a@doomsday.
spies.com (Aaron Anderer) writes:

> [Moderator's Admonition: **BEFORE YOU READ ANY FURTHER** : I have not
> tried this (yet, but I may some day soon when I have some time.) I do
> not vouch for the instructions given, and although I want to hear of
> your successes (and particularly your failures before I start the
> project!), I do not want anyone saying TELECOM Digest or the Moderator

Good disclaimer!  And very appropriate too.  This "article" is
probably destined to become another electronic urban legend, right up
there with Craig Shergold and the modem tax.

This thing has been kicking around on on several major networks for
the last two months or so.  The consensus seems to be that it is a
total hoax.  I have heard that it was originally published in the
April 1 edition of some magazine.  I have yet to hear from anyone who
has had the guts to try it.  I think that anyone who REALLY knows
about the internal workings of a modem would probably get a good laugh
out of it which, apparently, was the original purpose.


Ken Abrams                     nstar!pallas!kabra437
Springfield, IL                [e-mail]
                               (voice) 217-753-7965

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Beware of the FON Card Charges
Date: 30 Jul 1991 04:34:04 GMT


Sprint operators will also charge you the full operator assisted rate
even if you are having trouble completing the call.  I was told that
consistently by several Sprint operators, including a supervisor.

So I don't bother with them anymore.  I also find I have a lot less
trouble completing calls in the first place with AT&T.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #587
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19961;
          30 Jul 91 23:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31630;
          30 Jul 91 22:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16135;
          30 Jul 91 21:08 CDT
Date:     Tue, 30 Jul 91 20:11:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #588
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 30 Jul 91 20:11:42 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 588

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Pakistan Telephones [Julian Macassey]
    Afghan Phones [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Phone Service in the USSR [Tim Irvin]
    What RBOC Information Services? [Jim McCauley]
    Re: Whole Earth [Linc Madison]
    Re: Book Review: SIGNAL - Communications Tools For Info Age [Seth Cohn]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pakistan Telephones
Date: 30 Jul 91 13:55:03 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


    Pakistan has a telephone network that seems to be there as
proof that you can create a system that doesn't work and then charge
people for the priviledge of making call attempts, receiving wrong
numbers and shouting to try and be heard.

    The Pakistan system is a government monopoly, but there is
talk of privatising it. The COs vary from cord boards with booked
calls between towns in the tribal areas to digital switches with
custom calling features in some parts of some cities.

    The great majority of the phones are rotary. The instruments
are either old 500 style sets, locally made, or the more modern
instruments are clones of the German desk sets currently made by
Siemens and Haganuk in Germany. The phones in Pakistan said "Made in
Pakistan" on them, so I assume they are made under license. They come
either with a rotary dial or push to pulse pad with the # (Octothorpe)
being used for "Last Number Dialed" (LND).

    According to the phone book, some areas have custom calling
features available, but they explain that you need a special
instrument -- they must mean Touch Tone as the instructions mention
using the * and # keys.

    Direct long distance dialling is a recent innovation in
Pakistan. Also some COs (no doubt the digital ones with custom
calling) have direct dial overseas calling. There is no itemised
billing.

    There are no phone booths, public calls are taken care of by
people setting up a phone in a store front called a "PCO" (Public Call
Office). I never used one of these, as the system worked so poorly, it
wasn't worth bothering.

    Some rural phones use radio links. The COs have forests of
horizontal Yagi antennas on them. They connect to rural phones that
operate in a similar manner to the old IMTS mobile phone system. The
frequencies in use vary between 148.00 and 162.00 Mhz.

    Obtaining a phone requires "connections". The phone book
drones on about how hard it is to install a phone and how it isn't
always possible, etc. The usual telco monopoly drivel. But no worry,
politicians are given a phone line quota. So they can hand out phone
assignments as political favours. The Pakistan Phone company recently
increased the quota -- yes, this is all above board and official.

    The quality of connections is abyssmal. If your call does
complete -- maybe 50% just do nothing -- and if the connection is not
a wrong number, it may be so noisy and weak that you have to hang up
and try again. Do you get credit for poor and wrong connections? Hell
no, if you did, they would have to fix the problem or go broke. Calls
are always at low levels, even across town. In the same CO, the calls
often seem to be poorly terminated. It would appear that they use too
few repeaters and then screw the gain too high. The level is always
low and often when you pick up a ringing phone it just sings (feed
back whistle). The level of crosstalk is fierce.

It is not unusual to have three or four conversations on your line. It
is also not unusual to have the crosstalk louder than the party you
are paying to shout at.

    The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad (Their nation's capital) has
rotary (ITT WECO) 1A2 all over. Works fine around the embassy. But
outside calls are like everywhere else, so weak that if someone is
talking in the same room, you have to ask them to be quiet so you can
hear your call. I offered to ship them all my old rotary 1A2, but they
declined.

    Offices in Pakistan use a locally built PBX. It has three
trunks and 20 extenstions. It is rotary only. Simple 0/1 toll
restriction is possible.  I saw newspaper ads for Siemens PBXs, but I
never saw one installed. Most people who need access to more than one
line use the Russian solution, rows of single line instruments on one
desk. A travel agent in Islamabad had five single line instruments on his
desk.

    Drops to houses and offices are strung across roofs and
through trees in a haphazard manner. The U.S. Consulate in Peshawar
has its phone lines dangling six feet above the sidewalk -- really
secure. The drop wires all seem to be spliced at 20 feet intervals --
maybe the wire is supplied in short lengths. The splices are simple
twists and uninsulated.

    The telco craft types use a locally built butt set. It does not
have aligator clips on the wire leads, just bare wire. Connections are
either wire wrap or screw terminals. I saw no punch down stuff.

    In short, this is a system that is unusable. A textbook
example of how not to put together a phone network. Seeing as a
reliable phone system is essential to commerce, you wonder why they
don't fix the phone system. But several U.S. phone companies are
interested in buying the Paki phone system. AT&T and some RBOCS have
expressed interest according to the Pakistani newspapers. Looking at
their outside plant, I would say that any company that buys it would
have to rip it all out and start again.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I believe in a message yesterday it was noted the
name of the telco there is 'PakTel'. And as Higdon would say, when the
Pakistani telco started a subsidiary here in the USA they wanted it to have
the same name as the parent company.  :)   PAT]

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Afghan Phones
Date: 30 Jul 91 18:49:27 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


    If you think the phone system is bad in Pakistan, try the
Afghan system. They don't have one. I believe the phones in Kabul
still work, but as the commies hold Kabul, I didn't go there.

    Before the Ruskie invasion and uncivil war, there were some
stats available on the phone system. Louis Dupree in his book on
Afghanistan said the switching equipment was Czech. An Afghan who
attended the telecom school there told me the switching equipment was
German (Siemens). At best, there were never more than 75,000 lines in
Afghanistan. Most of those lines were in Kabul (Their nation's
capital). According to a refugee who used to be a ministerial heavy in
Kabul, about the only lines going out to the provinces, were the ones
going to government offices in provincial towns.

    What is left today? Outside the recently liberated town of
Khost I saw one telephone pole. It did not have any wires attached to
it. If you want to communicate in Afghanistan, you get on a donkey.
But in the old days, they only people that used telephones were
government dweebs. Therefore there is little incentive to want phones
again. The regular folks never used 'em and the government just
collected taxes and conscripted young men.

    The only working phone line I saw in Afghanistan was across a
hill used to connect a mujahedin field telephone.

    There are no roads left and no electricity in the provinces.
So if you want to know what it was like in the 11th century, go to
Afghanistan.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Service in the USSR
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 18:33:31 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #573, Charles (C.A.) Hoequist writes:

> Comments: {The Economist} doesn't know how good their correspondents
> have it: they don't have to book calls in advance, as I did on visits
> to the USSR. Stand in line, book, be at your phone in eight hours.
> Not to mention the stretch of several months in 1982-83 where all
> international connections were blocked for ordinary people.
> I do wonder if foreigners have to pay their phone bills in foreign
> currency. If not, telephoning could be amazingly cheap: even in
> Moscow, you can get four rubles to the dollar as a first offer from
> somebody on a street corner.

> And a correction: Moscow _does_ have a phone book. It is a restricted
> document, and from what I've read, updated only rarely.

Actually what I read is that the Moscow phone book hasn't been updated
in *many* (ten maybe??) years, because they are afraid it would reveal
the low longevity level of their men, (due to alcoholism).

When I was in Moscow in 1988, I ended up with a bunch of extra rubles
(about $100 worth) on the day I was leaving the country.  It was money
I could not exchange back to hard currency (basically due to a screw
up in my train reservation, and this was the refund from Soft-Class to
Hard-Class, but no exchange receipt, so no conversion allowed.)  So,
the buddy I was traveling with any myself (who was in the same
predicament) decided it would be *cool* to make calls from the USSR to
the USA ... so off to the phone exchange.  We waited in line for about
ten minutes to book the calls. Got to the attendent, and she didn't
speak English -- but in my first pleasant surprise -- she picked up a
phone, said a few words in Russian and handed the receiver to me.  I
said hello and a voice on the other end asked what I wanted in
English.  I told her I wanted to place a call to the United States and
gave her the number.  She said it was xxx rubles per minute, I just
remember it was $10 / minute, so I tell her 10 minutes.  She told me
to give the phone back to the attendent, who then got the word
translated to her.  She gave me a chit with a number on it and
collected my $100 (in rubles) signalled me to have a seat.  The same
thing happened for my buddy.

As we sat there (not knowing how long it was going to take) we started to
get concerned that we would never know when our number was called, since
we couldn't understand the attendent.  But unbelievably after about 20
minutes she starts waving at me.  My call is ready.  She writes down
a booth number, which I enter and pick up the phone.  Waiting on the
other end is an English speaking operator, she tells me to hold on
she is connecting my call.  I now see my friend enter the booth next to
mine so he is getting through also.  Well, about a minute later she comes
back and tells me it is connected and the ringing starts.  Well, she
waits for the answer (the ultimate in Answer Supervision), and wouldn't
you know it the people I am calling aren't in and their answering machine
picks up.

Well, the operator hangs up immediately, and I know that I am sunk.  I
figured that was my only chance, but I say "Can you try another
number."  The reply was a resonding "OF COURSE."  So, I give her my
parent's number and one minute later I am chatting with my parents --
who are convinced something is wrong (like the KGB had me) since I
wasn't scheduled to call them till the next day when I got to Finland.
After ten minutes the operator comes back on and tells me my time is
up, she lets me say my goodbyes and plan the next time I am calling
(another 30-45 seconds worth) and I hang up.

All in all, not as bad of an experience as I thought it would be,
particularly judging how difficult the rest of the trip had been
bureaucracy-wise.  For example to get the $100 refund from the train
it took nearly an hour of literally *screaming* at people.  Then when
I get it in rubles (I paid for it in dollars) -- non-convertable
rubles at that -- I gave up.  Everything had to be paid in advance in
dollars and I was given a voucher for xxx rubles for each of the
hotels, trains, plane tickets, taxis, etc. that I would be using on my
"Approved Itenerary" (this is the only way they issue VISAs for
tourists traveling alone (not on a tour)). At each location I hand the
clerk (taxi driver), etc. the voucher, they subtract out the cost of
the service they are providing and write up a new voucher for the
remaining balance.

Theoretically this show end up being zero at the end.  Well, along the
way someone did their math wrong, and my voucher was terribly short.
It took nearly two days of constant badgering to get the hotel manager
to telex each place along the trip to see who short changed me
(otherwise I was going to be out a couple hundred dollars).  She
finally agreed, turned out the mistake had been discovered in
Leningrad, but the clerks weren't going to say anything unless asked
first. So I got that back.  Anyway (now that I have drifted completely
of telecom) the moral is the telephone service was the definitely the
lesser of the evils of Soviet bureacracy -- in my *very* limited
experience.


Tim Irvin

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

From: Jim McCauley <[e-mail]>
Subject: What RBOC Information Services?
Date: 29 Jul 91 23:59:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino


So the RBOCs are going into the information services business, for
good or ill.  What information services do you think would attract
residential customers?  Personally, I don't want something that is
like CompuServe or Prodigy, no matter how fast it is.  How about:

    * universal e-mail?

    * vanilla Unix (or whatever) system accounts?

    * Internet feeds (news, e-mail etc.) at ISDN B-channel speeds?

    * Network File System (NFS) service at 64 kbit/sec?  128 kbit/sec?

    * X Window Protocol service at 64 kbit/sec?  128 kbit/sec?

Whaddya think?  Telecommuting might actually be a reasonable
proposition with some of these services.


Jim McCauley    [e-mail]

I don't speak for Hewlett-Packard.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 00:38:26 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whole Earth
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>> [Moderator's Note: Whole Earth is the WELL, is it not? Have you
>> discussed this with folks there? Is it possible this one unit is
>> defective? They are generally good about making things right for
>> customers with problems, or so I have been told.   PAT]

> I do not believe that the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link in Sausalito is
> affiliated in any way with the Whole Earth Access department store
> chain in the Bay Area. Whole Earth Access sells computers, cameras,
> tools, and other household goods.

> You have to understand that 'Whole Earth' is a chic name to use in
> this neck of the woods -- very politically correct.

> [Moderator's Note: Well, a few years ago I received a very nice large
> book from the Quality Paperback Book Club entitled 'Whole Earth'
> (something?) and I think it was a catalog from that chain of stores
> you mentioned ... but there was a discussion in it of the 'Whole Earth
> Lectronic Link' ... and for whatever reason in my own mind I put the
> two entities together as one. I do not have the book any longer to go
> back and review what I read. This is going to drive me crazy all
> afternoon looking for that book! Who did I give it to?  Grrrr...  PAT]

Well, oddly enough, I think you're both right.  The book you had was
the Whole Earth Catalog, I believe, but it was not a catalog from
Whole Earth Access.  The people who made WEC sold the name to WEA with
a non-exclusive license, or somesuch legal mumbojumbo.  However, there
may be a connection between WEC and WELL.  I'm not sure about all the
ins and outs, but I'm pretty sure that John is right that WELL and WEA
are not related.

The other thing that WEA is notable for is that they post the exact
latitude and longitude of the store on the side of the building, at
least in the Berkeley store (37 52 N, 122 20 W; I think the store
gives degrees/minutes/seconds, but I only have the minutes.).


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]  =  ucbvax!tongue1!linc

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

Subject: Re: Book Review: SIGNAL - Communications Tools For Info Age
From: seth cohn <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 21:26:07 EDT
Organization: Alchemy International, Ithaca, N.Y.


Hey Pat,

WELL *is* affliated with Whole Earth, but at this point is more like a
SISTER organization to W.E.  Both being run by the Point Foundation.
If you like Signal, get a subscription to Whole Earth Review (at the
same address) It's FULL of stuff like the catalog.


Seth Cohn, 607-273-2815 voice, 607-272-7002 BBS (2 lines)
PO 671, Ithaca NY 14851

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #588
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20043;
          30 Jul 91 23:51 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31630;
          30 Jul 91 22:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16135;
          30 Jul 91 21:08 CDT
Date:     Tue, 30 Jul 91 20:42:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #589
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 30 Jul 91 20:41:59 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 589

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Line Noise Battle [Andrew Payne]
    Re: Line Noise Battle [Daniel M. Rosenberg]
    Re: Does 510 Work Yet? [Galen Wolf]
    Re: "Free" Touchtone and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue [John Higdon]
    Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old One Still Works? [Jim Allard]
    Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol [Lou Fernandez]
    Digital Sound Recording Chips [Christopher Whaley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Payne)
Subject: Re: Line Noise Battle
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 11:43:55 GMT


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

>        First a bit of backround. We have four lines comming into the
> house.  Three of them are used for voice and one for data. When using
> the data line for v.32 connects there seems to be alot of noise and
> the modems never connect. When calling at slower speeds (no v.32) the
> modems are able to connect. Now here's the trick: when plugging the
> modem into any of the other three voice lines and calling with the
> modem, using v.32 I can connect fine.

    I've been having a similar problem with my v.32 modem: I can
connect, but I can't negotiate MNP5, and I get a *lot* of line noise.
I can connect at 2400 baud just fine.

    Even though my phone service is provided by NY TEL, I called a
tech on campus on a personal recommendation.  He said that the phone
company guarantees voice grade lines to 2400 baud, and that I should
try and build a case at 2400 baud.  Then, hope that solving my 2400
baud "problem" solves my 9600 baud problem.  In my case, the
connection is rock solid at 2400 baud :-(

>        The phone company has been here four times now and reports no
> problem despite the fact I can demonstrate this problem in front of
> them. They say all the lines are not guaranteed for data quality and
> its a bonus that the other three can handle the high speeds. They
> suggest going with a data-quality lines (BTW, what does that entail
> and at what price?)

    As I understand it, a data-quality line is a voice-type line
with some special treatment.  They use high-quality pairs (supposed to
check frequency response, etc) and they remove the echo canceling
equipment.  I was told (not by the telco) that these lines typically
run twice what a regular line costs.

    I'm curious to hear other's experiences with v.32.  It seems
that you play the lottery with your local loop: you might get a pair
that works just fine.  If you don't, however, it takes extra bucks to
fix the problem.

    Minor flash of inspiration: what if I ordered a data-quality
line for a month, cancelled sevice, then ordered a plain voice-grade
line at the same location?  I wonder if I'd get the high-quality pair
(with the


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


[Moderator's Note: I was also concerned about this when I converted
from 2400 baud for publishing the Digest to 9600 baud. I dial into a
terminal server at Northwestern University, which is a local phone
connection for me. I have never had a single bit of trouble just using
the lines I've had here in my home all along.   PAT]

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

From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Line Noise Battle
Organization: The Very Large Software Company of America
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 16:13:05 GMT


Peter Dachnowicz <[e-mail]> writes:

> I've been having a quite a war with NJ Bell as of late; hopefully
> somebody will be able to steer me in the correct direction.

Well, when I lived in what is now 908-464 land, we had a data line
(which we used only 2400 baud on) that was quite noisy. My dad worked
for AT&T Bell Labs at the time, which didn't impress the NJB folks
even before the breakup.

The problem was worse after it rained, so we called them up, said we
had intermittent problems, and could they please give us another pair.

So, what I'd suggest is for you to tell some repair droid you use the
phone for VOICE, and it's giving you intermittent problems, and could
you please be swapped out onto another pair.

Good luck!


# (NeXT)Mail: [e-mail]     [e-mail]
# Stanford Metapage Project          {apple, ucbvax}!labrea!roadkill!dmr

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 22:53:13 PDT
From: Galen Wolf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does 510 Work Yet?


 From (415) 873 -

US Sprint - Connected
Metromedia ITT - Unable to complete call
ATT - Unable to complete call

I knew there were several reasons that I liked Sprint.

I use ITT for all my local calls, and Sprint for LD.


[e-mail] {amdahl,pacbell,pyramid,sun,ucsfcgl,uunet}!hoptoad!galen
(Galen Wolf, Anu, POB 280310, San Francisco, CA 94128-0310)
(800)SKY-TALK; PIN: 2340000

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 01:56 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: "Free" Touchtone and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue


Mark Seiden <[e-mail]> writes:

> (So much for "Plain Old" Telephone Service).  How long before they
> make pay for call waiting, three way calling, and other services I
> don't want?

They are just following Pac*Bell's lead. In technology for the
regulated customer Pac*Bell may wipe up the rear, but in finding new
ways to charge people -- now that is another matter. Pac*Bell dropped
its touch tone charges, but then raised the rates accordingly so that
in effect EVERYONE pays for touch tone now, whether they have it or
not.  But then, it is so silly to have the now de facto standard for
customer signaling even be considered a "premium service". Did we ever
charge extra for rotary dialing when it replaced operators? The whole
idea of charging extra (for a service that saved the telcos a
tremendous amount of money) is right out of the pages of "Value Added
Marketing".

Pac*Bell also graciously made the first band of near toll local for
customers (and once again raised the rates accordingly). Now everyone
pays all the time for calling out an extra four miles. Some areas
experienced absolutely no change in calling area, but are paying the
higher rate just the same.

This is standard monopoly tactic: introduce a "value added feature",
promote its use to be come standard, and then just charge everyone for
it, all the time.

> How long before the cable company forces me to pay for
> premium services?  (Actually I'm a holdover in other respects ... no
> cable TV and no microwave ...)

I do not know how long it will be for YOUR cable company to do this,
but mine has already given it a shot. The outfit just added a premium
channel, made it available to everyone and then started charging for it
on the bill. When I complained, I was told that since it was in the
clear and therefore could not be "turned off", that I would have to pay
for it. Since the company was not keeping records on its use, it could
be offered "at this low price". Did I say "offered"?  How about foisted?


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

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

From: Jim Allard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old One Still Works?
Organization: Equicom Communications, Inc.
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 14:45:21 GMT


Virtually every AOS and LD carrier accept LEC cards because they're
very easy to bill.  The real money is in the billing charges imposed
by the LECs.  Validation charges are insignificant compared to what
they (the LEC) makes on billing.

You may remember in a prior post I suggested that you not throw away
that LEC card?  With what AT&T is currently doing with their CIID card
will make this even more attractive.  The LECs are making a killing.
No doubt there will be much more advertising in the future.

AT&T has either made the major blunder of the year (CIID) or has
something equally sleezy up their sleeves.

Only time will tell.


Jim Allard <[e-mail]>  THE BOTTOM FEEDER

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?
Date: 30 Jul 91 11:36:24 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


First, let me apologize for not answering in a more timely manner.
I've been on vacation the past couple of weeks, and was having so much
fun I didn't check netnews even once the whole time -- the first time
in years I've gone cold-turkey (email-wise) for two weeks.

Anyway, I participated in the work earlier this year in TIA TR-41.9 in
harmonizing US (FCC Part 68) and Canadian (DOC-3) requirements for
automatic dialing equipment.  The important thing for us all to note
is this: software is NOT regulated by the FCC; only the equipment that
is presented for Part 68 registration is regulated.  While there was
considerable discussion on the matter, those of us on the committee
representing the software industry were able to persuade them that the
FCC did NOT want to enter into regulating communications software. The
rule therefore specifically exempts equipment that is "under external
computer control" from the redialing rules. If you tell Smartcom III
to redial 99 times with two seconds between attempts (and it issues a
new "ATD..." command for each attempt, there's nothing the FCC can do
about it. But if you design a modem or telephone with a built-in
automatic redialing function to do the same thing, it will not receive
Part 68 approval.

The rule for automatic dialing features is basically this, for
equipment registered under Part 68: the automatic dialing equipment
can dial the same number only TWICE in any one-hour period.  However,
if the equipment includes the ability to detect BUSY signal, then the
equipment may attempt up to an additional 13 times (15 total) within
each one-hour period, so long as BUSY signal is indeed detected on
each failed attempt.  The count is restarted whenever there is manual
(human) intervention; the rule does NOT attempt to control HUMAN
behavior, just the automatic redialing performed by registered
equipment.

Equipment that does sequential dialing (the dreaded telemarketing
machines) may attempt each number only ONCE before going on to the
next number.

Automatic redialing equipment may remain off-hook no more than sixty
seconds for each call attempt.

Note that in addition to modems and other equipment under external
computer control, automatic dialing equipment associated with security
systems and other emergency notification systems are also exempt from
these rules.

Virtually all modems are always under external computer control, and
are therefore exempt, with the possible exception of leased-line
modems that have an automatic dial-backup feature.


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: Lou Fernandez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 15:50:06 GMT


[e-mail] (JIM WILLIAMS) writes:

> Could any of you give me any information on SITA and the ALC protocol.
> My early info suggests that SITA is a consortium or non-profit
> organization based in Paris that has provided the equivalent of a VPN
> for many years for the airline industry.  And ALC is sort of a
> pre-X.25 kind of protocol that is used by SITA.

ALC is a protocol used to exchange information with airline
reservations terminals.  It dates back to SABRE, the first
computerized on-line reservations system, built by IBM for American in
1959? 1963?  It's a block-mode polled full-duplex multipoint protocol
using a six bit character set.  Error detection is done with a 6-bit
CRC.  Note that the protocol does not do error correction or
retransmission.  The fact that a block was received in error is
reported to the operator who can request a retransmission if s/he
wants it.

Although ALC uses RS-232/V.24 voltages and thus can be transmitted
over normal modems, both the mapping from voltages to bit values and
the bit ordering within characters is reversed from normal V.24
conventions. Programming a modern serial interface which uses an
off-the-shelf USART to support ALC can be a little tricky.

Each airline has its own ALC specification.  Although the low-level
electrical and framing conventions are fairly uniform, the details of
addressing, block sizes, error recovery conventions, interpretation of
special characters, etc., differ between airlines.  If you are
planning to build a device which must interpret (as opposed to merely
transmitting) ALC, you will need to get the specs from the airline you
are dealing with.

SITA is the Societe Internationale de Telecommunications
Aeronautiques.  It operates a world-wide telecommunications network
for the airlines.  One of the services it provides is the transport of
ALC terminal traffic to an airline's reservations host.  To make up an
example, say United Airlines, whose reservations host is outside of
Denver, wants to have a few terminals in Karachi, Pakistan to support
its twice-a-week cargo flight.  United could lease a circuit to some
place where it operates a concentrator and deal with modems, telcos,
and circuit outages in two different countries or it could pay SITA to
collect the ALC traffic in Karachi and deliver it to Denver.  For
small low-traffic sites, SITA can be cost-effective.

SITA also provides the airlines with the ability to send messages to
each other.  These are typically flight availability notices,
reservation requests and confirmations, etc.  This information is sent
using SLC instead of ALC.  SLC (for Synchronous Link Control
procedure, also called P.1024) uses an 8-bit character set and is a
point-to-point full-duplex message exchange protocol.  Message
transmission using SLC is expected to be reliable.  (In some
applications, SLC messages accepted for transmission to another site
must be held for a week before being discarded.)

There are various proposals for using X.25 to transmit ALC and SLC
traffic but I'm not sure how much production traffic is being carried
on X.25.

To find out more about inter-airline communication, you need the
latest version of the ATA/IATA Interline Communications Manual (ICM).
Contact the (International) Air Transport Association or the airline
you are working with to get a copy.

Good luck. BTW, what are you trying to do?


Louis F. Fernandez    Sequent Computer Systems
[e-mail]    Mail Stop SPL1-722
503-578-5113 (voice)    15450 SW Koll Parkway
503-578-5271 (fax)    Beaverton, OR 97006-6063

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

From: "WHALEY, CHRISTOPHER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Digital Sound Recording Chips
Date: 30 Jul 91 16:45:05 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


I am looking for any information, phone numbers, company names ... for
the chips that are used in digital answering machines (no tapes
necessary), and in digital pagers.  One of the digital pagers is made
by Motorola (so it is likely they are using their own chips, isn't
it?), and it is able to record voice messages and then play them back
for you when you want to hear them.

Any pointers to specific chip numbers, or people to contact would be
greatly appreciated.


WHALEY,CHRISTOPHER J.
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt3006a
Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #589
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22972;
          31 Jul 91 0:55 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23073;
          30 Jul 91 23:25 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31630;
          30 Jul 91 22:20 CDT
Date:     Tue, 30 Jul 91 21:40:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #590
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 30 Jul 91 21:40:38 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 590

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone [Andrew Payne]
    Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Peter Marshall]
    Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency? [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Tim Irvin]
    Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query [Todd Inch]
    Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier [Bud Couch]
    Re: Plain Old Telephones [John Pettitt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Payne)
Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone?
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 12:12:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> sequent!techbook.com!paulb@
uunet.uu.net (Paul Buder) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> Gabe M Wiener <gmw1@cunixa.
> cc.columbia.edu> writes:

> I remember in the mid 70's I found that the electronics to generate
> the 4th column tones were built into every phone (this was still when
> all phones were Bell phones).  All one had to do was connect a switch
> over the right two points in the phone.  If long distance information
> was called, free then, and the D key was pressed I would become an
> information operator!  One had to listen for a soft click and say "Can
> I help you?" or something appropriate to my teen age years.

    I seem to remember it working a little differently.  I tried
this just about the time when they started charging for DA (mid
80's?).  You could call DA, punch the D key, and you would get a
stuttering dialtone.  One touchtone digit would get you silence,
re-order, busy, or an unanswered ring.

    As an aside, there is a potential for fraud that exists with
the extra column (ABCD) tone.  I believe that the scheme is obscure
enough and less relevant today (compared to five years ago) that it
seems appropriate to describe it here.

    Many PBX systems use some sort of toll protector on outgoing
phone lines.  One way these devices work is by listening for touch
tones on the phone line and breaking the connection if they determine
that a long distance call is being attempted (more than seven digits
dialed, leading 1 or 0, etc).

    One way to bypass this equipment is to generate touch tones
recognized by the central office, but not recognized by the toll
protector.  Remember that a touch tone is specified as one (and
exactly one) row tone and one (and exactly one) column tone.  Three
tones (say, row + 2 column) is not a valid touch tone digit.  I
discovered that older Bell switches (crossbars, for example) do not
recognize the fourth column (1633 hz) at all, where the toll protector
would.  So a 1633 hz "guard tone" would prevent the toll protector
from recognizing the digits (because it saw three tones), but the CO
was quite happy with them (being 1633 hz deaf).

    If you are wondering who I ripped off, don't worry.  The toll
protector timed out after not hearing any dialing sequence.  Sure, I
could have come up with a sequence of protected and unprotected digits
that would make it work, but I was more interested in proof-of-concept
than ripping someone off.

    As I stated earlier, this scheme is less relevant today for
two reasons.  First, a lot of central office equipment recognizes the
fourth column tone.  Second, PBX <-> CO connetions are a lot more
sophisticated these days.  At the very minimum, they "swallow and
regurgitate" digits dialed for outside calls (e.g. the PBX records the
digits you dial, figures out if you are allowed to make this call, and
then picks up the outside line and dials it for you).


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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 13:28:08 -0700
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext


Although John Higdon's post on this topic seems much more to the point
than PT's, the latter deserves some comments:

It is not at all clear that Greene was directed to "reverse himself,"
as Pat asserts, although a between-the-lines reading of the earlier
appeals court decision in this remand case might create such an
impression.  It is similarly unclear, n/w/s PT's assertion here, that
Greene was "furious," etc., particularly as we are provided with no
attribution of source(s) for this notion.

Further, there is, as John Higdon pointed out, the remaining little
matter of still-pending Congressional legislation; and the very
relevant comment by Bob Jacobson concering the appeals court itself.
Both of these supply a sense of relevant context.


Peter Marshall


[Moderator's Note: Was Greene 'furious'?  Well, one person in the
courtroom who observed him noted that he came out of chambers huffing
and puffing, with his face red and the first thing he said was he did
not like having his arm twisted by 'some people who are detirmined to
to work around me anyway they can ...'.  And he virtually apologized
to the Justice attornies present that 'while they are twisting my arm,
I don't have any choice, and I sincerely regret what I have to do ..."
In the past, his demeanor has been different, and he has at least
tried to *give the appearance* of being impartial.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 10:28:37 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Freedom!  AT&T Reports the Good News
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

> [Moderator's Note: Beginning back in the late 1970's when Greene had
> some personal animosity for one reason or another toward AT&T he made
> it known to aquaintances in the Justice Department he also knew to be
> anti-Bell that he would gladly entertain them in his courtroom.

  Is this on-the-record fact that you can document or just hearsay and
innuendo that may have originated with someone or some institution
with its own axe to grind ? Everyone has a right to his opinions and
prejudices, but let's not pass on libelous accusations as fact unless
we can ascertain their source and accuracy.

> Somehow over the years his role as self-proclaimed expert on telephony
> has come to be accepted and cases involving the telcos 'just manage'
> to get routed to him.

  I don't know what expertise in telephony he has, but I really doubt
that he needs much. The issue in this case and the associated ones is,
and has always been, not the technical details of the system (that is
a patent issue) but the antitrust and regulatory implications of the
system's structure and the companys' behavior. That's where his need
for expertise exists. This expertise issue is just a smokescreen set
up by those companies and other experts who don't agree with the
decisions.

  As for routing other cases being routed to him, if he is already
overseeing the consent decree and subsequent other, related judgments,
it is natural (monopoly ? :-) for him to handle most if not all such
matters since he is intimately familiar with the subject matter and
the judicial history. Another judge would have to familiarize himself/
herself with the subject and delay the matters to the detriment of all
parties.

> I think AT&T should have handled him the same
> way IBM dealt with the federal judiciary in the threat against their
> organization: IBM flooded the court with so much paper to read (it
> literally arrived by the truckload daily at the clerk's office) that
> some law clerks may still be sorting through it for all I know.  :)

   This tactic generally serves no one but the lawyers, which is why
our courts are so clogged these days and makes for more money for
them.  Are you generally in favor of this or just when the probable
results suit your preferred denoument ?

> According to my former neighbor and former Chairman of AT&T Charles
> Brown, they only decided to give up the fight when it became obvious
> Justice and Judge Greene would have kept at it for years if necessary,
> until AT&T was bankrupted in the process of defending themselves.  PAT]

   Hey, you must live in a fancy neighborhood :-)

   Considering how many bucks AT&T made off us all over the years and
the status and security of their stock in those years, I seriously
doubt they were in any real danger of being bankrupted by the process.
They sure had enough to spend on armies of legal counsel for
regulatory matters. Of course maybe they 'gave up' because they
rightfully and logically forsaw that they would lose on the merits;
they KNEW the shenanigans they had undertaken over the years. Perhaps
they didn't want the discovery process to dredge up a lot of
confidential company correspondence and maybe even subject the company
and/or its executives to criminal and securities law liability ?

   I know this is an old topic/thread, but you brought the subject up
again from your bully pulpit. It's just annoying to see anyone harping
on the participants again and again as though that were a substitute
for discussing the merits of the case itself.


Jeff Sicherman


[Moderator's Note: Rogers Park is a far northside neighborhood in
Chicago, which like most others fifty years ago -- even twenty years
ago -- used to be nice. Mr. Brown lived in Rogers Park about a block
east of me (where I was living then) when he was in charge of Illinois
Bell. Most of Rogers Park (and Chicago) is now an unmitigated
hellhole.  I still live in RP, but in an area *slightly* better than
the eastern part closer to the lake. I am hoping to move to
Independence, Kansas within a year or so, where it is safe to walk to
the corner 7/11 at 9 PM if desired.  All sorts of stories about
Greene's anti-AT&T feelings have popped up over the years, and in
fairness to him, I admit I can't readily identify the heresay from the
truth, but usually where there is smoke there is some fire.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 18:55:12 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency?
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

> Whilst trying to help a friend with a modem/fax problem he was having,
> Dialing one line from the other [1004Hz] ... received level of -12 dbm...
> However, when I used a 2804 Hz tone into the line again at 0 dbm, the
> received level was -31 dbm.  That seems 'way too much attenuation...
> Are these reasonable numbers?  Or is there too much high-frequency loss
> in this line, which might well explain the problems he's seeing with
> his equipment.

Isn't 2800 Hz one of the magic supervisory frquencies that phreakers
used to use? Mightn't there be "anti-phreaker" 2800 Hz notch filters
installed in the CO somewhere?


Rob Warnock, MS-1L/515        [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone]        Protocol Engines, Inc.
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311


[Moderator's Note: I know about 2600, but did not know of 2800.   PAT]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 16:51:54 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #571, Tad Cook writes:

> Ringback tone is not synched with ringing voltage in modern digital
> offices.  The 5ESS that serves my home is the same way.  The ringback
> tone is completely separate from the ringing voltage.  When the called
> number is determined to be non-busy, the caller is connected to
> ringback tone, and that tone source may be at the silent interval.
> Ringing voltage is put on the line immediately, which is why on
> digital offices like the GTD5 and 5ESS you can startle callers about
> half the time by answering the phone during the first ring.  They will
> swear that the phone never rang.  Of course the other half of the time
> the two will happen to be in synch.

The reverse is true in my parents exchange (704) 274.  There the
caller will get from 1/2 to 1-1/2 rings before the phone starts to
ring.  This was extremely irritating for the first few months after
this switch was put in, since people would hear four or five rings and
hang up, and you (having only heard three rings) have just gotten to
the phone to answer it.  Eventually the locals got used to letting the
phone ring longer, but for LD calls it is still a real pain.

Another side effect of this switch upgrade, was it put less ringing
voltage (current?) down the line, so that all the phones in my parents
house won't ring.

Actually if anyone knows what kind of switch it is I would be really
interested.  When it went in the speculation around the town was that
it was some cheapo "made in Taiwan" POS.  Another thing we noticed was
that dial tone didn't break until the first button was released (i.e.
the tone and dial tone would play together during the first button
press).  We didn't complain much since we were the last office in the
area to get a switch that could handle Custom Calling features, and
Equal Access (90+% of the customers on this switch are residential, so
I imagine not a huge profit center for Southern Bell).


Tim Irvin

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

From: Todd Inch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 22:10:26 GMT


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

> [e-mail] writes:

>> A friend of mine is looking for an auto-answer speaker phone for a
>> bedridden relative.  He's seen one at Sears for $300, but that sounds
>> a bit steep to him and to me.  Any recommendations would be
>> appreciated, for products or for ways to adapt a non-auto-answer
>> speakerphone to make it answer automatically.

I vaguely remember an article here about an answering machine which
would go into "speaker-phone" mode when the caller entered the "secret
code" after it answered.  That might also be an option, especially if
the bedrider would need to explicitly turn these things on and off
(enable/disable.)

Then relatives, friends, etc who had the code could call and check-in,
even if the bedrider could barely talk, knock once for yes/twice for
no, etc.  (But the telemarketers couldn't get through.)  Kinda like
Captain Pike with his blinking light/buzzer on the old Star Trek
episode.  I suppose someone this impaired should probably have more
personal care, but sometimes that isn't always possible or desired by
all parties.

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 04:02:19 GMT


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

> Note that "700" is a special "area code" (Special Access Code) which
> maps differently on each carrier.  Other "700" numbers may incur heavy
> charges comparable to "900" numbers.

700-56x-xxxx numbers are assigned to AT&T Accunet Switched 56 service,
and have been unreachable from standard phones in the past. I qualify
this because the mechanism is in place to allow interconnect to LEC
Switched 56 services, but I haven't yet heard of any agreements in
place to allow this.  Much maligned Sprint, on the other hand, will
allow calls from their Switched 56 service (VPN) to LEC's.


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

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

From: John Pettitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plain Old Telephones
Organization: Specialix International, London
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 08:18:30 GMT


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> Me:    This old model is nice and heavy, feels really sturdy.  That
>       one is made of flimsy plastic.

> Her:    Sir, weight does not necessarily mean quality.

She is right on this point - we have a Southwestern Bell `Freedom
Phone' (not the cordless, just a simple desk model).  One of the main
reasons I got it was that it felt `solid' -- I took it apart a few
weeks back: It has two big chunks of lead in it to make it feel heavy !

So much for the `solid feel'.


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 !

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #590
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25713;
          31 Jul 91 1:58 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02528;
          31 Jul 91 0:31 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23073;
          30 Jul 91 23:25 CDT
Date:     Tue, 30 Jul 91 22:34:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #591
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 30 Jul 91 22:33:53 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 591

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Calling Card Dispute: AT&T/Cincinnati Bell/IECs/FCC [Ralph W. Hyre]
    ANSI/EIA/TIA-232-E Published [Toby Nixon]
    Cannot Get 'Host Mode' to Work With Modem [Peter J. Dotzauer]
    What About 2400 Baud? (was Let's Build 9600 Baud Modems!) [Sven Heinicke]
    GTE Pay Phone Hassle [Brad Hicks]
    Merlin 410 KSU For Sale [Jason Galanter]
    Novell Netware 2.20 With Micom Interlan NP600 Gateway [Baimba John]
    Call Out on Incoming Line [Dennis G. Rears]
    First Philadelphia Switchboard [Carl Moore]
    Cheap 1200's (was In The Early Days: 450 Baud) [Ben Burch]
    Re: Line Noise Battle [Floyd Davidson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Card Dispute: AT&T/Cincinnati Bell/IECs/FCC
Date: 30 Jul 91 20:02:59 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


Reprinted (and paraphrased) from a Cincinnati Bell newsletter.

"Cincinnati Bell Telephone (CBT) is fighting to reverse the FCC's
order in April that it violated the Federal Communications Act of
1934." ...

"CBT sent the FCC its proposal for assigning primary long-distance
carriers for public and semi-public coin telephones.  More than 10,000
such telephones are in CBT's service territory."...

"Ballots were sent to 3,500 agents who manage the public and
semi-public telephones."...  [Imagine the poor sods who didn't return
the ballot and got assigned to one of the pricier AOSes.]

"U.S. Sprint intervened, contending that CBT should make AT&T credit
card validation information available to all interexchange carriers
prior to the presubscription process, in order for carriers to compete
for the business on an even basis."

"CBT refused to release the information.  CBT says it issues AT&T
calling cards as AT&T's agent, and that validation data is proprietary
information."

The FCC disagreed with CBT, and the order is being reconsidered.
"Meanwhile, AT&T has allowed CBT to provide validation information on
credit card users living in Cincinnati Bell's service territory to
other interexchange carriers."

   ------  Mr. Hyre comments -----

[The 'residential' business office person I spoke with seemed to think
that ANY AT&T card would work, including the Universal cards.

Imagine making a call on Sprint's network, being billed Sprint's
rates.  Would you still get the Universal Card 10% discount because of
the billing arrangement?

BTW, they customer service rep I spoke with didn't know what the
post-1992 plans were for accomodating the 'new' AT&T cards, but I
imagine this issue will eventually force CBT to issue its own
"proprietary" calling cards.  Cincinnati Bell wasn't very affected by
divestiture -- they already offer some 'enhanced' services, and are
apparently allowed to maintain a closer relationship with AT&T than
other RBOCs can.  CBT resells AT&T long distance, for example.]

  -----  continuing the newsletter -----

"The FCC also has issued a proposed rulemaking to decide whether all
of the nation's local exchange carriers should make the same kind of
information available to all long-distance companies."

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

[My feeling is that as long as you can get IEC calling cards that are
tied to your carrier of choice, then the LEC cards database probably
should be available to all comers.  AT&T shouldn't be forced to share,
though.

If anyone has more information on this, I'd appreciate hearing it.]

BTW, I also read that it will be 1992 until CBT even tests Caller ID
and other CLASS features.  At this rate it will be 2015 before ISDN is
an option.

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: ANSI/EIA/TIA-232-E Published
Date: 30 Jul 91 17:04:22 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


For your information, ANSI/EIA/TIA-232-E-1991, the latest version of
the widely-used interface standard commonly known as "RS-232", was
published by EIA this month, and is now available.

Equipment built in compliance with previous versions of the standard
will continue to interwork with equipment built to the "E" version.
The primary changes incorporated into the "E" version include:

* Alignment with recent changes in the related international standards
CCITT V.24, CCITT V.28, and ISO 2210;

* Inclusion of an alternative 26-pin high-density connector system;

* Expansion of definition of CTS circuit for flow control purposes,
and inclusion of the Ready for Receiving circuit (CCITT 133) as an
alternative use of pin 5 (normally Request to Send), thereby
standardizing (finally) what is commonly called "RTS/CTS" or
"hardware" flow control;

* A warning that pin 25 (Local Loopback) is, in some equipment, used
for a "busy out" function;

* Additional clarification of limitations on cable length and
other restrictions.

Individual copies of 232-E may be purchased for $41 through:

    EIA Standards Sales
    2001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington DC 20006
    [phone]


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: Peter J Dotzauer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cannot Get 'Host Mode' to Work With Modem
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 14:12:57 GMT


After no response to the following posting to a local newsgroup, I
decided to go national:

I have been fiddling around with this for a week, and I have asked for
help with this problem, but host mode is still not working for me.

The hardware is an Evercom 24 internal modem (100 percent Hayes
compatible) in an XT clone. The software is ProComm Plus V. 2.0.

Among the things that were suggested to me and that I tried are:

- reboot without any TSR's
- reset modem with ATZ
- command AT&C1
- command AT&D2
- command AT&W (I'm not sure what this does, it is not documented in my manual)
- ATS0 1 (to set the number of rings for auto-answer)
- set type of connection to 'MODEM' (not 'DIRECT')
- set DIP switch so Data Carrier Detect follow the true carrier signal

Nevertheless, what happens is the following:

1) The connection is establised ('CONNECT 2400')
2) The Welcome message appears
3) The 'First Name:' prompt appears
4) about 20 or 30 characters of garbage appear in 1 or 2 lines
5) the 'NO CARRIER' signal appears

3), 4), and 5) occur within about five seconds, and one doesn't really
have a chance to respond to the 'First Name:' prompt before garbage
appears and the carrier is dropped.

Given all this, some people started suggesting to me that something
may be wrong with the modem, a hardware problem.

Questions:

- Is there anything obvious that I overlooked and that I should try?

- Can the modem be tested whether it has the hardware functionality
  required for host mode (with some 'AT' commands, or with a special
  utility program)?

I am hesitant tearing out this modem and buying another without knowing
for sure that there is something wrong with it.


Peter Dotzauer, Analyt.Cart.& GIS, Dept.of Geogr., OSU, Columbus, OH 43210-1361
 TEL [phone]  FAX [phone]   FIDO 1:226/50  IRC/ICB/Relay Ratzer
   INTERNET [e-mail]     UUCP ...crash!pro-tcc!pjd       DECnet mapvxa::pjd
     BITNET pjd+@ohstmail  WWIVnet pjd@6450  FreeNet ak061  ProLine pjd@pro-tcc

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 15:47:14 -0400
From: Sven Heinicke <[e-mail]>
Subject: What About 2400 Baud (was Let's Build 9600 Baud Modems!)
Reply-To: Sven Heinicke <[e-mail]>


    This is all great and wonderful, making your 2400 modems into
9600 modems.  Well, I have got three 1200 baud Universal Data Systems
modems, not Hayes.  Any hint on how to turn them into a 2400 baud
modem?


[e-mail]       Widener CS system manager
Sven Mike Heinicke             and Student
([e-mail] (if you must))


[Moderator's Note: Was it Anna Russell who once described how to make
dresses out of old patchwork quilts, only to later give a lecture
entitled how to make patchwork quilts out of old dresses?  :)   PAT]

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

Date: 30 Jul 91 15:34:30 EDT
From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE Pay Phone Hassles


I had an occasion to be in Holy Toledo, Ohio, the other day and the
unpleasant experience of trying to reach a friend in Toledo using a
GTE pay phone from one of the service islands on the Ohio Turnpike.

The notice on the phone instructs you to lift the handset, dial the
number, wait until the party answers, and then deposit $0.25 for local
calls.  I picked up the handset, dialed the number, and got dead air
(with a slight hiss), for over a minute.  So I tried again.  And
again.  And again.

Actually, I didn't get dead air on ALL four attempts on the first
phone.  The second attempt aborted three digits into the phone number
with the loudest dial tone I have EVER heard.  Dialing had no effect
on that tone.

So I decided I might have a defective phone.  I repeated this
experiment at all four phones in the building.  Same results.

In the mood to experiment, I dialed, waited for about ten seconds of
dead air, and deposited a quarter.  Nothing happened ... and when I
hung up, I couldn't get my quarter back, either.

I gave up, and decided to try to find a non-GTE pay phone at the next
exit.  A mile further down the road, I spotted a sign indicating a
county or township boundary.  (Unfamiliar with Ohio road sign
abbreviations, I am still uncertain which.)  At the next exit, I
bailed off the turnpike and hit a GTE pay phone at a gas station ...
and got through on my first attempt.

HYPOTHESIS: I now suspect that that county line (or whatever) marked a
zone boundary within the Toledo LATA.  Had I dialed 1-npa-nnnn instead
of npa-nnnn, I might have gotten through.  However, the GTE system
gave me NO error indication.  (It also ate my quarter.)  Bad design.

"I got my time wasted and a quarter ripped off.  Gee."  "No, GTE."

I used to be one of the hard-core conservatives who cheered loud
and long when AT&T was deprived of its monopoly; great was my hatred
for The Phone Company.  I eat more crow on this every year; we didn't
know how good we had it.  Or, as the one Russian general said to the
other in the famous cartoon, "Yes, but comrade, a country that would
dismantle the world's best communications system is not rational!"
*sigh*


[e-mail]

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

From: Jason Galanter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Merlin 410 KSU For Sale
Date: 30 Jul 91 16:05:42 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh -- Panther Amateur Radio Club


I have a Merlin 410 KSU with FP-1 and Music-on-hold+paging for sale.
I have no idea what to ask for the thing so I will guess at $500, All
documentation is included.  Any reasonable offer accepted.


Jason Galanter / N3HNR      | [e-mail]
322 Mall Blvd., Suite 306   | [e-mail]
Monroeville, PA 15146       | [e-mail]
[phone]               | * How's that for an information-only .sig?

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

From: Baimba John <[e-mail]>
Subject: Novell Netware 2.20 With Micom Interlan NP600 Gateway
Date: 29 Jul 91 20:15:47 GMT
Organization: Convergent Technologies, San Jose, CA


I am trying to install Novell Netware V2.20 on an AST 386 PC with a
Micom Interlan NP600 Gateway board. The problem is that the patch
issued with the Micom board to load the Netware in higher memory no
longer works since Netware V2.20 was issued on a high density diskette
and the programs have been combined.

If anyone has any idea on how I can interface these two products, I
will appreciate greatly the information.  Voice is [phone], Fax
is [phone].


Thanks,

Baimba John (GBY)    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 14:18:01 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears " <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Out on Incoming Line


Situation:

   I have three lines coming into my apartment with a circular hunt
group.  One of the lines is under my name and has touch tone
capability; the other two lines are under non-existent names.  The
other two lines do not have touch tone capability.  I have three pair
wiring in the apartment and a combination of two (3) and one (4) line
phones scattered about.

Is this Possible:

  I would like to be able to call line two or three and be connected
to one so that I can dial out on one.  Ideally, be able to call out on
both if I want a conference call.  Is it possible?  What equipment do
I need?  I am not really worried about security right now.  Also will
the phone company (NJ Bell) allow me to block outgoing calls on a
particular line?

            Dennis G. Rears
MILNET:   [e-mail]     UUCP:  ...!uunet!fsac1.pica.army.mil!drears
INTERNET: [e-mail]    USPS:  Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
Phone(home): 201.927.8757       Phone(work): 201.724.2683/(DSN) 880.2683
USPS:        SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806


[Moderator's Note: You need a call extender which will pick up one
line and connect to one or two other lines on request via touch tone
instructions you enter. Call extenders are available many places. The
telco will also equip a line for one-way service (incoming or outgoing
calls only) on request.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 16:21:09 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: First Philadelphia Switchboard


On Saturday 27 July, I found the following tablet just east of 1125
Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA:

In a building thirty feet east of this tablet the first telephone
switchboard in Philadelphia was placed in service in the spring of
1878 by Thomas E. Cornish owner of the Telephone Company of Phila-
delphia which later became the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania.
Liberty Bell Chapter, Telephone Pioneers of America.

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

From: Ben Burch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cheap 1200's (was In The Early Days: 450 Baud)
Organization: Analysts International Corp, Chicago Branch
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 18:58:40 GMT


> Those were the days! And when 1200 baud started becoming
> common at a cheap price, we were in ecstasy!  PAT]

Speaking of cheap, check out the DAMARK catalog that's just out; Atari
1200 externals for $19.00!  Yes, I know that we all have 2400 now, but
we all must know some kid without a modem who would love one of these!


Ben Burch   [e-mail]

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Line Noise Battle
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 02:20:27 GMT


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

>    I'm curious to hear other's experiences with v.32.  It seems
> that you play the lottery with your local loop: you might get a pair
> that works just fine.  If you don't, however, it takes extra bucks to
> fix the problem.

>    Minor flash of inspiration: what if I ordered a data-quality
> line for a month, cancelled sevice, then ordered a plain voice-grade
> line at the same location?  I wonder if I'd get the high-quality pair

My guess is that is a VERY viable approach!

Data grade lines are not (usually) *made* data grade by adding
anything to them as such.  They just measure all the appropriate
parameters, and verify that your line does in fact meet specs.  If it
doesn't the facilities are change until it does!

There is some offhand chance that you have a loop that is seven miles
long and only loaded cable is available.  It might require an
equalizer to be put in before it meets specs.  In that case when you
request your service be changed back to a voice grade line it may
actually go bad on you again.

Otherwise, when you change back to voice grade, all that will happen
is a paper work shuffle and a lower rate.  (They may or may not have
installed a data jack at your demarc point, and it may or may not go
away too.)


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #591
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01478;
          31 Jul 91 4:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04942;
          31 Jul 91 2:38 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac30241;
          31 Jul 91 1:32 CDT
Date:     Wed, 31 Jul 91 1:07:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #592
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 31 Jul 91 01:07:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 592

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Book: "The Financial History of (AT&T)" [Sean Williams]
    Re: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: Phone Service in the USSR [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency? [Nick Sayer]
    Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency? [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Floyd Davidson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 04:26 GMT
From: Sean Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book: "The Financial History of (AT&T)"


I was in the Pennsylvania State Library this afternoon, wasting the
day away rummaging through old telecom-related books.  I found a sort
of offbeat book entitled "The Financial History of the American
Telephone and Telegraph Company" by J. Warren Stehman, copyright 1925.

It starts out by describing the invention of the telephone, discussing
the Bell Telephone Association, and then the Bell Telephone Companies.
It then goes on to outline the formulation of the American Bell
Telephone Company.  There is also mention of the American Telephone
and Telegraph Company being a Long-Distance Company -- this was in
1885.

Chapter seven is entitled "The Bell System To-Day".  This should be
interesting reading, since the book was written in 1925...

One of the last chapters is called "Government Regulation of the
Telephone Industry."  It is set in the early 1900's.

After I get through reading this book, assuming I *ever* find time to
read the whole thing, I'll post a summary/review.

Oh, by the way, the full text of the Modified Final Judgment was also
available in the "Law" section of the library on six sheets of
microfiche.  That's about 300 pages, if I'm not mistaken.  I browsed
through the first sheet before the library closed.  I guess you could
copy the whole thing if you had a pocket full of quarters!  I asked
one of the librarians if a book was available, but she said that
everything in the Law section is transferred to microfiche after about
a year.


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


[Moderator's Note: *Please do* give us a full review of the book. This
is one title I've never heard of before. Sounds like good reading!  PAT]

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Jul 91 18:18:45
Subject: Re: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud


> Customers should know that no telephone company -- including
> AT&T, other long distance companies, and local phone companies --
> would ever ask a customer for a calling card number or Personal
> Identification Number (PIN) over the telephone.  Phone companies
> already have that information.

     Ah, but they do ask! When I first got my AT&T Universal Card, I
called them with questions about my bill. The billing inquiries person
just wanted to make sure that I was who I claimed to be. After I
pointed out that "AT&T told me no genuine employee of theirs would
ever ask for my PIN," she relented.  (I assume most callers would have
told her.)

     Perhaps they should distribute that flyer to their employees,
instead of their customers.


[Moderator's Note: There is one legitimate discussion of your PIN over
the phone, and that is when you call to discuss the PIN itself; to get
it changed or cancelled due to fraud, etc.   PAT]

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service in the USSR
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 03:50:55 GMT


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

> When I was in Moscow in 1988, I ended up with a bunch of extra rubles
 ...

> ten minutes to book the calls. Got to the attendent, and she didn't
> speak English -- but in my first pleasant surprise -- she picked up a
> phone, said a few words in Russian and handed the receiver to me.  I
> said hello and a voice on the other end asked what I wanted in
> English.

Interesting stories about calling out of the USSR!

Alascom, Inc. provides operator assisted calls into eastern Siberia
through trunks that go from the Anchorage toll switch to Provideniya
and Magadan.  The routing is via satellite to Gamble on St. Lawrence
Island, then via microwave to Provideniya.  From Provideniya the
circuits to Magadan go via a Soviet satellite system.  We installed
the microwave system to Provideniya and trained Soviet techs to do
most of the maintenance.  We make occasional trips there for more the
serious problems.  (Alascom techs do, but not me personally ...)

These circuits have been in place since August 1989, and have provided
a raft of interesting adventures for us.  Interfacing with Soviet
technicians on a face to face basis in Provideniya by all accounts was
easy and fun.  The good part starts when we are not physically there!
A normal trouble shooting session usually involves one or more
technicians at Gamble (we fly in just for the occassion, and since we
own the microwave and United Utilities, Inc. owns the earth station,
there may be two or three techs), one or more Soviet technicians at
one of two locations in Provodeniya, and possibly another at Magadan.

Of course we also conference a translator, and usually the Vice
President of Operations is on line too (he is a former tech and we do
NOT have a problem with his presence).  Sometimes the Fairbanks switch
gets involved because the trunks from Gamble itself come here, and
that may mean our gateway earth station at Gilmore Creek also gets on
line, as well as maybe the gateway station at Eagle River out of
Anchorage.  And one or more supervisors.

You get the idea!  Wow, what a conference call!  (It isn't as bad as
one might expect because we are all quite used to conferencing four or
five people at a time on a day to day basis, but more than five or six
is hard to handle.)

The problems with interconnecting the Soviet phone system to ours were
not surprising though.  Old equipment and different standards.  They
originally had a troposcatter radio system to Magadan, which is now
replaced by the satellite system.  The operator positions at both
Provideniya and Magadan are cord boards, and have reverse supervision
compared to ours.  Initially they would pull down calls that were in
progress, and leave up cords that locked out trunks, because our
circuits show exactly the opposite lamp on/off conditions from
everything else they have.

We have also traded operators for three month training periods.  Our
operator had a wonderful time!  And it seems the most memorable quote
from the Soviet operator had to do with a gentleman who complimented
her on speaking such good Russian, to which she replied "Thankyou, I
*am* Russian!", to which he replied something to the effect that if
that is the case, then her English was even more astounding!

On one occassion I spent several hours trying to patch a local Russian
speaking person into various places in Russia, both the eastern end
served by our trunks, and through the AT&T international operator into
Moscow.  We donated the calls to facilitate travel arrangements being
made for some kind of semi-offical visit. I couldn't understand most
of what was going on with the Moscow operator, but it was obvious that
getting calls placed to anywhere outside of Moscow was a difficult
process.  As often as not we just got dropped and had to start over
again.  Because the calls were being placed from a testboard it was
fairly easy to get right back to the same international operator from
AT&T through the Alascom internatinal operator.  We ended up spending
the evening swapping jokes while waiting.

Future plans are for a joint venture between Alascom and the Soviets
for a satellite station in Anadyr and a 900 mile long high capacity
microwave system connecting various parts of Siberia (I'm not sure
where the locations are).


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 04:32:03 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


[e-mail] (JIM WILLIAMS) writes:

> Could any of you give me any information on SITA and the ALC protocol.
> SITA is... based in Paris... VPN for the airline industry. And ALC is
> sort of a pre-X.25 kind of protocol that is used by SITA.

ALC is used by a lot more people than SITA. ALC stands for AirLines
Control (or maybe Airlines Line Control, I forget), and is *the*
common line protocol between almost all the airline reservation,
information, and display terminals and their mainframes. (I think it's
an ARINC standard, but I'm not sure.)  This includes the ones at the
airport concourse "gate" positions, as well as the ticket counter, and
at your favorite travel agent. Systems like IBM's TPF (Transaction
processing Facility, formerly ACP, for Airline Control Program) can
also use it for talking to automated teller machines. (Actually, in
the latter case, there's often an ALC-to-BSC converter box between the
mainframe and the terminal.)

ALC is a polled multi-drop synchronous protocol, like "BiSync" (BSC),
but uses 6-bit data codes, instead of 8, for line efficiency. This is
not so silly when you consider that a single 2400-baud (sometimes now
4800 or 9600) multi-drop line could have dozens of terminals hanging
off it. They went *way* out of their way to compress the amount of
information sent up and down those lines.

This is also why, if you've ever looked over the shoulder of a travel
agent as he/she makes a reservation for you, the "user interface"
(such as it is!) is so incredibly cryptic! The fewer characters in the
request/response messages, the less line time is consumed.

The original ALC-comaptible terminals were simple "block mode"
terminals, sort of similar to IBM 3270's. The "user" (gate/ticket/
travel agent) types a (small) number of characters and then hits
"SEND". The terminal waits for the next "poll" from the mainframe --
yes, all the way from Kansas or Iowa or wherever *the* system is
(there are only a handful of different ones) -- and then transmits
what the user typed, all in a burst. The response, when it is finally
available, is sent down the shared multi-drop line, but picked off
only by the addressed terminal.

The terminals were fairly dumb -- just smart enough to do "block
mode". Which is why they didn't do something nicer like translate a
user-friendly interface into tightly compressed binary codes. They
just used raw six-bit text, and made the messages short. And cryptic.
This example isn't correct (since I never took the six-week training
course!), but a query like "QYATLSFO;8/3;DA3P" might mean "display
flights with coach seats available from Atlanta to San Francisco
departing August 3 [this year] after 3pm". [Someone feel to correct
me.]

You can probably get a copy of the ALC protcol spec by calling ARINC
(sorry, I'm vague about the acronym, Airline Radio INterchange
Committee?). It is ARINC that runs the common (slow) hub that
exchanges messages across reservation system boundaries. That's why,
if your travel agent is "affiliated" with, say, American Airlines
"Sabre" system, it takes such a long time to get the response from,
say, United Airlines' database. The query/response has to go through
the ARINC hub. [They (the airlines) like it that way.]


Rob Warnock, MS-1L/515      [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.      [phone]        Protocol Engines, Inc.
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.   Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA
Date: 31 Jul 1991 04:35:29 UTC


[e-mail] (Rob Warnock) writes:

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

>> Whilst trying to help a friend with a modem/fax problem he was having,
>> Dialing one line from the other [1004Hz] ... received level of -12 dbm...
>> However, when I used a 2804 Hz tone into the line again at 0 dbm, the
>> received level was -31 dbm.  That seems 'way too much attenuation...
>> Are these reasonable numbers?  Or is there too much high-frequency loss
>> in this line, which might well explain the problems he's seeing with
>> his equipment.

> Isn't 2800 Hz one of the magic supervisory frquencies that phreakers
> used to use? Mightn't there be "anti-phreaker" 2800 Hz notch filters
> installed in the CO somewhere?

It better not be.

There are, as has been mentioned already, certain standards a POTS
line must meet. Among them are:

    low-end cut off
    high-end cut off
    frequency equalization
    signal-to-noise

If I am not mistaken (and I probably am), a standard POTS line must be
like +/- 3 db continuously from 250 Hz to 2500 Hz.  If they're
notching at 2 kHz, they're violating the tariff.

Paying for line conditioning doesn't get you much beyond a guarantee
that they're meeting the spec they're supposed to be meeting in the
first place.

Your repairman should have a box that will measure each spec, and you
should have a copy of the tariff. You should be able to watch as he
plugs the various devices into the protector and reports the results.
If any one of them doesn't meet tariff, you will get satisfaction or
you can call the PUC and have the BOC roasted over an open fire.


Nick Sayer   [e-mail]
N6QQQ        209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency?
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 05:20:23 GMT


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

> Isn't 2800 Hz one of the magic supervisory frquencies that phreakers
> used to use? Mightn't there be "anti-phreaker" 2800 Hz notch filters
> installed in the CO somewhere?

[...]

> [Moderator's Note: I know about 2600, but did not know of 2800.   PAT]

It is only special in that 404, 1004, and 2804 Hz are the standard
frequencies used to measure frequency response.  The levels at 404 and
2800 Hz are compared to that at 1004 Hz.  The difference is "slope",
and is specified for various kinds of circuits or equipment at
different values.

Most modern test equipment is now set up so that those three frequencies,
and 2713 Hz (which loops back most Data Station Terminating units) can
be switch on at the push of a single button, as opposed to any other
frequency having to be dialed up, punched in, or some such.

2804 Hz doesn't do anything to circuit equipment though.


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone?
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 04:58:57 GMT


Just today a whole new use for the ABCD touchtones that are not on
most phones was demonstrated to me!

Seems around this neck of the woods there is a long piece of pipe, and
a large comm system to handle all the calls this pipe causes.  I'm not
going to name names, but at the southern end of this pipe, in a town
known for floating oil, this particular company has a PBX, and in that
PBX all of the test numbers start with one or two of those oddball
touchtones!  Not exactly standard proceedure.

Now it happens that we want to auto-dial all those test numbers, and
one guy spent all afternoon figuring out that they may be A, B, C, and
D on a phone, but they are C, D, E, and F in a dial string given to a
DMS 100/200 in the table for test trunk numbers.

So the test tone in Val--- at that location is 'CC02' or something
like that.

(We thought it was just a little on the strange side of wierd :-)


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #592
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab27786;
          1 Aug 91 2:35 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14940;
          1 Aug 91 0:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13446;
          31 Jul 91 23:48 CDT
Date:     Wed, 31 Jul 91 23:23:00 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #593
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 31 Jul 91 23:22:42 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 593

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [John Covert]
    Re: International 800 Calling [Steven A. Minneman]
    Re: ATC Billing [David Ptasnik]
    Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Stephen Tell]
    Re: Sprint Price Change [Seth Cohn]
    Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency? [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Line Noise Battle [John Corcoran]
    Re: Tolled and Toll Free Services Around the World [Ian Phillipps]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 15:50:46 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  31-Jul-1991 1853" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?


Peter da Silva <[e-mail]> writes:

> I still don't know why you can't call 800 numbers from outside the US
> when you're willing to pay for the call. It seems strange that there
> is no mechanism for just dialling +1 800 nnx xxxx and paying regular
> international long distance rates...

That's not strange at all.  As has been explained before, the 800
Service address space for world numbering zone 1 does not just cover
the United States, it also covers Canada and some of the Caribbean
countries.  Since it cannot be determined from the number (a database
inquiry is required) whether the 800 number is in the United States or
Canada (or for that matter in any other country in the world where the
company has decided to have a U.S.  dialable 800 number), it is not
possible for the originating country to route the call to the U.S., to
Canada, or right back to Sweden to a Swedish company with a U.S. 800
number!

Transiting another country for international traffic is not permitted
by CCITT recommendations, except where explicit transit agreements
exist.  The Swedish (or other) PTT would not be happy learning that
one of its customers had been able to call Canada or some other
country at the rates charged for calls to the U.S.  The fact that a
circuit to the U.S. was all that was used has nothing to do with it --
the PTT is entitled to collect the appropriate charge for an
international call to the country of final destination regardless of
how the call is routed.

Furthermore, there would be recurring problems if the call could be
dialed at international rates without explicit billing information
coming from the caller.  Many callers would not understand, and would
complain that they had been charged for calling a "toll-free" number.
The primary victims would be Americans in hotels in Europe, getting
socked by hotel charges of $10 or so per minute when they thought the
call was free.

When you call USA Direct and ask to be connected to an 800 number, you
must give an AT&T calling card -- so there is no question that you
know you're going to pay for the call.  AT&T will now give AT&T
calling cards to almost anyone in any country where USA Direct service
is available, and will bill calls to a credit card (usually VISA) in
that country.  Several of my German friends proudly showed me their
AT&T calling cards the last time I was in Germany.  For calls over
about three minutes, using the AT&T card via USA direct is much
cheaper than the German PTT's rates for direct dialed calls.

Ole J. Jacobsen <[e-mail]> writes:

> The way I understand 800 service to work is that domestically the
> *called* office does not return answer supervision, hence the call is
> free.

This is not true at all.  Called 800 numbers return proper answer
supervision and always have done so.  Billing software looks at the
dialed number and determines that no charge applies for the call.
This is why 800 numbers (as well as 555 DA numbers) were used as the
first step in blue-box schemes, before that became impossible.

Talking about overseas 800 Service numbers (or the local equivalent)
terminating in the U.S., Ole wrote:

> The service was hideously expensive and did not get used much, so we
> had it disconnected at the end of eight months.

If your carrier is AT&T, the monthly fee of $20/month for Readyline
800 service (terminating on a normal POTS number) will allow your 800
number to work anywhere in the NANP (as long as you tell them you want
Canada or Caribbean locations at the time you order the service).
Countries outside the NANP are $20/month each.  However, if you have
Megacom 800 Service, there is no charge for having a number in each
country providing the service.  Of course, you have to pay for the
incoming calls ...

Frederick G. M. Roeber <[e-mail]> writes:

> My Citibank credit card statements now say "605-335-2222 Call Collect"
> instead of the 800 number.  In fact, their new cards now have both
> numbers, with the 605 noted "Outside the U.S. only Call Collect."

> Of course, calling collect from Switzerland requires *booking* the
> call.

When calling the U.S.: simply dial 155-0011 (AT&T USA Direct's number
in Switzerland), and when the operator answers, say "Please get me
605-335-2222, collect, from Fred Roeber."  Call will go through in a
few seconds.  BTW, 155 numbers in Switzerland cannot be called from
outside the country.  Switzerland has both "155" numbers, which are
toll-free, and "046-05" numbers, which are charged at local call
rates.  The latter can be dialed from abroad.


john

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 10:37:55-1795
From: "Steven A. Minneman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International 800 Calling
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steven A. Minneman )
Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Claus Tondering)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 570, Message 10 of 11

> [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre) writes:

>> On AT&T's part, couldn't low-volume international customers be advised
>> to advertising the USA Direct number for international calls?  (Those
>> operators can dial 800 numbers, can't they?)

> I don't know if they can, but they won't!

This must have been a while ago.  You are right in that USA Direct
used to refuse to ring 800 numbers.  However, they now will ring 800
numbers.  They do say before connecting you that you will be charged
for the call from overseas to the US.

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATC Billing
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 16:54:41 PDT


Macy Hallock wrote:

> One of the reasons you are subjected to AOS abuse when staying at many
> hotels/motels/hospitals is very simple: AT&T and the LEC's will not
> share a piece of the pie with the property unless its a very large
> customer.

> At one time, AT&T/BOC's paid a commission on operator assisted calls
> from a property to the owner.  Standard operator assisted rates
> applied, and were well know.  Simple, direct, and satisfactory to all
> concerned (in most cases).

> If you are Holiday Inns, you can cut a very large deal with AT&T and
> get this service (which they have in fact done). Not so for the small
> guy.

> Answer?  Use an AOS.  They pay based on a negotiated arrangement.

AOS's are NOT the only answer.  They are probably the easiest and most
resented answer.  A much better answer is a call accounting system.
Virtually every hotel/motel switch in the world has an SMDR port.  The
few that don't can use a tip/ring scanner or an AOS.  If the hotel
insists on maing a profit off of every call, they can route the calls
over MCI, Sprint, or WATS and charge Direct Dial rates.  They can put
a surcharge on every 0+ call, 1-800 call, or 10XXX call.

If the extra charges that they put on ONLY equal the kickback they
would have gotten from an AOS, the guest would still save a TON.  This
does require a little more effort on the part of the hotel than just
routing everything to TeleSleaze.  They do have to update the rate
table once in a while, and they might have to spend $3 - 4,000.  They
do have to bill the guest at checkout instead of letting the AOS hit
the guest's phone bill.  Good call accounting systems can interface
with the hotel's management software and print the calls right on the
guest's bill.  Mom and Pop hotels can do it for a lot less with some
of the really simple call accounting software that costs as little as
$99.00 and runs in the background of an existing PC.

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

From: Stephen Tell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
Date: 31 Jul 91 04:50:53 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <[e-mail]> bbs.aaron_a@doomsday.
spies.com (Aaron Anderer) writes:

>            How to upgrade your 2400 baud modem to 9600 baud.
>                 (US Robotics compatible of course)

> ...    This
> upgrading of your modem will not work on old Hayes modems, but they
> will work on any clone maker of modems (Everex, Practical Peripherals,
> Anchor, ATI, Intel, etc.)  It will only work with modems with the
> Intel chipset.

The only Intel 2400-bps modem chipsets listed in the 1989 Intel
"Microcommunications Handbook" are:

    * The 89024 chipset, which handles V.22bis, V.22 A/B, V.21, Bell 212A,
        and Bell 103 and consists of the 28-pin P89027 chip and
        the 68-pin N89026 chip

    * The 89C024XE chipset which does the same functions but can
        be upgraded to do MNP-5 error-recovery and compression
        with the addition of an 8Kx8 SRAM and Intel software in
         a pair of EPROMs.

Basic 2400 bps Modems using the first chipset contain only these two
chips, two 1488s and one 1489 for RS232 interface, a 74x244 for
driving status LEDS, and a 8-pin serial "nonvolatile ram" (it might be
an EEPROM).  Two I've seen follow the Intel application note schematic
very closely.

So, there's no Uart to be replaced with a 16550, and only two other
chips not three that this says need to be replaced.

Unless the authors of this come up with some real technical information,
this looks like a very late April Fools to me.

Now, modem upgrades by replacing one chipset with another are quite
plausible if you know what you're doing.  For example, one of the
2400bps modems I've seen has empty holes on the board for adding the
RAM and EPROM for a do-it-yourself MNP5 upgrade (assuming you can get
the software from Intel and burn your EPROMS).

The way to investigate this is to get databooks from manufacturers of
the 9600bps modem chipsets.

Rest of the original message deleted; the first time around was enough
of a waste of bandwidth.


Steve Tell       [e-mail]    H: [phone]   #5L Estes Park apts
CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill.   W: [phone]   Carrboro NC 27510

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

From: [e-mail] (seth cohn)
Subject: Re: Sprint Price Change
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 21:30:23 EDT
Organization: Alchemy International, Ithaca, N.Y.


[e-mail] (Ron Newman) writes:

> I'm one of the people who received the Sprint mailing without the $5
> coupon.  So today, I called Sprint up (1-800-877-4646).  Waited about
> seven minutes on hold, then when an operator answered, I said,

(things to suggest he wanted the credit also.)

> So if you didn't get your $5 certificate and don't mind waiting on
> hold for a few minutes, call Sprint and tell them so.

Except, I tried this, and was told, SORRY the $5 was only for Sprint
PLUS subscribers, and you only have REGULAR service.  DARN!!!! I
wanted $5 credit too ...


Seth Cohn, 607-273-2815 voice, 607-272-7002 BBS (2 lines)
PO 671, Ithaca NY 14851  (this is a plain and simple mail sig :)

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency?
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 12:24:12 GMT


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

> There are, as has been mentioned already, certain standards a POTS
> line must meet. Among them are:

>    low-end cut off
>    high-end cut off
>    frequency equalization
>    signal-to-noise

> If I am not mistaken (and I probably am), a standard POTS line must be
> like +/- 3 db continuously from 250 Hz to 2500 Hz.  If they're
> notching at 2 kHz, they're violating the tariff.

Maybe somebody who works around a line switcher can give some better
figures.  I searched around a bit, and coudn't find a definitive spec.
However, in the "Notes on the Network - 1980" book (and I could NOT
find it in the '90 version) it says something to the effect that an
end to end dial up circuit should have (this is NOT *must* have) no
more than 14 dB rolloff at 404 or 2804 Hz compared to 1004 Hz, and the
distribution would be 3 dB per each subscriber loop and 8 dB for CO,
mux, trunks etc.

That is not +/- but rolloff as they are not even considering the idea
that it might be less loss than at 1004 Hz.

> Paying for line conditioning doesn't get you much beyond a guarantee
> that they're meeting the spec they're supposed to be meeting in the
> first place.

It *might* guarantee you will get a circuit that is as good as
"normal", which is no where near as bad as it could be and still meet
specs.  I'm not positive about dial up lines, but I believe that the
only spec that actually changes is instead of 26 dB s/n you get at
least 28 dB s/n.  The things that might actually be causing problems,
like impulse noise, are exactly the same.  It is mostly a case of they
probably will make an effort to find the best facilities (like trying
different cable pairs etc.) they can.

> Your repairman should have a box that will measure each spec, and you
> should have a copy of the tariff. You should be able to watch as he
> plugs the various devices into the protector and reports the results.
> If any one of them doesn't meet tariff, you will get satisfaction or
> you can call the PUC and have the BOC roasted over an open fire.

Geeze, *I* don't even have a tariff (not one for my tele line anyway,
and it would take me a while to locate one on the trunks I test).

It must vary from one place to another, and may be different for local
lines, but in my particular case you can ask for and get a signed copy
of the data on a leased line that I do the testing on.  You can watch
if you keep quiet too!  And you will pay the initial installation fee
every time I do it too, so don't get wound up and ask to get it
checked every month.  (For C2 and/or C5 data conditioning on leased
lines it might be more than a couple hundred bucks.)


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Wednesday, 31 Jul 1991 14:26:27 EDT
From: John Corcoran <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Line Noise Battle


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Andrew Payne) says:

>        As I understand it, a data-quality line is a voice-type line
> with some special treatment.  They use high-quality pairs (supposed to
> check frequency response, etc) and they remove the echo canceling
> equipment.  I was told (not by the telco) that these lines typically
> run twice what a regular line costs.

 ...or more.  New England Telephone charges about $75/month for a data
line while the normal monthly charge for a voice line is about $22.
Last time I talked to them, they told me that they made absolutely no
guarantees about the suitability of voice lines to carry data at any
speed, and told me that if I wanted to use a 2400 baud modem I should
buy a data line.  No thank you.  I have an occasional minor problem
with it, but I can certainly live with it.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 13:18:23 BST
From: Ian Phillipps <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Report: Tolled and Toll Free Services Around the World


In comp.dcom.telecom is written:

> U n i t e d   K i n g d o m

> 0800 xxx xxx      Toll-free
> 0345 xxx xxx      Local rate

A useful thing to point out is that if you take on one of these
numbers, you are obliged to accept calls from anywhere in the UK, but
can elect to have them routed to up to 12 different destinations
depending on the originating region.


Ian

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #593
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00729;
          1 Aug 91 3:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08703;
          1 Aug 91 2:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14940;
          1 Aug 91 0:56 CDT
Date:     Thu, 1 Aug 91 0:05:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #594
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu,  1 Aug 91 00:05:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 594

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud [Andy Sherman]
    Re: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Call Out on Incoming Line [Dennis G. Rears]
    Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Calling Card Dispute: AT&T/Cincinnati Bell/IECs/FCC [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Whole Earth [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: Does 510 Work Yet? [John Higdon]
    Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Paul Slootman]
    Re: "Free" Touchtone and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revnue [Bud Couch]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 09:20:32 EDT
Subject: Re: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


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

>     Ah, but they do ask! When I first got my AT&T Universal Card, I
> called them with questions about my bill. The billing inquiries person
> just wanted to make sure that I was who I claimed to be. After I
> pointed out that "AT&T told me no genuine employee of theirs would
> ever ask for my PIN," she relented.  (I assume most callers would have
> told her.)

There is a difference.  You *knew* you had a genuine employee because
you called the number on the billing statement.  However, they have
other information to identify you with, and probably ought to use
that.


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: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards
Date: 31 Jul 91 10:41:50 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


[e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD) writes:

> NY Tel (not known for innovation, or much else for that matter) is
> trying them out at ferry terminals in NYC and may expand in the city
> and elsewhere in the state if they are successful.

Oh, they'll be successful all right.  I just wonder if NY Tel will be
the beneficiary.  I predict that there will soon be a huge market in
fradulent cards.  If there's one thing New York City residents are
known for, it's their ingenuity in this kind of thing.

This has been a problem even here in Japan.  A few months back, it was
reported that some pay-per-call information providers were using
fradulent cards to make calls to their own services, thus turning the
cards into cash.  Fortunately for NTT, losses from card phraud have
been more than made up for by the propensity of people to buy
telephone cards as collectors items.  One report I read said that 60%
of all phone cards sold have never seen the inside of a telephone.

And on the subject of these cards, anyone know what type of cards NY
Tel will use?  Everywhere in the world that I have seen them (except
for Japan), they were cards just slightly thinner than a credit card
and used Plessey-built phones.  These phones have the nasty habit of
turning off the tone pad after a certain number of digits.  At least
the phone in Singapore I used stopped sending tones halfway through my
voice mail log-on sequence.

The cards in Japan are much nicer.  Very thin.  More like plastic-
coated paper.

P.S. to those in Japan: The July issue of {Action Band} magazine (a
Japanese hacker magazine) has a report on how to use NTT's credit card
to make free calls from older-style card telephones.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 11:34:06 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears " <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Out on Incoming Line


I wrote:

> I would like to be able to call line two or three and be connected
> to one so that I can dial out on one.  Ideally, be able to call out on
> both if I want a conference call.  Is it possible?  What equipment do
> I need?  I am not really worried about security right now.  Also will
> the phone company (NJ Bell) allow me to block outgoing calls on a
> particular line?

Pat wrote:

> [Moderator's Note: You need a call extender which will pick up one
> line and connect to one or two other lines on request.

What exaactly is a call extender, how much are they, and where I can
buy one?


Dennis

[Moderator's Note: A call extender (sometimes called a WATS extender
since their traditional use in the past was to connect an incoming
local line to an outgoing WATS line for the benefit of company
employees calling from a local payphone or home, etc) is simply a
device which answers one line much like an answering machine, but then
patches the answered line across to another line and returns dial tone
on the second line to the caller. The caller then proceeds to make a
call as though he were physically present wherever the patched-to line
is located, such as in the office. Better quality units require the
use of a security code to gain access, and even better units from a
security point of view do not just patch through and provide dial tone
from the outgoing side. So-called 'progressive dialing' has always
been fraught with fraud ... so the better units make you enter a
security code, state your business completely, then go away, fetch the
desired end destination and only then open the patch. You can buy them
from any telephone supply company or catalog, such as HELLO DIRECT.
Prices vary, but they are not too expensive. They amortize (pay for
themselves) quickly if you would otherwise have to make a lot of LD
calls from a payphone or via credit card, etc.  PAT]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 16:25:40 GMT


[e-mail] (Rob Warnock) writes:

> ALC is a polled multi-drop synchronous protocol, like "BiSync" (BSC),
> but uses 6-bit data codes, instead of 8, for line efficiency. This is
> not so silly when you consider that a single 2400-baud (sometimes now
> 4800 or 9600) multi-drop line could have dozens of terminals hanging
> off it. They went *way* out of their way to compress the amount of
> information sent up and down those lines.

The primary reason six-bit characters are used is that the original
computers were IBM 1401s and 7090s, which have six-bits (EBCD) as
their native character size.  IBM data channels handled 12 bits at a
time, and the sync frame in PARS or IPARS is 12 bits long.  The
international versions of these systems went to eight-bit characters,
because the Model 33 teletypes used eight-bit characters.  Newer
versions of these terminals sometimes use six-bit characters padded to
eight-bits for transmission.

> This is also why, if you've ever looked over the shoulder of a travel
> agent as he/she makes a reservation for you, the "user interface"
> (such as it is!) is so incredibly cryptic! The fewer characters in the
> request/response messages, the less line time is consumed.

> The original ALC-comaptible terminals were simple "block mode"
> terminals, sort of similar to IBM 3270's. The "user" (gate/ticket/
> travel agent) types a (small) number of characters and then hits
> "SEND". The terminal waits for the next "poll" from the mainframe --
> yes, all the way from Kansas or Iowa or wherever *the* system is
> (there are only a handful of different ones) -- and then transmits
> what the user typed, all in a burst. The response, when it is finally
> available, is sent down the shared multi-drop line, but picked off
> only by the addressed terminal.

There is no explicit acknowledgement from the computer for a block
sent by the agent.  If there is no reply in 5-7 seconds, the agent
just resends.  Design goals were to complete a transaction in 5
seconds or less (Inquiry to response).

> You can probably get a copy of the ALC protcol spec by calling ARINC
> (sorry, I'm vague about the acronym, Airline Radio INterchange
> Committee?).

Aeronautical Radio, INC.

> It is ARINC that runs the common (slow) hub that
> exchanges messages across reservation system boundaries. That's why,
> if your travel agent is "affiliated" with, say, American Airlines
> "Sabre" system, it takes such a long time to get the response from,
> say, United Airlines' database. The query/response has to go through
> the ARINC hub. [They (the airlines) like it that way.]

Well, they don't, actually.  But the justice department requires low
capacity links so that the large carrier reservation systems can't
merge into a single mega-system, which Justice feels would be
anti-competitive for smaller systems [and this was without even the
benefit of Judge Greene!]


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail]) [formerly Kaufman Data Communications]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Card Dispute: AT&T/Cincinnati Bell/IECs/FCC
Date: 31 Jul 91 19:46:14 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> "Ralph W. Hyre" <rhyre@
cinoss1.att.com> writes:

[stuff from CBT deleted]

> [The 'residential' business office person I spoke with seemed to think
> that ANY AT&T card would work, including the Universal cards.

I doubt they would. If that was the case the replacement cards would
be coming with the new 891 type international numbers.

> Imagine making a call on Sprint's network, being billed Sprint's
> rates.  Would you still get the Universal Card 10% discount because of
> the billing arrangement?

Don't think so. As the caculations are done at Universal Card Services
(the company that prints the bills).

> BTW, they customer service rep I spoke with didn't know what the
> post-1992 plans were for accomodating the 'new' AT&T cards, but I
> imagine this issue will eventually force CBT to issue its own
> "proprietary" calling cards.  Cincinnati Bell wasn't very affected by

AT&T never issued calling cards directly until recently; only through
LEC's. Therefore, I don't see CBT changing the current cards.

[stuff deleted]

> [My feeling is that as long as you can get IEC calling cards that are
> tied to your carrier of choice, then the LEC cards database probably
> should be available to all comers.  AT&T shouldn't be forced to share,
> though.

AT&T only will be sharing with the LEC's. I assume that all LEC's will
share with all other LEC's and IEC's. The only question I have is will
all IEC's share with the LEC's?  I think that they should.

Table Summary:

card\carrier    IEC   LEC

IEC            reject accept

LEC            accept accept

The only time a calling card should be reject is one IEC's card by
another IEC.


Bill

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Jul 91 16:17:36
Subject: Re: Whole Earth


> Moderator's Note: I did not think it was ever politically correct to
> refer to the concept of political correctness, or to even acknowledge
> that such a thing as political correctness existed. I thought that
> mention of political correctness was only acceptable when the phrase
> was used by crude and rude individuals such as myself, ...

     That's a recent development. The term has been used among
progressive folk for at least ten years to refer (ironically) to
people who try to arrange their lives, so as not to do anything
'incorrect.'  Such people would go to great lengths to avoid minor
infractions: eating no fruit under boycott, not purchasing products or
services from companies with bad labor practices, not purchasing
anything from the 'military industrial complex' (I remember that light
bulbs were a problem here), etc.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 00:45 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Does 510 Work Yet?


Galen Wolf <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  From (415) 873 -

> US Sprint - Connected
> Metromedia ITT - Unable to complete call
> ATT - Unable to complete call

> I knew there were several reasons that I liked Sprint.

> I use ITT for all my local calls, and Sprint for LD.

That is all very impressive except for one thing: the official start
date for 510 is September 1. It appears that Sprint has screwed up
once again. Repeat, 510 should NOT be working at this time. Anywhere
that it is indicates a programming error.

By the way, how are you using Sprint within the LATA? Looks like
ANOTHER programming problem on the part of Sprint.

How do you use ITT for your local calls?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Slootman)
Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone?
Organization: DataCount, Wierden, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 13:17:30 GMT


[e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce) writes:

> Touch Tone really has four row and four column frequencies defined.
> Your ABCD buttons use the regular four row frequencies with the 1633hz
> column frequency.

In our office, these keys are interpreted by the PBX as short cuts to
special commands. For example, to repeat the last (external) number
dialed, you can use *80, or the D key. To answer a call to another
phone that's in the same group as yours, you can use B (equivalent to
*42).

The phones we have are "memofoon" as sold by the Dutch PTT,
manufactured by "Standard Electric Kirk A.S.". These have a mercury
switch, so that if the receiver is held with the mike and earpiece
down, the mike is turned off. Useful for concealing expletives when
talking to difficult people :-) The Dutch PTT doesn't sell them
anymore; they stopped before I could buy one for home :-(


[e-mail]   + 31 5496 88831

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: "Free Touchtone" and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 21:27:57 GMT


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

> Pac*Bell dropped its touch tone charges, but then raised the rates
> accordingly so that in effect EVERYONE pays for touch tone now,
> whether they have it or not. But then, it is so silly to have the
> now de facto standard for customer signaling even be considered a
> "premium service". Did we ever charge extra for rotary dialing when
> it replaced operators? The whole idea of charging extra (for a
> service that saved the telcos a tremendous amount of money) is right
> out of the pages of "Value Added Marketing".

First off, John, I agree with you. OC's charging for DTMF service _is_
gouging.

But let's look at how they got there. When it was first introduced,
the 1A ESS was just a gleam in Bell Labs' eye. The country was served
by Crossbar, Strowger SXS, some Stromberg X-Y switches and even a few
revertive pulse offices. Except for the crossbar, they all required
not only initial investment, but significant incremental cost for each
DTMF line installed. A Strowger office, for instance, had two choices
for DTMF: you either installed a DTMF to pulse converter _per line_,
or you put them behind the concentrator, and changed the requesting
subscriber's telephone number (in most cases). In either case, there
was a new cost for every subscriber who wanted the service.

Even for crossbar, the early installations raised the cost of
operating a particular switch, for a dtmf receiver had to be added to
every register in the office. Either that, or you only added a few,
and then added class marking (which also costs).

For this reason, the PUCs allowed an extra charge for DTMF to be added
to the tariff for local service. In x-bar offices, as the number of
DTMF lines reached a certain point, the average holding time shrunk to
the point that the _total_ number of registers required for a given
grade of service started to decline.

The electronic offices were basically the same as x-bar; at a certain
level of DTMF subscription, it started getting cheaper.

Here's the rub -- how do you construct a statewide tariff which allows
you to charge for a service at one location, but not at another? They
didn't, and the PUCs let the OCs get away with it.

Of course, now we have digital end offices, and it actually costs more
to implement dial pulsing, but the tariffs remain.

IMHO, the fault may well lie with OC greed, but the PUCs with their
almost complete lack of technical expertise, share a large part of the
blame.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #594
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03026;
          1 Aug 91 4:48 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23041;
          1 Aug 91 3:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac08703;
          1 Aug 91 2:02 CDT
Date:     Thu, 1 Aug 91 1:13:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #595
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Aug 91 01:13:04 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 595

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Contel (GTE) Basic Service in N. VA [Ken J. Clark]
    Long Distance Before Direct Dialing [Ken J. Clark]
    Now I've Seen Everything [Phydeaux]
    Magazine Review: Cabling Business [Carl Wright]
    A Phone-Booth Tale [Frank R. Pizer]
    INS Type SNA/SDLC Loop Adapter Information Needed [Steve Urich]
    Market Share of Long Distance Carriers [Sun-Sentinal via David Leibold]
    PC Pursuit Phone Number [Jerry Leichter]
    What Happens When Area Codes Are Used Up? [Dave Mausner]
    Working Assets Long Distance [Arnie Kahn via J. Philip Miller]
    Telephone Device Needs Builder [Theodore S. Tang]
    Upgrading Dial-in Only Modems [John Hawkinson]
    Here's the Shuttle's E-Mail Address! [Joe Abernathy]
    Student Dataphone Use on Campus-Wide Network [Carol Noyes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 13:26:53 PDT
From: "Ken J. Clark" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Contel (GTE) Basic Service in N. VA


One subject of late on the Digest has been basic service charges, plus
whether or not touch-tone service is additional.  Here's a breakdown
of what Contel (now GTE) charges me monthly.  This applies to Contel
service in Manassas, VA (703 area code, 369 exchange).

Single Party Residence Service in Base Rate Area   12.49
Touch-Call Service                                  2.00
Special Calling Feature (Call Waiting)              2.75
Miscellaneous Service                                .00
Federal Subscriber Line Charge                      3.50
Your Long Distance Company is AT&T                   .00
Un-Published Directory Name                         2.00
Virginia Relay Center Surcharge                      .10
Enhanced 9-1-1 Fee                                   .55
Taxes Fed 2.00    Local 3.00                        5.00
                                                  ======
                                                   28.39

The official start of GTE is Thursday, August 1, 1991.  They've been
running some spiffy 1/4 page ads in the local paper.  The advertisement
features nine clocks in a 3x3 pattern.  The upper left clock is
labeled "Contel."  As you progress through the clocks, "Contel" fades
out as "GTE" fades in.  The add then states, "Times may change.
Quality does not."

BTW, there's also been alot of talk on the Digest as to what type of
switch such and such has installed ... I don't know what type of
switch Contel has, but its quality leaves much to be desired.  I
routinely get cut off on local calls (within the CO) as well as calls
in the EAC (to C&P in the Washington Metro area.)  So far, no problem
connecting to the LD.  I guess I've been spoiled.  I've always been
served by a #5ESS either by C&P or New York Tel, until now. :-(


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, 30 Jul 91 13:44:57 PDT
From: "Ken J. Clark" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Before Direct Dialing


Dear Pat,

I must say I've enjoyed the recent discussions about long distance
phoning prior to direct dialing.  I'd like to pass this one along
which always brings a smile to my face.

My father worked for 42 years as the produce manager for our local A&P
grocery store.  Our home-town exchange (Olean, NY area code 716, 372
exchange) had direct dialing available in the late sixties.  However,
my father had to work for a year (1972-1973) at the Bradford, PA A&P
while they were building the new Olean store.

Anyway, Bradford (area code 814, 368 exchange) was not direct dial.
My father, being produce manager would place his weekly order by phone
to the A&P warehouse in Buffalo, NY, every Monday morning at 7:30am.
This went on for some time during that year.

One particular Monday my father picked up the phone and dialed 0 as
usual.  To his surprise he was greated by, "Good monrning Mr. Clark.
I'll have your call to Buffalo for you right away."  Pretty good that
Ma Bell could anticipated a call.  Some how I don't think that "<bong>
Thank you for using..." will ever quite compare. :-)


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]


[Moderator's Note: That was a fun thing for an operator to do
occassionally. When I worked at UC (circa 1959) operating the
switchboard I'd get a call at 2 AM ... I *knew* who they wanted to
speak with and sometimes would plug it straight through.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 18:13:19 PDT
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Now I've Seen Everything


Those 900 chat line guys are pretty creative!  Last night when tuning
around I stumbled across a program-length advertisement for 900 chat
lines. It was hosted by Jessica Hahn who, if I remember correctly, was
involved in a sex scandal of some kind a few years back.

Of course, during the show they had *numerous* 900 numbers flashing on
the screen and cut out for commercials advertising -- you guessed it,
more (different) 900 numbers.  The 'studio audience' was also never on
the tube the same time as the host of any of the guests.  They could
have been chopped out of a "The Price Is Right" episode.

Dumbfounded,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Carl Wright)
Subject: Magazine Review: Cabling Business
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 03:58:56 GMT
Organization: UMCC


I received the first issue of a new magazine for qualified subscribers
titled {Cabling Business}, subtitled <The Only Professional
Telecommunications Cabling and Wiring Magazine for Voice, Data, and
Image>.

The articles in the first issue were:

  Design your own cabling standards
  Cabling opportunities for the contractor
  The true total cost of cabling
  The trials of wiring a telecom lab
  How to install a fiber optics network ... underbudget.
  Laws, codes, and changes
  Making friends with your time-domain reflectometer
  Making your ring a star
  The information outlet

For subscriptions call 214 270 0860, 9:00 AM to 5 PM CST.

I subscribed.


Carl Wright                 Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]    2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST   Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 11:28:49 PDT
From: Frank R Pizer <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Phone-Booth Tale


Patrick, I came across a book titled "Requiem for a Redbox"; basically
the history of the telephone booth in the United Kingdom.  I thought
some of the incidents from the early period might amuse TELECOM
readers.

"It concerns early phone booths in England in 1912.  Graffitti on the
white-painted surfaces inside the boxes was a problem, and the then
Postmaster General approved the optimistic idea of providing
scribbling pads for people to make notes on.  All that happened was
the customers stole the pads and continued to scribble on the walls."

There is also the tale of what must be about the earliest "phone
vandal" ...

"In 1907, Mr Samuel Wartski tried to smash open the coinbox of a
kiosk. He claimed he had put in his tuppence but the operator failed
to hear and refused to connect him, whereupon Mr Wartski attacked the
box with a chisel.  Although he failed to penetrate the box, he DID do
nineteen shillings' worth of damage.  The magistrate apparently
sympathised, saying 'These telephones are frequently very troublesome
and annoying to those who use them'. Mr Wartski was fined one
shilling, the court costs were two guineas, and the phone company
emerged with a tarnised image and a nineteen shilling repair bill."

I also like this one ... also from 1907.

"Blackburn, anxious to preserve any vestiges of a rural atmosphere,
aquired a six-sided rustic arbour with ornamental log walls, leaded
light windows and a wooden roof surmounted inexplicably by two large
balls. Inside there was not only a telephone but an electric light, a
clock, a table and seats. It proved to be a little too luxurious. Soon
after it was opened, four gentlemen of no fixed abode were found to be
seated in it, enjoying a smoke and a game of cards. They were rapidly
removed - and so were the table and seats."

I guess all this goes to show is that people never really change <grin>.

For anybody who might like to look the book up for themselves it is:

REQUIEM FOR A REDBOX  by John Timpson
Published 1989 by Pyramid Books, Michelin House, 81 Fulham Rd, London SW3 6RB
ISBN 1-855-10008-8


Frank Pizer   f713.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
ZapWrite v2.5 plus =-
* Origin: Chaos Manor. Cape Town RSA. *HST 14.4* (FidoNet 5:7102/713)
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!5!7102!713!Frank.R.Pizer
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 6:43:52 EDT
From: Steve Urich <[e-mail]>
Subject: INS Type SNA/SDLC Loop Adapter Information Needed


Hello again,

The help was much appreciated and narrowed down the need to the INS
unit which is very much without any sort of OEM identification. So
once again I am here to ask for your help on this equipment. Is it
some sort of multiplexer?  It has five D-Sub connecters, is one a
loop?

INS  (From Mobile Alabama)
SNA/SDLC Loop Adapter

I suspect I might need another one of these units in order to have it
function. So I am asking if anyone has the phone # for this company in
Alabama handy.

Thanks.   Please E-Mail.


Steve Urich    WB3FTP    wells!beyonet![e-mail]

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

Subject: Market Share of Long Distance Carriers
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 08:45:26 EDT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton


The {Sun-Sentinel} [Ft Lauderdale] lists the various market shares of
the long distance carriers. The source was stated as "Industry
analysts" whoever they might be ...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMSSO

A: AT&T 70%
M: MCI 15%
S: Sprint 10%
O: Others 5%

Replies to: [e-mail]
or: The Super Continental BBS [phone] [now HST/v.32bis/v.42bis]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 10:15:52 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: PC Pursuit Phone Number


Pat: In a recent TELECOM, you mentioned an 800 number, 1 800 TELENET,
for information about PC Pursuit.  I get "number not in service at
this time" when I dial it.  Any clue about other numbers?


Jerry


[Moderator's Note: Try 1-800-336-0437 or 1-708-689-6000. Ask for PC
Pursuit Marketing.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 13:25:17 CDT
From: "Dave Mausner, X4450" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: What Happens When Area Codes Are Used Up?


Specifically, what will LD companies do when the X0X and X1X area
codes are all used up?  Are they close to running out of area codes
now?  And who exactly will make this momentous decision?


dave   ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: When *traditional* area code numbers are exhausted
sometime in the next two or three years, then three digit codes will
be assigned which at present resemble regular prefix codes. Bellcore
handles the assignment and administration of area codes.   PAT]

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Working Assets Long Distance
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 16:54:06 CDT


I found the following posting on CRTNET (A communications Research
Mailing list).  Does anyone know of this company?  I do not recall it
being discussed here before.


phil

 Date:     Tue, 30 Jul 1991 23:32 EST
 [from]    Arnie Kahn <FAC_ASKAHN@JMUVAX>
 Subject:  working assets long distance

I received an ad that sounds almost too good to be true.  Working
Assets Long Distance advertises themselves as "the first public
utility that works for social change."  1% of long distance charges go
to groups such as Rainforest Action Network, Habitat for Humanity,
Amnesty International, Planned Parenthood, etc.  They also claim the
"highest quality service at the lowest rates."  Rates "as low as
Sprint or MCI's basic residential service -- lower rates than AT&T."
And they claim the sound quality is equal to the "big three."

Does anybody know anything about this company?  I post this to CRTNET
and Interper because, after all, second to the computer, most of us
use the telephone for communications.


Arnie Kahn
fac_askahn@jmuvax (bitnet)
[e-mail] (internet)

                          -----------

     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: Theodore S Tang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Device Needs Builder
Date: 31 Jul 91 22:12:53 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee


I have an idea for a telephone device which I would like manufactured.
Is there anyone I can describe this device to for construction?


Ted Tang   Milwaukee, WI    414-964-8756 voice


[Moderator's Note: Begin by telling us.   PAT]

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

From: John Hawkinson <panix![e-mail]>
Subject: Upgrading Dial-in Only Modems
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 21:41:08 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


The recent thread on upgrading 2400 ---> 9600 modems made me think of
this little question:

    I have some (10 or 15) Racal Vadic dialin-only 1200baud modems
[don't remember the exact model number, but I could check if it
matters ...]  and I was wondering: is it possible to upgrade them to
dial-out, also?  (Hey, and while we're at it, if you know how to
upgrade them to V42 and V42bis, and 38.4k I'd like to know too :-)).

Thanks.


John Hawkinson   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 18:39:26 CDT
From: Joe Abernathy <chron!magic322![e-mail]>
Subject: Here's The Shuttle's E-mail Address!


It's [e-mail]

This is an entirely unofficial undertaking being undertaken by
entirely nameless persons, so you didn't hear it here.

Seriously, NASA didn't want to identify the commercial mail service it
was using for this venture, but since it leaked out, some brainy type
figured out that one way to prevent the thing they feared worst --
drowning in emails -- was to provide a channel into which our idle
mail can be directed. So at some point, the astronauts or somebody
else will check this account for interesting material, but no
guarantees that sending mail here will actually get it read by
somebody who's in space at the time they're doing their reading.
Better than nothing, though.


Cheers!

Joe Abernathy

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 16:16:53 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Student Dataphone Use on Campus-Wide Network


I'm looking for information from any university/college which has a
situation similar to one we are about to enter.  We have a campus-wide
network, but up to now, there has been no connections of any kind in
place for student use in the dormitories.

This September, students will be able to request a Dataphone, allowing
the to plug a terminal into the phone's serial port, push a button on
the phone, and have communication to the network.

If anyone has such a system in place, my questions are:

  1)  Do you charge the student for the Dataphone, and if so, how much?

  2)  How do you let students know about this option?

  3)  Do you have a sample form that students use to request a
      Dataphone?

Any information you could send our way would be appreciated.  I'm not
a subscriber to this list, and hope that the request is not
inappropriate.  Please respond directly to me.  Thank you.


Carol Noyes   NOYES@HARTFORD    University of Hartford

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #595
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03168;
          1 Aug 91 4:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23041;
          1 Aug 91 3:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ax08703;
          1 Aug 91 2:05 CDT
Date:     Thu, 1 Aug 91 1:48:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #596
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Aug 91 01:47:56 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 596

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Dial Tone Lasting Into Key Tone [Ken J. Clark]
    Re: Line Noise Battle [Patton M. Turner]
    Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers [Bill Huttig]
    Cellular Injustice [Daniel Wynalda]
    Re: GTE Payphone Hassle [Bud Couch]
    Re: Boardwatch Magazine on RBOC Gateways [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards [David Singer]
    Free Toll Calls! (was Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems) [Vance Shipley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 11:23:41 PDT
From: "Ken J. Clark" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dial Tone Lasting Into Key Tone


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] "Tim
Irvin" writes:

[ discussion on ringback tone deleted ]

> Another side effect of this switch upgrade, was it put less ringing
> voltage (current?) down the line, so that all the phones in my parents
> house won't ring.

> Actually if anyone knows what kind of switch it is I would be really
> interested.  When it went in the speculation around the town was that
> it was some chapo "made in Taiwan" POS.  Another thing we noticed was
> that dial tone didn't break until the first button was released (i.e.
> the tone and dial tone would play together during the first button
> press).

[discussion on custom calling feature deleted ]

Actually, Tim, your description is identical to what I had to get used
to when I moved out of C&P (5ESS) and into Contel/GTE (GTD-5), earlier
this year.  In fact, my dial tone lasts a split second past the
initial tone key being released.  It sounds like you have a GTD-5.
One way to verify this is to check your "Service Features" section of
your phone book (white pages).  If your call waiting cancel is 70#,
it's a good be you've got a GTD-5.  This compares to a 5ESS which is
*70.


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: Wed, 31 Jul 91 18:27:12 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Line Noise Battle


>    Minor flash of inspiration: what if I ordered a data-quality
> line for a month, cancelled sevice, then ordered a plain voice-grade
> line at the same location?  I wonder if I'd get the high-quality pair

I am aware of this happening on a Contel CO.  A friend of mine ordered
a data line to be connected to his neighbors house.  A month latter it
was disconnected.  Several months latter he ordered a second line for
his house and the drop was moved from his neighbors house to his.
Because of the number of pairs feeding he and his neighbors he knew he
would get the the same pair.  This turned out to be meaningless within
a year as a remote end office fed by fiber was installed less than
2000 yards from his house.  (It may not be a true "remote end office",
but that is what Contel called it.)  Of course Contel still uses open
wire in a few locations.


Pat Turner    KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA     [e-mail]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers
Date: 1 Aug 91 01:32:45 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In the past Southern Bell allowed intra-LATA calls with all carriers
but AT&T. For a short period of time it was possible to use all the
IEC's and to call local numbers via them. A few days ago things
changed (I think the same time we got Caller ID) and it is no longer
possible to call intra-LATA via MCI (the old part - it is still
possible via TELECOM*USA's network). All other carriers seem to go
through; i.e.  10xxxNXX number local 10xxx 1 NXX number for long
distance 407 area code including the ORLANDO LARA where my phone is.

The question is why does Southern Bell now block MCI but not the
others?  Is it legal (by FCC rules) for IEC to carry intra-LATA
calls? Southern Bell (Maintainance Center) claims that it is illegal
and that all intra-LATA calls via IEC's should be blocked. Is this
true?


Bill

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

Subject: Cellular Injustice
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 15:39:00 EDT
From: Daniel Wynalda <[e-mail]>


I recently noticed a strange unfairness about the cellular system we
currently use.  Although the cellular system is as full of rip-off
artist tactics as the COCOT industry, this seems to be an imbalance on
their own part.

One of our local cellular companies (the wireline carrier), has
complete border to border roaming in the State of Michigan.  There
aren't any daily surcharges except in two small corners of the state.

If one of our people calls in on their cellular phone to our phone
number, we receive a cellular bill for $.75/min + long distance
landline charges.  If we call the cellular phone (in the same
location), the phone only pays the local access rates (no long
distance).

Why do the BOC's allow the cellular companies to avoid paying long
distance charges when roaming to areas that would normally be long
distance?  Is this just a deficiency in the roaming protocol?  It
seems that the cellular company would want to bill the cellular phone
either way or neither way.

Your input is appreciated.

On a related note: I've noticed that no matter WHERE you are in this
area code, I can call all of the local access numbers without dialing
1+ and without paying long distance. This means I can call 200 miles
away to a cellular phone for the cost of a local call (and the
cellular person's airtime only).  How would they get the BOC to SKIP
charging long distance rates on just these selected numbers?


Daniel Wynalda       | [phone] X22 Ham:N8KUD Net:[e-mail]
Wynalda Litho Inc.   | 8221 Graphic Industrial Pk. | Rockford, MI  49341

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE Payphone Hassle
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1991 03:51:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(76012,300 Brad Hicks) writes:

> I had an occasion to be in Holy Toledo, Ohio, the other day and the
> unpleasant experience of trying to reach a friend in Toledo using a
> GTE pay phone from one of the service islands on the Ohio Turnpike.
> The notice on the phone instructs you to lift the handset, dial the
> number, wait until the party answers, and then deposit $0.25 for
> local calls.  I picked up the handset, dialed the number, and got
> dead air (with a slight hiss), for over a minute.  So I tried again.
> And again.  And again.

> In the mood to experiment, I dialed, waited for about ten
> seconds of dead air, and deposited a quarter.  Nothing happened ...
> and when I hung up, I couldn't get my quarter back, either.

> ... gave me NO error indication.  (It also ate my quarter.)  Bad
> design.  "I got my time wasted and a quarter ripped off.  Gee."
> "No, GTE."

Well, I can't argue with you about not getting the call through (the
dead air part), but I will say that you didn't get your quarter
"ripped off". The instructions specifically said "wait until your
party answers".

The first time I ever ran into a post-pay paystation, it cost me 30
cents. (A dime a call then.) In what I have since come to realize is
an identifying characteristic of engineers, I didn't read the
directions first. I dumped in my dime, dialed the number, and found
that the party on the other end couldn't hear me. Three times before I
*read* the directions.

What you ran into is the oldest form of dial paystation, a post-pay
circuit. It is primitive, but it does have the virtue of simplicity.

In a "standard" (in these days of COCOTS, what a concept) paystation,
what is known as pre-pay service involves a fair amount of circuitry,
mechanical assemblies and extra power supplies. When you deposit your
coin, a sophisticated mechanism which weighs, sizes, and checks the
magnetic properties of that coin totals your deposited amount. It then
forwards a ground to the CO. The money you deposited comes to rest on
a platform. The CO forwards dial tone and monitors the call. When you
hang up, a voltage is sent over the pair to the paystation, with its
polarity a function of whether or not the call was answered. One
polarity causes a solenoid to tip the platform in one direction (into
the collection box) and the other polarity tips it to the return
chute.

A post-pay station, on the other hand is a model of simplicity. It has
*no* provision to return your money; that's why the instructions say
to wait until the called party answers. The money hits a platform,
somewhat similar to the prepay, but which can only tilt to collect. It
is tilted to collect any time that the talk battery voltage is normal.
In SXS and some crossbar, and even in some electronic COs, the talk
battery voltage is normal (-48V on the ring) _until the call is
answered_. So when your party answers, the platform goes flat. Under
that platform is a microswitch. When coins are resting on it, it
closes, shorting out the diode placed in series with the handset
transmitter.

Now let's go through a call. One, you dial. If no one answers, or the
line is busy, you don't deposit any money. You can try again. If you
do deposit money it goes directly into the collection box (remember,
the platform is tilted then). You try again. This time someone
answers. You can hear them, but they can't hear you until you deposit
your coin (battery has reversed, with -48V now on the tip, and the
diode is preventing any current from flowing through the carbon mike).
You deposit the coin and the microswitch shorts out the diode,
allowing current into the transmitter. You conduct your conversation.
When the called subscriber hangs up, or when the switched path breaks
down after you hang up, the talk battery goes back to normal, the
platform tilts, and the money is collected.

I've left out a lot of detail, like how toll calls are handled, etc.,
but what I wanted to point out was that your statement about "bad
design" was not true. It was simple and accomplished the task. When it
was first used it could even be described as elegant.

For those situations in the middle of nowhere, served by a SXS CDO, it
is probably the most efficient solution, even today.


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

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

Subject: Boardwatch Magazine on RBOC Gateways
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 22:24:01 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Peter Marshall) writes:


>  From {Boardwatch Magazine}, 6/91, p. 8:

> Ameritech was the ONLY ... (RBOC) to pass entirely on the concept of
> an ONLINE GATEWAY service. Actually PacBell also bowed out after soem
> early maneuvring but Ameritech stated flatly that there was no
> incentive to pay for an online gateway to services that could be
> dialed directly. Developments since then have proven them quite
> accurate with all but US West giving up on the faltering gateway
> concept.

I have an aquaintance that plans to place a service on USWest's
gateway when it comes operational.  From our discussions, he plans a
modem conferencing service, possibly using Minitel protocol. (For the
graphics and overall look.) More or less your standard 'chat' system, I
would think, and he plans to price it as low as possible.  The system
would not be available except through the gateway.

Unless his plans have changed, I may be writing some (if not most) of
the conferencing software.  In any case, I'll keep tabs on the
progress and fate of his proposed system and keep the Digest up to
date.  After NYNEX's experience, I can hardly see why USWest would
want to persue gateways.  Perhaps they know something us mortals dare
not suspect?

(as long as they keep their hands off my net connection! ;-)


Roy M. Silvernail   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 22:39:49 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Chip Rosenthal) writes:

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

> >> 1) You will need to purchase a 27C512 ROM chip.
> > Great!!!  Got any idea what we should burn into the old ROM set, or
> > will just any old random bit combination work?

> No -- just install it as-is from the factory.  I believe it is supposed
> to be the data source for when the modem is marking.

27C512 is the number for a 512k bit CMOS EPROM.  When factory-new, it
should contain all 0xFF bytes.  (if it does not, it's not blank)

If this is used as a "data source", is there a good reason why 64
kbytes of 0xFF are needed?

The file says that this ROM chip goes into the "Supervisor" socket, so
it stands to reason that it must have _something_ on it besides
endless 1 bits.  That's just more reason to believe that the whole
file is bogus.


Roy M. Silvernail   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards
Date: 1 Aug 91 05:29:06 GMT
Reply-To: David Singer <[e-mail]>
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center


In article <[e-mail]> Jim Gottlieb <jimmy@denwa.
info.com> writes:

> Fortunately for NTT, losses from card phraud have
> been more than made up for by the propensity of people to buy
> telephone cards as collectors items.  One report I read said that 60%
> of all phone cards sold have never seen the inside of a telephone.

I can believe that -- you can buy NTT phone cards (with California
scenes printed on the back) at the San Francisco Hilton's gift shop.
I doubt many of the cards sold *there* go into phones in Japan.
(Sorry, I don't rememember how much the cards cost, but I'm sure
they've been marked up quite a bit.)


David Singer -- Internet: [e-mail]   BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN
                Voice: [phone]              Fax: [phone]

(If I needed a disclaimer, I'd put one here.)

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Free Toll Calls! (was Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!)
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 16:53:02 GMT


*** WARNING I HAVEN'T TRIED THIS, I ONLY HEARD ABOUT IT *** :) :) :)

You can get all the free long distance calls you want with this simple
wiring change to your telephone!  Just clip the yellow wire.  That's
right that's all it takes, just disconnect the yellow "billing" wire
and the telephone company won't know who made the call!

Disclaimer: If you believe anything I just said shame on you!


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


[Moderator's Note: You sweetheart you! Thanks for caring, and thanks
for sharing ... but remember the eleventh commandment: Thou shalt not
mock the Moderator or take the Moderator's name in vain ... not if you
want to see your stuff printed here on a regular basis!  A certain
amount of abuse is good for me, I suppose.  :)  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #596
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01904;
          3 Aug 91 3:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06346;
          3 Aug 91 1:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23406;
          3 Aug 91 0:39 CDT
Date:     Fri, 2 Aug 91 23:50:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #597
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 2 Aug 91 23:50:17 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 597

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    What RBOC Information Services? [Jim McCauley]
    AT&T Non-Subscriber Calling Cards [John R. Levine]
    Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? [Elizabeth Schwartz]
    NTIA Report [Jane Fraser]
    Hotels and AOS's AGAIN [Jim Allard]
    Looking For Reference Literature [Karl T. Braun]
    Interchangeable Area Codes - Coming Sooner Than Planned? [David Leibold]
    SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number [Mark Seiden]
    AT&T, Fraud, and PacBell [David Gast]
    How to Dial in Switzerland [Carl Moore]
    CT2 vs CT3 [Brendan Jones]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jim McCauley <[e-mail]>
Subject: What RBOC information services?
Date: 29 Jul 91 23:59:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino


So the RBOCs are going into the information services business, for
good or ill.  What information services do you think would attract
residential customers?  Personally, I don't want something that is
like CompuServe or Prodigy, no matter how fast it is.  How about:

    * universal e-mail?

    * vanilla Unix (or whatever) system accounts?

    * Internet feeds (news, e-mail etc.) at ISDN B-channel speeds?

    * Network File System (NFS) service at 64 kbit/sec?  128 kbit/sec?

    * X Window Protocol service at 64 kbit/sec?  128 kbit/sec?

Whaddya think?  Telecommuting might actually be a reasonable proposition
with some of these services.


Jim McCauley    [e-mail]

I don't speak for Hewlett-Packard.

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

Subject: AT&T Non-Subscriber Calling Cards
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 22:40:42 EDT
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


A recent message commented that AT&T would not issue a calling card
unless you had a telephone number.  That turns out not to be true -- I
have a copy of an application for an AT&T non-sub calling card.  It
asks for quite a lot of credit information, about what you'd expect
for any other credit card.  If you want such a card, you can get the
application by calling AT&T's regular service number and explaining
what you want, and they'll transfer you to a department in Charleston
WV that handles such things.  Don't ask my why they're in Charleston,
particularly since the actual cards are apparently still issued by
Cincinnati Bell.

The reason I got this application is that I have a chatty friend who
lives in Madrid, Spain.  Telefonica, Spain's telephone company, has
Europe's worst rip-off long distance phone rates.  Telefonica's rate
from Spain to the U.S. is about $3/minute, while for me to call her
costs me $1.09/minute at AT&T's day rate, and only 58 cents/minute at
Sprint's discount rate.  When I was in Spain last month, I noticed
that AT&T and MCI now have "Dial USA" type access numbers in Spain,
which are posted in the instructions on every payphone in Madrid.  So
I figured that if she could get an MCI or AT&T calling card, she could
use the Dial USA number and pay U.S. rates rather than Spanish rates
for calling here.

MCI, once I told them that calling from Spain now works ("No kidding!
What's our number there?" said the MCI rep) was quite helpful and said
that my friend could apply herself by calling MCI's number and asking
for customer service.  Calls would be billed to her Visa card.  AT&T
gave me an extremely convoluted story in which she could mail in her
application, and assuming it was approved they'd mail the bill
anywhere but they had to mail the physical card to an address in the
U.S.  I asked how about if they mailed it to me and I called her up
and told her what it said, and that would apparently be OK.  Sheesh.
Whoever said that AT&T's problems are all with people was entirely
correct.

I haven't yet heard from my friend to find out whether she has gotten
either card yet.


Regards,

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

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

From: Elizabeth Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep?
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1991 13:32:56 GMT


    Here in New England, we have a weird sort of pay-phone
deregulation: third-party vendors may charge 25 cents for calls but
New England Telephone may only charge ten cents!

   Anyway, I have gotten bit by quite a few of these off-brand
telephones.  I have an answering machine that responds to touch-tone
beeps, and many of these phones will not produce beeps after the
connection starts! (A few produce beeps which are not audible at the
calling end, but this is okay.)

   Why does the beep shut off? Is there any way to tell if a phone
will not beep before wasting money in it (these phones charge
outrageous amounts if you are in the suburbs and they can cal it "long
distance")?  Are there any standards for what services the customer
should receive for the price of a phone call ... that is, *ought* they
to beep??


Betsy Schwartz            Internet: [e-mail]
System Administrator        BITNET:[e-mail]
U-Mass Boston   Computer Science Dept.  Harbor Campus Boston, MA 02125-3393

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 12:07 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NTIA Report


On January 9, 1990, the NTIA (National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, part of the Department of Commerce)
announced that they would be performing a "Comprehensive Study of
Domestic Telecommunications Infrastructure."

Does anyone know if this report is out yet?

Last rumor I heard was that the report would be published in May or
June of this year.  My local GPO can't find any NTIA report matching
my description.

Thanks for any information.

(Note that NTIA Telecom 2000 is not the report I am seeking, since it
was published in October 1988, albeit reprinted in March 1991.  But
then, maybe the reprint *is* their new report.  :-))


Jane Fraser       The Ohio State University
Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications

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

Subject: Hotels and AOS's AGAIN
Date: 1 Aug 91 15:00:55 EDT (Thu)
From: [e-mail]


Macy Hallock suggested:

> "...hotels/motels/hospitals is very simple: AT&T and the LEC's will
> not share a piece of the pie..."

David Ptasnik countered:

> "...A much better answer is a call accounting system.
> Virtually every hotel/motel switch in the world has an SMDR port.  The
> few that don't can use a tip/ring scanner or an AOS.."

and

> "...route the calls over MCI, Sprint, or WATS and charge Direct Dial
> rates. They can put a surcharge on every 0+ call, 1-800 call, or
> 10XXX call..."

Our Moderator frequently bemoans the fact that Hotels/Hospitals seem
to want to make a profit center out of every department.

Come on gang, business priciples are fairly simple, there must be more
money coming in the door than goes out.  You can only raise room rates
to certain levels before occupancy drops.  Occupancy rates, BTW, are
lower than they have been in many years (57% nationwide), due to heavy
building in the late 70's and 80's.  There are probably enough rooms
to to handle everyone into the end of the century.

Every hotel/motel I've ever been associated with has a call accounting
system to handle 1+ traffic.  Generally the traffic is routed over MCI
or Sprint.  Most properties (of course) charge more than they pay (see
above business principle).  In fact many are charging AT&T "operator
assisted" rates.  I'm not sure what "standard rates" are, who's the
standard?  You may choose to use AT&T as the "standard", but many of
us do better elsewhere.

Then there's the question of that guest who wants to use their calling
card, make a collect or third party call, or maybe even person-to-
person.  Whether our Moderator or anyone else likes it, telecomm-
unications IS a profit center in the lodging industry and will
probably never change.  Further, if the facility can make a little
money on operator assisted calls, with few guest complaints, why
shouldn't they?  Let's not forget, only 5% of my call attempts request
other carriers.  Readers of my previous posts are aware that we
provide access to the callers carrier of choice, rate quotes,
branding, etc.  I can't be responsible for the others who don't.
Therefore, why not make a profit?

If you're unhappy about the phone charges on your hotel bill, politely
ask the desk clerk to explain and/or provide credit.  Practically
every hotel writes off LD disputes without hesitation.  If you want
the property to change their policy, the desk clerk simply can't help
you. Call or write the manager/franchise/owner.

Finally, it might be well to keep in mind that those of us who
participate / read this DIGEST are very well educated in
telecommunications (by and large).  Most of the public not only
doesn't think much about it, they really don't care.  (Sorry, Pat, but
making one national telephone company a constitutional ammendment is
really unlikely.)  If we really want to solve the "problem", we'd get
involved in some sort of public education process.  Let everyone know
not only that there are choices now, but that they're less expensive
and becoming more advanced every day.  An educated consumer is what
makes the free enterprise system work.


Jim Allard <[e-mail]> THE BOTTOM FEEDER

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

From: Karl T. Braun <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Reference Literature
Organization: Digital Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 16:50:16 GMT


I'm looking for a good reference book (or two) on telephone
technology.  Something that can start with how a standard residential
phone connection works and can take me to the more advanced
multiplexing technologies.

I've been messing around with phone stuff for about three years now,
but have never had any official information, just stuff I've figured
out myself.  So I know a bit, but there's lots of holes and lots of
shadows-on-the-walls knowledge -- I'd like to fill in the gaps.

Any pointers (including periodicals) would be appreciated.


kral * 408/647-6112 *      ...!uunet!drivax!braun * [e-mail]

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

Subject: Interchangeable Area Codes - Coming Sooner Than Planned?
From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 91 17:24:19 EDT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton


There was an inquiry on the Fidonet MDF echo (which was in turn posted
on IMEX TELECOM conference) in which someone heard that in spring of
1992, all of North America would be required to dial the area code
when completing long distance calls within an area code. This was to
accomodate area codes of NXX form as opposed to the present N(0/1)X
form.

The traditional cutover date had been set at July 1995, a date which I
verified with Bellcore in March or so. Could this posting refer to a
date when all NPA's must allow for 1+NPA+number within the home NPA
(ie. "permissible" dialing)?

Some NPA's already require 1 + NPA + number for home NPAs, where the
prefixes have been changed from NNX form to NXX form. Some parts of
519 area code have already allowed 1 + 519 + number long distance
dialing as a permissible option, although 1 + number still works
within 519.

Anyone have any news of a change in the interchangable NPA date?


replies: [e-mail]       [e-mail]

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

From: Mark Seiden <[e-mail]>
Subject: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number
Date: 2 Aug 91 00:31:14 GMT
Organization: Seiden and Associates, Inc, Stamford, CT


While in my local phone company public office doing a tariff search, I
discovered you can now get a SNET/People's Bank "affinity" Mastercard,
that also seems to serve as a SNET calling card.  (Otherwise it's
nothing special.)

But two select quotes from the application:

"And unlike most credit cards, you never have to write your phone
number on credit receipts.  It's on the card!" (imprinted right below
your name, sigh.)

 " ... You must select a Calling Card Personal Identification Number
(PIN), used for making phone calls.  Your PIN must not start with a 0
or 1, and cannot be between 6200 and 6209".  (Four digit pin, which
doesn't appear (visibly) on the card. but anyone know why the bizarre
restrictions on values?)


mark seiden, [e-mail], 1-[phone] (voice), 1-[phone] (fax)

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 21:13:21 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T, Fraud, and PacBell


I found the article on AT&T and fraud interesting because the last
time I discussed fraud with an AT&T service representative (I wanted a
card number different from my home phone number), the representative
assured me that there had never been any fraudulent use of calling
cards.

I am not making the above up either.  Never any.

I also find this paragraph interesting:

> "Because many of these charges are costly to collect, long
> distance companies lose millions of dollars to fraud every year.  This
> drives up the cost of doing business, and as a result, all of the
> company's customers become victims of this crime.

Given that AT&T and the rest have decided not to compete on price any
more and that AT&T, for example, has not been lowering phone rates as
quickly as it could (in fact, recently, they have been increasing),
does this fraud mean higher prices or just smaller profits?

Steve Forrette wrote:

> PacBell also emphasize that it is accepted by virtually every
> long distance carrier,

Perhaps the best reason not to get a PacBell card.  Do you want Bob's
Bottom Feeding Fone Rip-Off to accept your card?


David


[Moderator's Note: I do if I'm on a lonely road late at night without
a cell phone and Bob's payphone is the only one around. I'd rather
pick and choose payphones for myself at my convenience (and generally
try to avoid the COCOTS) than to have it all screened out for me ahead
of time. I'm all for a single universal telephone card if possible.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 10:40:51 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to Dial in Switzerland


I have condensed the following from a recent post to telecom.  (Also,
I notice that if you are given a city code by someone in Switzerland,
you are to omit the leading 0 when calling there from outside the
country.)

155-0011, AT&T USA Direct in Switzerland;

155 (tollfree) cannot be dialed from abroad;

046-45 can be dialed from abroad; charged at local call rates when
called in Switzerland (is leading 0 to be left off when calling from
outside?)

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

Subject: CT2 vs CT3
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 91 13:59:45 +1000
From: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Thomas Farmer) wrote:

[re 900 MHz cordless telephones]

> I assume this is referring to the CT2 style phone. This is currently
> being trialled where I live using technology from GPT. Motorola also
> have products based on CT2.
> It could also refer to CT3, which is by Ericcson and even better.

CT2 is a TDD (Time Division Duplex) 860 MHz Digital Cordless Telephone
developed in the UK, and has been adopted on a large scale for trials
in Europe, Asia/Pacific, and even the USA.

The CT2 CAI (Common Air Interface) standard (DTI MPT 1375) is an open
standard that has been ratified by ETSI (European Telecommunications
Standards Institute) as a cordless telephone standard, IETS 300-131,
and is considered an interim standard until DECT (Digital European
Cordless Telephone) hits the market, maybe by 2000.

On the other hand, CT3 is a totally proprietary TDD Digital Cordless
Phone built around Ericsson's MD-110 PABX.  It has no particular
advantage over CT2.  In fact, some may say none.  All the things that
CT3 claims as superior (eg two way public calling) have been provided
for in CT2's CAI Specification.

It is not clear how one would extend CT3 beyond being an office
cordless PABX.  I've not seen any Management System or network
architecture that could extend Ericsson's CT3 into being a public
network, which is of course CT2's main aim.

CT3 is also about two years behind CT2 in production.  We have 12
working CT2 base stations in our labs.  When Ericsson came to Sydney
last year to "launch" CT3, all they had were four handset shells,
which, when I opened them, contained a lump of lead.

Also, CT3 has specifically been *rejected* by ETSI as a cordless phone
standard (see "Mobile Europe", April 1991, p. 8).  Hence Ericsson has
no hook to hang CT3 on.

The final nail in the coffin is Ericsson themselves.  They have bought
a share in Oribtel, a company that produces mobile comms systems,
including CT2!!

Disclaimer: The above is a personal opinion and is not that of my employer.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #597
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04557;
          3 Aug 91 4:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26744;
          3 Aug 91 2:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06346;
          3 Aug 91 1:49 CDT
Date:     Sat, 3 Aug 91 0:56:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #598
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Aug 91 00:56:03 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 598

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters [W. Correia]
    Announcement: CATV (Cable TV) Mailing List Being Started [Wayne D. Correia]
    Acronym List Wanted [Keith Amidon]
    Where Can I Get "Telephony"? [Shuenn Hwang]
    Information Wanted About Lynx Automation Ring Detector [Mark Terribile]
    Cincinnati Bell Charges for 911 [Len Jaffe]
    Re: Telephone Device Needs Builder [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Phone Service in the USSR [Steve Dyer]
    Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Henry E. Schaffer]
    Re: Working Assets Long Distance [[e-mail]]
    Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Wayne D. Correia" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Date: 2 Aug 91 16:51:07 GMT
Organization: Wayne's World! (Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA)


Here is a verbatim copy of an insert that was with my recent cable tv
bill:

THE TV NETWORKS WILL CONTINUE TO TRANSMIT TELEVISION FOR FREE.

BUT THEY WANT TO TAX YOU 20% WHEN YOU WATCH IT ON CABLE.

    Their powerful lobbyists in Washington are asking Congress to pass
legislation that could result in a 20% surcharge in your monthly basic
cable bill.

    That estimated $3.3 billion in surcharges will then be handed over
to the networks in payment for what they call "retransmission" of
broadcast programming by cable.

    Should the TV broadcasters succeed, cable subscribers will end up
paying for free television for the first time in history. What you'll
receive in return is the same programming. The same number of
commercials. The same number of stations you're getting now for free.

    You can help stop the broadcasters from charging cable subscribers
for free TV.  Write your Senators and Represeatative in care of U.S.
Congress, Washington, D.C. 20525, and state your opposition to the
Free TV Surcharge. Or call them through the U.S.  Capitol Operator at
1-202-224-3121. Your voice can make a difference.

National Cable Television Association


I'm too disgusted to even write about my feelings on this but I'm sure
there are others that would care to comment.


Wayne Correia    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: There has been a rule since the beginning of
television that the programs broadcast were for the sole entertainment
of the persons watching the program, and that re-transmission or sale
of the transmission was not permitted, and was violating the law, etc.
I suppose the network people are saying that the cable operators pick
up what is intended as a free broadcast signal and 'resell' it, even
it the 'resale' consists of nothing more than bundling a dozen or so
broadcast stations together with a couple other features which are
then called 'basic service' for some paltry sum per month. I know if I
were to take a cable television signal and in turn send it out to
others for some amount of money and not compensate the supplier (of
the cable) to me, the cable company would sue me.  Maybe that is the
attitude of the network television people: personal viewing only, no
right to grab our signal and resell it or hand it out elsewhere.  PAT]

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

From: "Wayne D. Correia" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Announcement: CATV (Cable Television) Mailing List
Date: 2 Aug 91 04:54:08 GMT
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA


I have looked through Spaf's list of mailing lists and have not found
one, so ...

I am starting a new mailing list ... The CATV mailing list.  For
people interested in any topic having to do with cable television
programming, technology, regulation, etc. Especially welcome are
postings concerning 'cable tax' legislation, attempts to repeal syndex
and ways to increase competition in local cable markets.

To sign up, send mail to [e-mail]. The submission
address is [e-mail].


Nick Sayer   [e-mail]
N6QQQ        209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

From: Keith Amidon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Acronym List Wanted
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept.
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1991 15:54:25 GMT


I am an undergraduate in Electrical Engineering at the University of
Michigan.  I currently work for the department as a computer network
technician, and have become interested in wide area networks and
telecommunications issues.  I recently discovered this newsgroup, and
it seems very informative.  I am hoping that someone can solve two
problems I have right now.

  1- I'm a little shaky on the relationships between different telephone
  service providers.  (i.e. how local/LD interface etc)  Are there any
  good references which I could read to get up to speed on how everything
  is interconnected?

  2- Could someone provide me with an acronym list.  In the two weeks I
  have been following this group, there have been many messages, which
  would have made perfect since except that I couldn't figure out what
  <insert favorite acronym here> was.

Thank you very much.


Keith Amidon   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Check out the Telecom Archives. We have three
acronym files available there. Use anonymous ftp: lcs.mit.edu, and
when on line there, 'cd telecom-archives'.    PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 18:20:14 PDT
From: Shuenn Hwang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where Can I Get "Telephony"?


Hi, can someone out there tell me where I can get subscription
information for {Telephony Magazine}? Thanks.


Shuenn Hwang   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 22:51:05 -0400
Subject: Information Wanted About Lynx Automation Ring Detector
From: mole-end![e-mail]


    From time to time there are requests on this group for
call-switches that can recognized distinctive ring patterns.  I have
in front of me a product announcement torn from one of the magazines
catering to the xxx86 user; it is for the Lynx Automation Ring
Director, which is supposed to be capable of recognizing distinctive
ringing patterns and switching between two or four lines.

    Lynx Automation
    2100 196th Street, Suite 144,
    Lynwood, WA 98036
    206-744-1582

    $79.95 for two ports, $99.95 for four ports.

They don't say if it provides exclusive, locked-out access for a
device making an outgoing call.  If anyone investigates it, I'd be
interested (hint to Moderator) to find out what they think of it.

 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end                Mark Terribile


[Moderator's Note: If anyone uses one of these devices and forwards a
review I will be glad to print it here.   PAT]

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

From: Len Jaffe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911
Organization: Cincinnati Network, Cinti. OH
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 03:50:08 GMT


Just going through my phone bill (bill paying time :( ) and I noticed

911 CHARGE.  .  .  .  . [ ... ] . .  0.12

That's what I get for reporting a traffic accident with a flipped car.
And the 911 operator even asked me if I really thought it needed an
ambulance!

Hurumph!


Leonard A. Jaffe, User           [e-mail]
Cincinnati Public Access Un*x    {uunet!}cinnet.com!hawkwind
Just Another Hack Perler         Ferrets Ferrets Ferrets

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 00:13:44 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Device Needs Builder
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Theodore S Tang) writes:

> I have an idea for a telephone device which I would like manufactured.
> Is there anyone I can describe this device to for construction?

> [Moderator's Note: Begin by telling us.   PAT]

Oh sure, after every subscriber signs a non-disclosure agreement.

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

From: Steve Dyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service in the USSR
Date: 1 Aug 91 02:40:19 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (C.A.)
writes:

> If not, telephoning could be amazingly cheap: even in
> Moscow, you can get four rubles to the dollar as a first offer from
> somebody on a street corner.

This is a bit dated.  These days there is an official "tourist" rate
of exchange of six rubles to the dollar.  So-called "hard currency"
transactions such as credit cards charges, purchases at Beriozka or
"Duty-Free" shops, and business deals still use the old fixed rate of
roughly 0.55 roubles to the dollar.  Last summer, one could routinely
be offered 12 roubles to the dollar on the street without haggling at
all, and I'm sure it's over 20 roubles to the dollar now.

The central post/telephone office where you place your call takes
payment in rubles.


Steve Dyer
[e-mail] aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
[e-mail]

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
Date: 30 Jul 91 18:51:41 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


In article <[e-mail]>, bbs.aaron_a@doomsday.
spies.com (Aaron Anderer) writes:

[text deleted]

> Installing V.42bis:

> 1) You will need to purchase a 27C512 ROM chip.
> 2) You will need to purchase a Sony CXK58257P-12L (or equivalent) Ram chip.
> 3) Install the Rom in the Supervisor (SUP) socket.
> 4) Install the Ram in the Ram socket.
> 5) Make up two 3 pin jumpers for P9 and P10 with pins 1 and 2 jumpered
> on one and pins 2 and 3 jumpered on the other.  Connect the vacant pin 1
> on the one to the vacant pin 3 on the other with a jumper wire.
> 6) Remove the jumpers on P9 and P10.
> 7) Install the jumper with pins 1 and 2 connected together on P9.
> 8) Connect the jumper with pins 2 and 3 connected together on P10.

  I won't even comment on the earlier parts of this posting, but the text
quoted above needs some rebuttal:

1) Installing a blank 27512 won't do a lot. You'll have to program it.
Un- less you have lots of time and good skills at reverse engineering,
you will have to obtain that code elsewhere. You can either buy it as
part of US Robotics' V.42 upgrade kit (along with the rest of the
parts in the above list, and a remarkably similar set of
instructions), or you can commit the crime of stealing the code from
another unit that already has the V.42 code. That is probabbly frowned
on by USR.

2) Some USR modems will need new DSP chips as well as new Supervisor
code.  Only USR can tell you for sure if you need a DSP upgrade. The
programmer for the DSP is a _lot_ harder to come by, by the way ...

  I have no affiliation with USR except as a satisfied customer of
their Dual Standard Rackmount modems (and I bought and installed 15 of
the V.42 upgrade kits).


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

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 01 Aug 91 17:48:48
Subject: Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves


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

> I think eventually in the next few years it (and Larry King's gimmick of
> letting it ring until he is ready to talk) will cause the telcos to
> tariff a 'call attempt' surcharge of a penny or two for each minute or
> fraction thereof of unanswered ringing which will be waived on calls
> answered within, say, one minute.  PAT]

   There are times when you might legitimately want to let the phone
ring and ring. When I was trying to find out my NY State Bar results,
most calls to the Admissions Office resulted in a busy signal.  Every
now and then it rang, and if you let it ring (and ring and ring...),
eventually someone would answer. On our office Rolm system, you could
even park the call attempt with someone else if you had to leave your
desk.

   It took another four to six weeks for NY to send you your results
in writing; I can think of other government offices which also use
"the Larry King system" of call management (eg, the IRS, the INS).

   I'd be willing to pay a penny per minute for call attempts under
those circumstances.

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

From: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext
Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1991 21:11:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 578, Message 4 of 7

> ...  And how many times must it be said:
> when you control the network, you have a completely unfair advantage
> over all the other players? And when they are gone, what is to stop
> you from playing the game anyway you like (such as in the old days)?

  Since there *are* other players, then this type of service
(audiotext in this case) is not a "natural monopoly".  Therefore
the argument for allowing the regulated monopoly phone company to
provide this service fails.  The extra edge they will have doesn't
come from a natural monopoly's advantage of being the only one which
can do it efficiently (or at all) - just from their ability to
scr.., uh, act in a discriminatory manner towards their competitors
and so make more money than do their competitors.  This is also
not good for their customers.  So I disagree with Pat, and agree
with John.

  I might think otherwise if provided convincing arguments as to
why the regulated monopoly phone company can do it better.


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Aug  1 09:48:35 EDT 1991
Subject: Re: Working Assets Long Distance


In Digest Volume 11 : Issue 595 "J. Philip Miller" <phil@wubios.
wustl.edu> wrote:

> [from]    Arnie Kahn <FAC_ASKAHN@JMUVAX>

> Assets Long Distance advertises themselves as "the first public
> utility that works for social change."  1% of long distance charges go
> to groups such as Rainforest Action Network, Habitat for Humanity,
> Amnesty International, Planned Parenthood, etc.  They also claim the
> "highest quality service at the lowest rates."  Rates "as low as
> Sprint or MCI's basic residential service -- lower rates than AT&T."

When I last read an ad for Working Assets, they were simply reselling
Sprint service.  In fact, I always assumed it was basically a Sprint
marketing ploy.  It's possible they've established their own network
by now, but somehow I doubt it.  If you make any real volume of long
distance calls, you can probably save more money by getting a special
calling plan than by switching your carrier - and you can contribute
the difference (5-10 times the piddling 1% quoted above) to your
favorite cause.


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

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

From: "Mr. Pez" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?
Organization: New York University
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 23:15:14 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> it was written:

> Having rules is one thing. Enforcing them in hardware is another.

 How about having the telco red flag you when you do rapid repeat
dialing?  For several years now, NYNEX has had switch software called
"SID" (Systematic Intrusion Detection).  This software will
automagically dump originating numbers of those who dial numbers (any
number, could be all the same or all different) more than x times a
minute to a directory on the switch (usually ESS, what else?).  At
NYTel, some switches are checked as often as twice a day for new
entries to this file(s).  Supposedly used for targeting individuals
who decide to phreak from home, this list would make very, very
interesting marketing raw materials.  Back in 1988, it was already
being sold to telcos in Pennsylvania and a few other middle Atlantic
states.

Be careful out there.  Forewarned is fore-armed.


Lee

disclaimer: don't believe anything that I say, write, or do.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #598
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08290;
          3 Aug 91 5:54 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06958;
          3 Aug 91 4:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac26744;
          3 Aug 91 2:59 CDT
Date:     Sat, 3 Aug 91 2:40:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #600
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Aug 91 02:40:09 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 600

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query [Bob Yazz]
    Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol [David Lesher]
    Re: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers [John R. Covert]
    Re: What Happens When Area Codes Are Used Up? [Carl Moore]
    Re: Sprint Price Change [Ron Newman]
    Re: ATC Billing [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: Digital Sound Recording Chips [Michael G. Katzmann]
    Re: PC Pursuit Phone Number [David W. Tamkin]
    Re: PC Pursuit Phone Number [Michael Steele]
    Re: ATC Billing [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Andreas Meyer]
    Re: "Free Touchtone" and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue [Tom Gray]
    Re: Dial Tone Lasting Into Key Tone [John Covert]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query
Date: 1 Aug 1991 07:02:50 GMT


The current crop (sorry -- I've been reading too much "modern
journalism" lately (:-})) of Panasonic answering machines will let you
remotely monitor the room where the answering machine is located.  The
built-in microphone is the same one you use to record a new greeting.

Once you enter the security code, enter "5" and you'll hear what's
going on in the room for 30 seconds.  I believe you can also speak
into the room at the same time.

I believe the feature is called "room monitor".


Bob Yazz

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 7:56:46 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


I was told years ago that the reason the airlines used such a unique
protocol was that they were the first folks to want to link computers
and terminals spread out all over the world.  And, not only that, but
they were talking with their own competition.

Thus, they were forced to almost make it up as they went along.  They
don't seem to have done so badly, all things considered.


[e-mail]   (305) 255-RTFM

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 07:48:38 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  01-Aug-1991 1051" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers


> The question is why does Southern Bell now block MCI but not the
> others?  Is it legal (by FCC rules) for IEC to carry intra-LATA
> calls? Southern Bell (Maintainance Center) claims that it is illegal
> and that all intra-LATA calls via IEC's should be blocked. Is this
> true?

It isn't the FCC that set the rules on whether IXCs or LECs can carry
calls -- it's the Justice Department -- Judge Greene.

The rule is that LECs cannot carry inter-LATA calls.  That's the only
rule.

IXCs can carry intra-LATA calls if they want to, and if they have filed
a tariff for intra-LATA calls with the local regulatory authority.

AT&T generally doesn't compete with LECs for normal toll service, but
they do for various corporate services.

Other carriers each make their own individual decisions, and can be
approved or denied by the state PUC/PSC/DPU/CC.


john

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 11:18:28 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Happens When Area Codes Are Used Up?


I am not in Bellcore, but merely summarizing what I have seen in
earlier postings.  Apparently there will not be regular geographic
area codes of N00 or N11 form, but there definitely will be N10 (310
and 510 coming to California, and 410 to include my office in
Maryland).  When area codes of N0X/N1X form are used up, area codes
will generalize to the NXX form.  The first batch of area codes of the
NNX form will be limited to NN0, apparently to permit some areas to
retain 1+ 7D dialing (intra-NPA long distance) by disallowing PREFIXES
of form NN0; in other areas, you will have to have 7D or 1 + NPA + 7D
(no 1 + 7D) for intra-NPA long distance, and 1 + NPA + 7D (no more NPA
+ 7D) for long distance to other NPAs.

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

Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
Subject: Re: Sprint Price Change
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 91 13:20:24 EDT
From: Ron Newman <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
ny.us (seth cohn) writes:

> [e-mail] (Ron Newman) writes:

>> I'm one of the people who received the Sprint mailing without the $5
>> coupon.  So today, I called Sprint up (1-800-877-4646).  Waited about
>> seven minutes on hold, then when an operator answered, I said,

> (things to suggest he wanted the credit also.)

> Except, I tried this, and was told, SORRY the $5 was only for Sprint
> PLUS subscribers, and you only have REGULAR service.  DARN!!!! I
> wanted $5 credit too ...

Sigh.  They told me that there isn't any such thing as "REGULAR"
service any more; that SPRINT PLUS is now their basic service.  As
usual, Sprint tries hard but doesn't quite have their act together.


Ron Newman    [e-mail]

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

From: "90958, HERRICK, DANIEL" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATC Billing
Date: 1 Aug 91 13:05:11 EST


David Ptasnik) writes:

> Macy Hallock wrote:

>> One of the reasons you are subjected to AOS abuse when staying at many
>> hotels/motels/hospitals is very simple: AT&T and the LEC's will not
>> share a piece of the pie with the property unless its a very large
>> customer.

>> Answer?  Use an AOS.  They pay based on a negotiated arrangement.

> AOS's are NOT the only answer.  They are probably the easiest and most
> resented answer.  A much better answer is a call accounting system.
> Virtually every hotel/motel switch in the world has an SMDR port.  The

[...]

> guest's bill.  Mom and Pop hotels can do it for a lot less with some
> of the really simple call accounting software that costs as little as
> $99.00 and runs in the background of an existing PC.

There is at least one alternative to this.  There is a box that will
intercept 0+ calls, check the billing, convert the call to 1+, and use
the same clearinghouse as the AOS uses to bill the call to the
caller's Calling Card.  The hotel can buy 1+ at whatever advantageous
rate it can and resell it at the markup it chooses with the bill
appearing on the customer's usual phone bill.

I learned about this during the heyday of SDN reselling.  Assuming SDN
rates for 1+ it became economical at about 100 rooms.

Same technology would work in hotels and colleges.


dan herrick    [e-mail]

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

From: "Michael G. Katzmann" <vk2bea![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Digital Sound Recording Chips
Date: 1 Aug 91 17:21:23 GMT
Reply-To: "Michael G. Katzmann" <vk2bea![e-mail]>
Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(WHALEY, CHRISTOPHER) writes:

> I am looking for any information, phone numbers, company names ... for
> the chips that are used in digital answering machines (no tapes
> necessary), and in digital pagers.

Dallas Semiconductor make a series of chips to do this. They also have
a small 'speech stick', which is about 10cm x 2cm and records about a
minute (with its on-board memory) and can trade off quality for time.
The speech can be arranged in 'files' and even includes DTMF encoding
and decoding.  Its designed for 'teleservicing' i.e. when your pinball
machine breaks down, it can ring the manufacturer and tell you what's
wrong in English!


Michael Katzmann     Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~     Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A
Amateur Radio Stations:
NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV     opel!vk2bea![e-mail]

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

From: "David W. Tamkin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PC Pursuit Phone Number
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 16:45:01 CDT


When Jerry Leichter asked in volume 11, issue 595, about PC Pursuit's
phone number, Pat Townson answered:

| [Moderator's Note: Try 1-800-336-0437 or 1-708-689-6000. Ask for PC
| Pursuit Marketing.  PAT]

708 is out my window, and I can't smell SprintNet from here.  They're
at 12490 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 22086.  Try area code
703.


David W. Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines, Illinois  60018-7002  [phone]
[e-mail]   GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN  CIS:73720,1570  MCI Mail:426-1818

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Steele)
Subject: Re: PC Pursuit Phone Number
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 00:55:13 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Try 1-800-336-0437 or 1-703-689-6000. Ask for PC
> Pursuit Marketing.  PAT]

I called your number and they told me to call 800-736-1130 between
8am-8pm.  I didn't get a chance to try it since it's after 8pm.


Michael Steele        [e-mail] or [e-mail]
Data General Corporation -- Building the finest Workstations in Industry
My thoughts and reflections are my own and no way related to Data General.

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 23:13 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATC Billing
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


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

[quotes from my posting lamenting the inability of AT&T and the LEC's
to find a way to share revenues with small properties and avoid the
use of AOS's ... deleted ...]

> AOS's are NOT the only answer.  They are probably the easiest and most
> resented answer.  A much better answer is a call accounting system.

Dave is right.  Dave is also wrong ...

I sell call accounting systems (and phone systems and other things,
too).  Several hotels are clients ... so I've been through this both
as a vendor and as a frustrated hotel guest, too.

I think every property should have a good call accounting system.

The problems arise in how the property tends to use the systems.  Many
charge way too much for the call, thus building resentment among
guests.  Most call accounting systems will false bill on calls where
the guest allows the distant phone to ring, unanswered, too long.
(Readers of this group know about the LEC aversion to providing answer
supervision.)

Many properties are too cheap to keep their rate table updated.
(We've had over 50 exchange and area codes added in this area in the
last year) This also contributes to billing errors.  Heck, most
properties won't even buy a service contract ...

I dislike the use of most properties call accounting 1+ services.  I
never know what I'm going to get charged for calls ... most of the
time.  I use my Litel credit card, using 950 FGB access or 800 access.
Too many properties use sleazy AOS's for me to safely use 0+ calling,
but that's the only way they can make any money on operator assisted
calling right now ... and most AOS's put in dialers that block 10XXX's
or divert them.

Anyhow, the introduction of a standardized set of 1+ rates by a major
chain would seem prudent.  Many chains are beginning to standardize
the cost of a local call.  Example: most Holiday Inns now give Priority
Club cardmembers free local calls.  I think one of the economy chains
now says free local calls (quite a feat here in Ohio Bell .08 per call
land).

I see no reason why AT&T and the LEC's, who will discount 1+ and 0+
calls 15% (on contracts with large customers otherwise) will not share
that amount with a property.

One could then use "standard" access methods, pay the expected rate
(ideally, exactly the same rate as a LEC payphone) and all would
benefit.  Of course, the property would use a call accounting system
for 1+ and make extra margin on the difference between actual direct
dial and payphone 1+ rates, too.

I've actually advised several of my client hotels to do just this, and
advertise the daylights out of it as a major advantage.  Most don't
understand what this means to the business traveller, its just another
profit center to them.  Sigh.

There would be no collection problems. The property pays for its 1+
traffic the usual way, and the telco rebates the 15% on your bill for
the 0+. Most telcos can do AT&T billing in one bill as can MCI and
Sprint.

The only real problem I see is that AT&T gives special discounted
credit card rates to some large customers.  They would then be
rebating the hotel a percentage on an already heavily discounted rate.
Perhaps the discount might change when calls are made from properties
with hotel rates.

What I want here is a a hotel room phone that gives me the same
services, rates and abilities as a LEC pay phone ... and allows the
hotel to make a buck, too.  (This would also work for COCOT access
lines, too, BTW,)

I suspect we will not see this happen soon.  Pity, it would eliminate
a lot of distrust by the public.  Or is this too simple and the
carriers will not abide by it for marketing/sales reasons?

Anyone out there for another set of FCC regulations? [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]

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

From: gnat![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 91 17:22:51 EDT
Organization: gnat - Dunellen, NJ


[e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr) writes:

> (Gordon L. Burditt   sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon writes):
> > AAARGH, A. A. 309 College St.
> > Does anyone think that Aaargh is a real last name?

> Not really.  What I suspect is that the A. A. is the real name and the
> person wanted an unusual listing.  Although, with the multitude of
> last names in the world it could easily be a real name.

True. However, I'm sure there's LOTS of intentional aliases (some of
them are even clever) that we don't notice unless we hunt for them.

For example, I knew three guys who shared an apartment, but rather
than get their only phone listed under any one of their names, they
chose to list the number under "Hoser, Hugh". (Take off, eh?)

Also, there was a sysop who ran a certain type of BBS software and he
somehow managed to convince his local business office that his name
was Del Cita, so that his listing would read "Cita, Del". (Citadel)


Andy

Andreas Meyer, N2FYE   jacked into cyberspace from my home in Dunellen, NJ
Internet: [e-mail]         uucp: {backbone}!att!nsscmail!gnat!ahm

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Free Touchtone" and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue
Date: 1 Aug 91 12:41:19 GMT
Organization: Mitel Kanata (Ontario) Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> kentrox![e-mail]
(Bud Couch) writes:

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

> Of course, now we have digital end offices, and it actually costs more
> to implement dial pulsing, but the tariffs remain.

I would like to see the calculations done to see if DTMF service is
cheaper pulse dialing in digital offices. The pulse dialer uses the
switch hook detector on the line card. As such this detector must
always be provided whether or not DTMF signalling is used.

The real question comes with the provision of the processors required
to detect the signalling. Dial processing will require faster
processing on the processor processing the switch hook detector. DTMF
will require a pool of DSP processors somewhere in the office in
addition to the the switch hook processor.

Now whether it is cheaper to provide a less capable switch hook
processor and a pool of DTMF receivers or a more capable switch hook
processor and no DTMF receoivers is debatable.

However in the real case in which DTMF and pulse dialing must be
provided, the DTMF receivers and their associated processor
requirements are an additional cost.

Whether this cost is worth the premium on DTMF service is a question
for the politicians not the technicians.


Tom Gray

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 07:51:40 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  01-Aug-1991 1054" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dial Tone Lasting Into Key Tone


> One way to verify this is to check your "Service Features" section of
> your phone book (white pages).  If your call waiting cancel is 70#,
> it's a good be you've got a GTD-5.  This compares to a 5ESS which is
> *70.

Nope.  5ESS can be either 70# or *70 or both, at the local telco's
option.


john

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #600
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20484;
          3 Aug 91 11:25 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06958;
          3 Aug 91 4:11 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26744;
          3 Aug 91 2:59 CDT
Date:     Sat, 3 Aug 91 1:57:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #599
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Aug 91 01:57:28 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 599

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Working Assets Long Distance [Jerry B. Altzman]
    Re: Working Assets Long Distance [John R. Levine]
    Re: Working Assets Long Distance [John Higdon]
    Re: Cellular Injustice [John R. Covert]
    Re: Cellular Injustice [Jim Langridge]
    Re: Swedish Televerket Changes Policy on AXE Services [Clive Feather]
    Re: Line Noise Battle [Bob Yazz]
    Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [David Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Jerry B.  Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Working Assets Long Distance
Organization: mailer daemons association
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1991 16:14:58 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J.
Philip Miller) writes:

> Date:     Tue, 30 Jul 1991 23:32 EST
> [from]    Arnie Kahn <FAC_ASKAHN@JMUVAX>
> Subject:  working assets long distance

> I received an ad that sounds almost too good to be true.  Working
> Assets Long Distance advertises themselves as "the first public
> nutility that works for social change."  1% of long distance charges go

I think I've posted about this before.

A long, long time ago (last summer) I sublet an apartment from a
person who tried her best to be "PC". She *immediately* signed our
phone (the phone was in her name of course) up for "Working Assets".

The deal is, they rent lines from Sprint, and act as what could most
accurately be described as a "VDR" (Value Decreased Reseller)

In two months of calling, I completed about 33% of my calls on the
first attempt through, and most of my calls required at least two
tries to make it through -- that is, a ringing on the far side. This
*doesn't* mean I could hear the far party. I can only assume that they
took the old rat-eaten copper cables that Sprint replaced with fiber
optics.

Why didn't I just 10288 + 1 + all my calls? Well, my landlady got very
upset when we did that -- AT&T and MCI were "evil" and were "to be
avoided or the phone was going -- poof". (Her words, not mine.)

She also insisted her name appear at least once on the OGM of our
answering machine (to make it appear as if she lived there, so she
could avoid paying some kind of out-of-state landlord tax) We'd have
fun; we'd remove her name from the message, and she'd dial into the
phone and change it. This worked until my roommates moved out and I
replaced the nice machine with an old one; then she just berated me to
change it every day ...


jerry b. altzman    [phone]
[e-mail]  jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
NEVIS:jbaltz (HEPNET)   ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)

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

Subject: Re: Working Assets Long Distance
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 1 Aug 91 10:24:31 EDT (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


The last time I looked, Working Assets was a sales agent for Sprint,
and what they were selling was regular Sprint long distance.  Sprint
gives them a small commission, like they do to any other sales agent.
The service is Sprint's regular service.  It appears that discount
plans like Sprint Plus are not available.

This appears to me to be one of those deals, like affinity Visa cards,
where both you and the party who gets the kickback would be better off
if you gave them them money directly.  If you make more than $20/month
in phone calls, Sprint Plus (or the equivalent from other carriers)
would be cheaper, and you could then make a tax-deductable donation of
the amount you saved to the worthy organization of your choice.  If
you make less than $20/month in phone calls, the 1% commission totals
less than $3/year, so it's insignificant.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 13:22 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: working assets long distance


"J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]> quotes Arnie Kahn
<FAC_ASKAHN@JMUVAX>:

> I received an ad that sounds almost too good to be true.  Working
> Assets Long Distance advertises themselves as "the first public
> utility that works for social change."

These people have been around for a while and were discussed here
about two years ago. At that time, they were reselling Sprint, but
apparently they are keeping the actual provider more hidden now. I
know of no complaints against them, but I would personally avoid the
situation for two reasons.

One is technical. IMHO, one wants to have as little bureaucracy
between the customer and the service provider. In my many ponderous
dealings with Sprint, the company time after time gave me "extra"
credits as compensation for the trouble I had to go through. A
reseller does not have that power. The reseller does not have the
fiduciary incentives that the direct carrier does to make sure you are
satisfied. Working Assets would not lean very heavily on a carrier on
your behalf. Their interest is in collecting your money.

The second is social/political. I feel that my communications needs,
personal and business, are matters to be held distinctly from my
charitable and social conscious concerns. If one feels that one cause
or another is worth of his attention or resources, then he should act
accordingly. Mixing these concerns with utility requirements to make
the gesture "painless" is a contamination of my personal compartment-
alizations. Others, no doubt, feel differently.


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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 07:38:50 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  01-Aug-1991 1041" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Injustice


> If one of our people calls in on their cellular phone to our phone
> number, we receive a cellular bill for $.75/min + long distance
> landline charges.  If we call the cellular phone (in the same
> location), the phone only pays the local access rates (no long
> distance).

> Why do the BOC's allow the cellular companies to avoid paying long
> distance charges when roaming to areas that would normally be long
> distance?

You call this injustice?  That $.75/min rate for airtime is high
enough to cover the actual cost of the airtime plus the cost to the
cellular company of carrying the call through its own internal
connections from switching office to cell site plus a hefty profit.

There are as many different ways of charging as there are cellular
companies.  Here in the Boston area, the wireline carrier increased
their airtime rate by 7 cents to $0.52/minute and dropped all outgoing
LD charges within 617/508/401 and southern 603 (Eastern Mass, Rhode
Island, and southern New Hampshire).  Previously outgoing calls had
incurred a landline charge the same as any telephone, but based on the
closest point of interconnection to where you were calling.  Now those
charges are bundled with the airtime, which makes it easier for the
subscribers to figure out what a call will cost and makes it easier
for NYNEX, too -- they don't have to update their billing software for
each new point of interconnection.

Most cellular companies do not charge an incoming long distance charge
if you are anywhere withing the interconnected cellular systems.  You
get charged long distance for incoming only when you go well outside
your home area.  With the rates you pay for airtime, this seems quite
reasonable!

Cantel (with a nationwide system involving no roamer airtime
surcharges) used to only charge incoming long distance when you were
outside your home region.  Now you get charged incoming LD if you are
outside your free incoming call zone, which may not be the same as
your free outgoing call zone or your free call forwarding zone.  A
complicated book explains it all.

> Is this just a deficiency in the roaming protocol?

Nope.  The cellular companies will bill what the market will bear.


john

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 13:44:00 edt
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Injustice


In Digest V11 #596 Daniel Wynalda <[e-mail]> writes:

> I recently noticed a strange unfairness about the cellular system we
> currently use.  Although the cellular system is as full of rip-off
> artist tactics as the COCOT industry, this seems to be an imbalance on
> their own part.

> One of our local cellular companies (the wireline carrier), has
> complete border to border roaming in the State of Michigan.  There
> aren't any daily surcharges except in two small corners of the state.

If you are saying that your phones indicate you are *roaming*
throughout the state, it sounds like a programing mistake in your
phones.

> If one of our people calls in on their cellular phone to our phone
> number, we receive a cellular bill for $.75/min + long distance
> landline charges.  If we call the cellular phone (in the same
> location), the phone only pays the local access rates (no long
> distance).

This sounds *normal* assuming the cellular phone is ouside of your
*local* area for the assigned cellular number.  The cellular number is
most likely local to your office.  Regardless of the location of the
cell phone, When you dial the number it signals the same switch each
time.

On the flip side, if the cell phone places a call thru a tower outside
of your *local* area, it's a toll call.  If the cell phone indicates
*roam*, then you will pay a roaming charge also.

> Why do the BOC's allow the cellular companies to avoid paying long
> distance charges when roaming to areas that would normally be long
> distance?  Is this just a deficiency in the roaming protocol?  It
> seems that the cellular company would want to bill the cellular phone
> either way or neither way.

Think of the cellular tower as a phone booth for a minute.

If you take a drive to Fredericksburg Va.  Step into a phone booth and
call the pizza shop across from the phone booth, you wouldn't expect
that call to be a toll call would ya?

Just think of your cell phone as a link to that phone booth.

The one thing that doesn't change when you're roaming is your phone
number to the cellular phone (which is local to your home).  If you
were to call home from that same phone booth, you'd expect that to be
a toll call, right?

> On a related note: I've noticed that no matter WHERE you are in this
> area code, I can call all of the local access numbers without dialing
> 1+ and without paying long distance. This means I can call 200 miles
> away to a cellular phone for the cost of a local call (and the
> cellular person's airtime only).  How would they get the BOC to SKIP
> charging long distance rates on just these selected numbers?

I DUNNO!

I don't claim to be anything near an expert on cellular.  I've been
trying to learn and understand it as I go along.  I purchased one a
while back and like many folks ... I learn something with each trip I
take.

I also learned to program it after the dealer I purchased it from,
botched it up.

Any experts out care to critic my understanding of the if/then stuff?


Jim Langridge    |    [e-mail]    |    NICCS OA
Synetics Corp.    |    [phone]            |     j<langri
24 Danube Dr.    |    [phone] (FAX)        |
King George, VA.|    22485-5000            |

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

From: Clive Feather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Swedish Televerket Changes Policy on AXE Services
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 12:59:38 BST


In Telecom 11.549 [e-mail] gives a list of some of the
codes available from Televerket in Sweden.

The AXE 10 exchanges are also used in the UK under the name "System Y".
These are the codes listed in the manual. See below for key to
abbreviations. Note that all codes end in #, parameters to the codes
are mostly separated by *, and that "check" and "cancel" codes have
the same code number but a different prefix to the "set up" codes.

Set up features:

    *21*n#     Divert all calls (dial tone changes)
    *261#      Bar incoming calls (dial tone changes)
    *34x#      Bar outgoing calls
    *40*n      Charge advice (exchange calls back after the call ends)
    *411#      Charge advice on all future calls (ditto)
    *43#       Set up call waiting
    *51*c*n#   Set up abbreviated calling code
    *55*t#     Set up reminder call
    *61*n#     Divert on no reply (dial tone changes)
    *67*n#     Divert on busy (dial tone changes)

Calling code calls:

    **c        Calling code call
    **0        Redial last number (excluding calling code calls)

Status checks on settings:

    *#21#      Check diversion status and number
    *#261#     Check barring of incoming calls (i.e. on or off)
    *#34#      Check barring of outgoing calls (i.e. on or off)
    *#43#      Check call waiting (i.e. on or off)
    *#51*c#    Check calling code
    *#55#      Check reminder calls
    *#61#      Check divert on no reply status and number
    *#67#      Check divert on busy status and number

Cancel features:

    #21#       Cancel diversion
    #261*p#    Cancel barring of incoming calls
    #34x*p#    Cancel barring of outgoing calls
    #411#      Cancel charge advice on all calls
    #43#       Cancel call waiting
    #51*c#     Cancel calling code
    #55#       Cancel reminder call
    #61#       Cancel diversion on no reply
    #67#       Cancel diversion on busy

Pressing the "R" button on some phones causes a "time break" - on
other phones, this can be done by pressing the handset rest switch
*briefly*. This will put your current caller on hold (they get an
announcement) and give you a dial tone. If you are in "one call" state
(the normal situation), then all the above services are available,
plus the following:

    *40#       Turn on charge advice for this call
    n          Set up second call

If you are in "two call" state (either by setting up a second call, or
because an incoming call is waiting), then the following codes can be
used:

    0          Reject all waiting calls until this call ends
    1          End this call and switch to the other call
    2          Place this call on hold and switch to the other call
    3          Change to a 3-party call
    5          Disconnect original call
    7          Disconnect second call

I am informed that the following also work:

    4          Connect the two calls together, and disconnect yourself
    6          Place original call back on hold
    8          Place second call back on hold

If you hang up (clear down) after getting a dialtone through R, and
there is still a call holding, the exchange will ring back.

Key to abbreviations in the table:

  c     An abbreviated calling code: 10 to 36.
  n     A standard telephone number.
  p     A 4-digit password notified to the subscriber (cannot be changed).
  t     A time - 4 digits using the 24 hour clock.
  x     1 = all calls except 999 (emergency) and 151 (repairs).
        2 = all calls except charge rate L.
        3 = international calls.
        4 = operator services except 999 and 151.
        5 = Star services (except #34 codes).
        It is permitted to have more than one *34x# in operation.


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Line Noise Battle
Date: 1 Aug 1991 06:47:16 GMT


If you have four lines in your house and only the one that you want to
use for data is bad, swap it with one of the good ones.

Worst they can charge you is for "changing numbers", which is a
one-time fee rather than a perpetual one.


Bob Yazz

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 7:51:26 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


I'm reminded of a story from a 1960's "73"  amateur radio magazine.
It was, of course, in the April issue ...

    How to Convert an ARC-5 into a 500 watt, 5 band
        Single Sideband Transceiver.

(An ARC-5 is a WWII surplus aircraft radio -- maybe worth $25.00 in
those days ...]

1)    Open cabinet.
2)    Remove all components except for the fuseholder in the
    upper left-hand corner.

[Continued on page 176]


[e-mail]      5) 255-RTFM

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #599
******************************