Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss601-650

Text File | 1991-08-21 | 869KB | 21,260 lines

Issues sometimes arrive here out of numerical order. All issues
between 601-650 are present in this file, but you may have to scan
around for some of them.   PAT






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08405;
          3 Aug 91 19:05 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18438;
          3 Aug 91 17:29 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09894;
          3 Aug 91 17:06 CDT
Date:     Sat, 3 Aug 91 17:05:57 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #602
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Aug 91 17:01:48 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 602

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [Mike Riddle]
    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [R Hamer]
    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [W Carpenter]
    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [Fred Roeber]
    Re: Hotels and AOS's AGAIN [John Higdon]
    Re: Cellular Injustice [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Interchangeable Area Codes - Coming Sooner Than Planned? [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1991 12:37:05 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wayne D. Correia)
writes:

> 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.

And the (inevitable :-):

> [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. . .

and finally

> 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]

The problem is that these are, I believe, the same network executives
who begged, pleaded, cajoled and threatened the cable systems and the
FCC until the latter adopted "must carry" rules for over-the-air
channels.  These are the same network executives who already count the
cable audience in the figures used to bill advertisers. And these are
the same network TV guys and local station managers who foisted syndex
rules on the cable systems.

Remember, the real product in over-the-air television is you, the
viewer.  The stations rent you to the advertisers and that pays for
all the stuff you see (or ignore).  This proposal reeks of "have your
cake and eat it too."


            <<<< 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, 3 Aug 91 09:26 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters


"Wayne D. Correia" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.

To which the Moderator replied in part:

> 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

 ...

> 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

I think that there is an FCC reg that basically requires all cable
systems to rebroadcast local TV stations in order that cable
subscribers aren't faced with a choice between cable and local
broadcast stations.  I also think that the cable companies (of which
there are only a few anyway) have been lobbying to get this
requirement changed, as they find it a pain in the neck in some
markets (like here, near New York, in which there are a local
broadcast stations on channels 2,4,5,7,9,11,and 13, to say nothing of
UHF) to tie up channels rebroadcasting.  As a consumer I like having
the local stations fed through cable; otherwise I'd have to rig up an
antenna and then a switch.

I don't know how it all fits together but I suspect that the reg
requiring rebroadcast of local broadcast stations is at the prompting
of the networks and local stations, afraid of being frozen out of the
market.  It seems ironic to force the cable operators to rebroadcast
the local stations, increasing their viewership, and thus, their
advertising revenues, and then charge the cable companies for it.
Something smells fishy to me ...

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

Date: Sat,  3 Aug 91 11:37:56 EDT
From: William J Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> THE TV NETWORKS WILL CONTINUE TO TRANSMIT TELEVISION FOR FREE.
> BUT THEY WANT TO TAX YOU 20% WHEN YOU WATCH IT ON CABLE.

Sheesh.  This must be the TV version of Touch-Tone service!  The
broadcast channels get more commercial revenues if they get a larger
audience (by whatever means), so naturally there should be a charge
for this.  (After all, we should spare no expense to preserve free TV.
:-) I thought that the height of mutual self-deprivation[**] was the
cat-fighting between RBOCs and cable companies, but I guess the TV
networks would like to be competitive in that area, too (cat-fighting,
I mean).

BTW, I get a notice from my cable company once a year telling me that
they are obligated by law to make sure they don't deprive me of any
broadcast stuff that I could get if I don't get cable.  Naturally,
most of it they're already carrying, and then some.  They also offer
to help me set up an A/B switch for my antennae so I can get the real
(sometimes snowy) McCoy straight from the troposphere.  No, thanks.

Disclaimer:  I have nothing good to say about cable operators.  My
broadcast channel reception is a lot better with cable than off the
air.

[**] I mean they could all make a ton of money if they'd agree to
cooperate somehow instead of fighting with each other trying to get
the whole pie for themselves.


  Bill Carpenter         att!hos1cad!wjc  or  attmail!bill
  [phone]         AT&T Bell Labs,  HO 1L-410

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Date: 3 Aug 91 09:27:54 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Wayne D.
Correia) writes:

> THE TV NETWORKS WILL CONTINUE TO TRANSMIT TELEVISION FOR FREE.

> BUT THEY WANT TO TAX YOU 20% WHEN YOU WATCH IT ON CABLE.

[...]

> [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.

Until recently, cable TV operators were *required* to retransmit all
local TV channels.  "Local" being local to any of the areas served by
that cable network.

(The recent (couple years ago) change was to allow them to drop all
but one of a set of channels that mostly duplicate each other: for
instance, if there were two PBS channels in the cable area, before the
change the cable operator would have to carry both, even though 99% of
the time they'd be showing the same stuff.)

Now, does the age-old rule mentioned above cover just the *programs*,
or the entire output commercials and all?  Broadcast channels often
receive a much wider distribution through cable, and therefore the
commercials are seen by more people.  I'm sure the stations have
pointed this out to their customers.  In fact, this long-distance
coverage, coming up against the exclusive syndication of reruns,
resulted in the FCC's "syndex" ruling requiring some cable operators
to "black out" some programs.  I'd say this shows the stations are
well aware of the expanded audiences cable brings them.

> 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]

But the cable operators *are* providing a service to the people, as
well as the stations: clarity.  My parents' house in Spokane is in an
area surrounded by hills, and the ghosting is horrible.  When cable
became available, they subscribed to the "basic" service for the
express purpose of getting the normal broadcast channels clearly.


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: Sat, 3 Aug 91 02:17 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Hotels and AOS's AGAIN


[e-mail] writes:

> 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.

Then please explain this: the more a hotel charges for a room, the
more it tends to have sleazy surcharges and expensive mark ups for
room phone service. We all know that Motel 6 (an economy motel chain)
offers free local calling (not bad since those calls DO cost the motel
money) and no surcharges on alternately billed long distance. And of
course the room rates are cheap.

On the other hand, go to any "luxury" hotel where you pay four and
five times the room rate and you will find $1.50 per call surcharges,
charges for non-completed call attempts, and some of the priciest AOS
you would ever hope not to find. Why does it cost these establishments
so much more to provide room telephone service than Motel 6? Does this
mean that the hotel room (priced an order of magnitude higher than the
motel) is still not expensive enough?

> 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.

Do you realize how sleazy this sounds? How glib can you get? Just tack
a bunch of ridiculous charges on everyone's bill and if someone
complains remove them. Most of the sheep will pay without question, is
that it? Tell me, if those charges are right and just, why remove them
so quickly?

> 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.

Absolutely, which is why I make it a point to avoid most of the
"luxury" houses whenever possible. If I am going to be expected to pay
$150/night for a room, the least I can expect is not to be nickeled
and dimed to death by the room's telephone. Such is not the case when
I pay $25 to stay at Tom's place.


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

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 23:43 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Injustice
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[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.

This is not really unfairness.  Its a business decsion on the part of
the cellular carrier on how to charge for its service.  Frankly, I
think the two cellular carriers in each market should have different
charges, billing plans, services and such.  It gives the customer a
chance to make a choice that suits his needs.

In many markets, the cell carriers match each other, penny for penny,
plan for plan.  The result is often a less competition, as each
decides ultimately not to rock the boat (or kill the goose that lays
the golden eggs.)  That has been the case in much of Ohio; rates here
have actually gone up recently, with one company raising its rates,
and the other following suit, to the penny, right away.

> 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 is also a business decision, but there is a technical basis for
this, too.  The carrier has purchases Feature Group D type trunks from
the telco.  The carrier then pays carrier access and transport
charges, just like MCI, ATT, and others pay for network access.

GTE Mobilnet does the same here.  You don't even have to use a quarter
to call a Mobilnet cellphone from a telco payphone here.  You also are
not charged the $.08 per local call message rate from a business line
to call a Mobilnet cellphone, either.  IMHO, very desirable.

> 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.

They aren't.  Rest assured, the telco's are getting their piece of the
action.  Its just being done in an unfamiliar manner.

> 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?

Again, the cellular company has access lines and the telco hands off
the call to them at the closest possible point. The cellular company
transports the call on their own network as far as possible.


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: Sat, 3 Aug 91 13:29:24 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interchangeable Area Codes - Coming Sooner Than Planned?


I do NOT have news of a change in such date, but you don't have the
source of such remark?  Notice that 7D (not just 1 + NPA + 7D) for
intra-NPA long distance can accommodate the coming NNX area codes;
it's 1 + 7D that has to be discontinued, because the leading 1 is
needed to indicate that what follows is an area code.  Notice that 215
area in Pennsylvania is in the process of reducing intra-NPA long
distance from 1 + 7D to just 7D.

For those few areas still allowing NPA + 7D for long distance to other
NPAs, the leading 1 would have to be inserted to get ready for the NNX
area codes.  (NPA + 7D can remain available for local calls across NPA
lines, such as in and near Washington, DC.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #602
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab11129;
          3 Aug 91 20:12 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08431;
          3 Aug 91 18:37 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18438;
          3 Aug 91 17:20 CDT
Date:     Sat, 3 Aug 91 16:24:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #601
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Aug 91 16:24:32 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 601

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Re: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-ODS [John Boteler]
    Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Student Dataphone Use on Campus-Wide Network [Carol Noyes]
    Re: Free Toll Calls! (was Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!) [John Covert]
    Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges for 911 [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Re: Southern Bell Customer Newsletter [Dan Jacobson]
    900Mhz Cordless Phones Article [San Jose Mercury-News via Wayne D. Correia]
    Reputable 900 Service (for a change) [Dennis G. Rears]
    Sed Script Available to Change Area 415 Prefixes to 510 [Al Stangenberger]
    10xxx Blocking Update From California [Marc T. Kaufman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 23:39 GMT
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers


John Higdon wrote (in reply to Galen Wolf, Telecom #594):

> By the way, how are you using Sprint within the LATA? Looks like
> ANOTHER programming problem on the part of Sprint.

I can't speak for Galen, but where I use to live (Michigan Bell
313-478), it was possible to use a long-distance carrier to make calls
within the LATA.  One simply appended the carrier access code before
the number that was to be dialed.

> How do you use ITT for your local calls?

For me, it could have been done by dialing 10488-xxx-xxxx, where the
x's represent the local number.  I only did that a couple of times
experimentally, as I had flat-rate service (unlimited local calling).

I just tried it again here in Bell South territory (615-661).  Using
the above approach, it was possible to dial a local number using AT&T,
Sprint and MCI, but an attempt through Allnet produced the following
local intercept recording: "It is not neccessary to dial a carrier
access code with the number you dialed."


Sander J. Rabinowitz | [e-mail] -or- | [phone]
Brentwood, Tenn.     | [e-mail]   |       8-)


[Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA allows dialing local calls over their
network by substituting '700' for your own area code. For example, if
I wish to call Mayor Daley at 312-744-5000, I can from my home phone
dial 10835-1-700-744-5000. With Telecom*USA, 700 will always
substitute for your own area code. I have to put the 10835 on the call
since my phones default to AT&T. The catch is, this won't work for
points in 708, which is where many / most of my calls go. I can
however enter 10835-1-708-desired number and have it route over their
network, although it obviously is a local call.    PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 23:53 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]>

> 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?

While I am not familiar with this situation in SoBell, I have run into
the same thing in other areas.  Several reasons might exist, pick one:

- Its done at carrier request (often was the case for ATT)
  Caused by: PUC regulation, or excessive access cost for
  telco FGD lines for intra-lata use (as set by PUC and
  telco)

- Attitude problem by telco or mistake (both illegal, but it happens)

- Although the FCC has no problem with intra-lata calling
  by carriers, the telco hates it (cuts into their revenue,
  and they always think in monopolistic terms),  so their
  tarriffs prohibit intra lata and they forcibly block.
  Note that this is a state level regulatory situation.

It is very hard to get anyone to tell you what's actually going on
when you run into this. The local people do not program the switching
routings and translations any more; it is all done remotely.


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: Thu, 1 Aug 91 0:13:42 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS?


>> Can someone tell me about any standards that might exist for
>> digitized voice on the PC?

> Natural Microsystems of Natick MA is coordinating the (MVIP)
> group and makes a line of boards for voice processing purposes.

If you want products which are more functional than flashy, I suggest
a good, long look at the ones from Rhetorex.

We are looking at what they have and their approach to the whole
business, and I am personally impressed.

I am still waiting for a decent UNIX driver, but the one they have
still beats Dialogic's.

Standards are more important at the application level, where your
voice mail system needs to talk to my paging interface and his voice
router. That is another subject entirely, though.


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

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1991 12:08:37 GMT


hayes![e-mail] (Toby Nixon) writes:

> 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.

Well, back before I got a computer I had a terminal and an old
non-Hayes-compatible 1200 baud modem. It had a dialing directory and
the same 15-call limit to dialing. A lot of people still use dumb
terminals and modems, particularly folks using TDDs, and these people
are all inconvenienced by this rule.

(I was able to get around it on this occasion because its non-Hayes-
compatible command set could be pursuaded to link a number back to
itself and they hadn't bothered to restrict the number of links.)


Peter da Silva  Taronga Park BBS  [phone]/n/8/1  Taronga Park

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

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: Fri, 2 Aug 1991 12:14:40 GMT


[e-mail] (John R. Covert  31-Jul-1991 1853) writes:

> 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.

> That's not strange at all...

[ a bunch of political reasons deleted ]

Thanks. That's about what I figured. Politics strikes again...


Peter da Silva  Taronga Park BBS  [phone]/n/8/1  Taronga Park

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 14:17:52 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Student Dataphone Use on Campus-Wide Network


Thanks to each of you who responded to my questions concerning the use
of student dataphones on campus.  The replies were helpful, and I may
be getting back to some of you who are in this general area for
further information.

Again, thanks for taking the time to reply.


Carol Noyes   NOYES@HARTFORD    University of Hartford

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 07:24:05 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  01-Aug-1991 1027" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Free Toll Calls! (was Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!)


> 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!

Actually, on a significant subset of two-party lines, this _will_
cause long distance calls to be billed to the other party.

Don't think you won't get caught, though.  The telephone company knows
about this.  It's a significant part of the reason why you can't
connect your own registered equipment to party lines.


john

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

Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 12:34 GMT
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges for 911


Len Jaffe <[e-mail]> wrote (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!

I think what you're seeing is a regularly scheduled monthly charge for
911 service.  In other words, you'd be billed the 0.12 even if you
didn't make the 911 call.

Of course, I'd still wonder about that 911 operator you talked to.  :-(


Sander J. Rabinowitz | [e-mail] -or- | [phone]
Brentwood, Tenn.     | [e-mail]   |       8-)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Southern Bell Customer Newsletter
Date: Sat,  3 Aug 91 10:56:00 GMT


On 29 Jul 91, [e-mail] (Arnold Robbins)
said:

> 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.

However many community services won't be able to stamp out the lasting
impression over the years I have of our Illinois Bell newsletters
being the home of stories with headlines like "Just Call", "Phone
First", "Your Telephone: Quick, Convenient".  To top it all off
there's always that boring little cartoon at the bottom.

Illinois Bell also has television ads with the aforementioned exciting
themes.  Then there's Commonwealth Edison electric monopoly on TV
reminding us about electricity.

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

From: "Wayne D. Correia" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900Mhz Cordless Phones Article
Date: 2 Aug 91 17:16:09 GMT
Organization: Wayne's World! (Apple Computer, Inc.)


This is from the {San Jose Mercury News}, Tuesday, July 30, 1991
"Consumer" section, by The Gadget Guru, Andy Pargh.


PROMISED TELEPHONES FINALLY ON THEIR WAY

  Nobody's perfect. Not even the Gadget Guru.

  Although the information printed in this column is right on the nose
99% of the time, sometimes I'm left with egg on my face. This usually
occurs when I print the expected availability date of a product that
does not work out.

  But in my defense, when I find something that appears exciting, I
depend on the manufacturer to tell me when it will be begin shipping
from the factory to retailers around the country.

  One item which fell into this category was PacTel's four-mile
cordless telephone. In July, 1990, I wrote, "When something sounds too
good to be true, it usually is. This theory may or may not me valid
when it comes to the latest new product rumor -- a cordless telephone
with a four mile range. Falling into the believe it or not category,
these new phones could be on retailer's shelves as soon as spring 1991
and retail for less than $150."

  Needless to say, the product never surfaced and PacTel recently
exited from the consumer telephone business.

  But judging by the thousands of interested responses from readers,
there is definitely a desire for a longer-range cordless telephone.
Two other manu- facturers are planning to launch their versions.

  VTech Communications persents their Tropez 900 DX 2,400-foot range
cordless telephone. Boasting a range of nearly 2 1/2 times that of
today's cordless telephones, this unit should be the first on the
market to use 900-megahertz frequencies.

  Unlike other cordless units, the Tropez promises no fade or crackle
when it strays from the base unit. Since it uses digital technology, a
beep will warn you when you are approaching its limits -- and if you
don't turn around and head back toward the base, the phone call will
be disconnected.

  Scheduled to show up in October, it should sell for around $300. For
more information, call [phone].

  Code-a-Phone is also getting ready to produce its Epic 9000 long-range
cordless model. Much like the Tropez, it will use the 900-megahertz
frequencies and have the ability to travel about one-half mile from
its base.

  Awaiting Federal Communications Commission approval, as it the
Tropez, this unit may show up in stores as early as December and
should sell for around $300.

Questions may be sent to the Gadget Guru in care of the Living
section, the Mercury News, 750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, 95190.

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 22:31:41 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears " <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reputable 900 Service (For a Change)


  I just called a 900 number and was impressed with their responsibility
to the public.  It was a number for a letter to the editor for
{Newsweek Magazine}.  The first 15 seconds consisted of "If you are
calling about your subscription, or problems about the magazine you
don't have the right number.  This is for letters to the editor only.
This call costs $1.95 a minute.  If this is not your intention please
hang up before the tone you will not be charged."  This is not an
exact quotation but a paraphrasing.  We have heard enough complaints
about abusive 900 services, I think it is time we give kudos to a
service that services the public.  Now if you want the reason why I
call {Newsweek} buy the next issue :-).


Dennis

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 21:26:28 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Sed Script Available to Change Area 415 Prefixes to 510


I have submitted a Unix sed script to the archives to automate the
conversion of prefixes in the 415 area code to 510 effective September
2.

The script examines phone numbers of the form (415)nnn-xxxx and, if
the prefix is one of those affected, changes the area code to (510).
Other area codes can be mixed in the file -- the script only changes
415's.

Usage is:

%sed -f sed.script < oldlist > newlist

(The conversion table was copied from the 1991-1992 Oakland phone book.)


Al Stangenberger                    Dept. of Forestry & Resource Mgt.
[e-mail]          145 Mulford Hall - Univ. of Calif.
uucp:  ucbvax!ucbviolet!forags      Berkeley, CA  94720
BITNET: FORAGS AT UCBVIOLE          [phone]  FAX: [phone]

[Moderator's Note: Thanks for this addition to the Telecom Archives.
Your file is available for public use at this time under the title
'npa.510.sed.script'. Readers can get it with anonymous ftp: lcs.mit.edu,
then 'cd telecom-archives'.   PAT]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10xxx Blocking Update From California
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1991 05:42:02 GMT


I recently found some COCOTs that blocked access to AT&T (and everyone
else except Sprint), so I complained to the California PUC.

Result: I was told that blocking from privately owned COCOTs (is that
a redundancy?)  is currently permissible, but as of October 1 access
to all carriers must be provided.  Furthermore, as of October 1 AT&T
must provide an 800 number for access in addition to 10288.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: I understand AT&T is appealing the requirement for
800 number access, but that if the order is upheld on appeal they will
provide one which can only be called from within California for intra-
state calls terminating within California, which is all the PUC can
require. Interstate inbound or outbound is outside their baliwick.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #601
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06261;
          4 Aug 91 6:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12524;
          4 Aug 91 4:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31870;
          4 Aug 91 3:39 CDT
Date:     Sun, 4 Aug 91 2:55:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #603
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 4 Aug 91 02:54:33 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 603

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Trying to Dial 510-xxx-xxxx [Phydeaux]
    Local Calls and 10xxx Routing [TELECOM Moderator]
    City Code 91 in England [Carl Moore]
    Calling Line ID in Florida [Bill Huttig]
    Single Line PBX With Auto-Attendant Wanted [celia!techsys!pain!elmo]
    Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number [Stan Brown]
    Re: Where Can I Get "Telephony"? [Patton M. Turner]
    Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 22:54:59 PDT
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Trying to Dial 510-xxx-xxxx


It seems area code 510 doesn't work here in Sillynoise. "The area code
of the number you are dialing has been changed to 708" What's the date
for the cutover?


reb

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

Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 21:09:42 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Local Calls and 10xxx Routing


I have to wonder how the local telco interacts with 10xxx routing when
a local call is being placed. Consider these experiments from Chicago
today:

All calls were made from the Chicago-Rogers Park CO.

{10222, 10288, 10333, 10777, 10835} will be referred to as the 10xxx
codes. There are probably others which work here also.

Any 10xxx plus seven digits (to call within Chicago) went through with
no hassle, on any of the codes.  Any 10xxx plus 1708+seven digits for
a northern Illinois suburban number went through with no delay. An
exception is discussed below.

In the case of 10835 (Telecom USA) I could either dial 10835 + 7D or
I could dial 10835 + 1 + 700 + 7D and get the same results.

Calls to 10xxx + 976 did not complete on any carrier, and various
intercept messages were heard, leading me to believe the actual
carriers had been handed the call and were dealing with it, by
refusing to process it.

Calls to 10xxx + 1 + 312 + 976 always got me back to the IBT recording
saying 'when dialing a call outside your area code dial one plus the
area; when dialing within your area dial just the seven digit number.'

And calls to 10xxx + 1 + 510 were *immediatly* intercepted at that
point (no need for seven more digits) with the three tone intercept
signal and a message saying "when dialing a call outside your area
code you must dial 1, the area code and the number. When dialing a
call within your area code, dial only the seven digit number."  Always
the same intercept, coming from the same place.

So this would imply that IBT *is* screening what is handed off to the
carriers, and taking back what it considers to be a local call, with
the end result being the switch only deals with the !absolute! result
desired, regardless of routing instructions otherwise tendered.

But yet, if it refuses to pass 1-510-anything because it thinks of it
as a local call, then why does it pass 10xxx-976-anything (and it does
wait for a full number) to the carrier for rejection?

In regular dialing, 1-510 is immediatly intercepted with the same
recording as 10xxx-1-510.

10xxx-510-anything (four more digits required) gets an intercept
saying 'the area code has been changed to 708'. This is the identical
recording I get from merely dialing 510-anything, only in the latter
case it does not wait for the last four digits.

1-708-510-anything (full load of digits is required) gets a recording
saying 'the prefix of the number you are calling has been changed to
224. Please hang up and redial your call using 224 and the last four
digits.'

10xxx-1-708-510-anything produces the identical response with the
message about 'prefix has been changed to 224'.

It seems like anything I tried using regular seven or eleven digit
dialing locally (312 or 708) got the same response from the same
switch as when I dialed 10xxx and the same number. The only difference
seemed to be the 10xxx method always required a full load of digits
after it, where local dialing would frequently intercept after the
prefix if there was an area code (312 vs. 708) or other discrepancy.
The exception was 976.

Oh yes ... calls to *any* 800 number always failed when placed via
10xxx and always went through when dialed as 1+800+7D. So again it
looks like the local switch is sorting things out in the process of
handing them off ... in the case of 800 numbers, any attempt to go
through 10xxx caused an intercept after all ten digits were dialed to
say 'the number you are calling cannot be reached with the carrier
access code you have dialed ...'

I also tried 10xxx# and 10xxx .....

By that I mean, 10222# (nothing more, just sit and wait for it) and
10222 (nothing more).

Without the # key, after the 10xxx the switch would wait patiently and
eventually tell me 'if you'd like to make a call, please hang up and
dial again ...'

With just the five digit 10xxx code and the # key to signal the end of
dialing, the results were mixed:

10222# wait a few seconds, reorder tone.
10288# wait a few seconds, 'we're sorry your call cannot be completed
       as dialed...'
10333# wait a few seconds, 'your long distance service has been
       temporarily discontinued. Please call customer service.'
10777# immediate intercept, 'number cannot be reached with the carrier
       access code dialed...'

and the real odd one:

10835# wait a few seconds ... Telecom USA dial tone!!!!! I tried at
that point to enter my Telecom*USA calling card number, and that
failed. I just dialed '0' for the operator, and that failed. No matter
what I tried agains this dial tone I got only the same recording,
'zero nine, zero four, there is an error in your dialing procedures.'

So -- does or does not the local telco switch examine what it hands
off to the carriers?

If so, why is 10xxx# with nothing else considered an acceptable thing
to give the carriers?

Why does 10xxx without the # terminator always fail for lack of
digits, and timing out with the local switch talking back to me?

Why do calls to known flakey numbers in 312 or 708 seem to get
suspiciously similar complaint messages from the switch regardless of
the carrier they were supposedly handed off to?

Does anyone know PRECISELY what happens when the local telco switch is
given 10xxx and something (or nothing) following?  Is there some table
used to decide whether or not to hand off the digits dialed?


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 13:17:28 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: City Code 91 in England


I recently received an address in Durham (postal code starting with
DH1) in England with a phone number 091+7D.  How recent is this city
code 91?  (When called from outside the UK, omit leading zero from
city code.)

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Line ID in Florida
Date: 3 Aug 91 17:43:07 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


Here it is my report on caller ID in FL.

I have not received any long distance calls from other caller ID
equiped cities yet.

Local calls show up with the correct local number. *67 will cause the
device to display PRIVATE. It seems that lines from a switchboard
will show up as the line and not as PRIVATE/OUT-OF-AREA.. Payphone
numbers also show up. These numbers can not be *69 (call returned). A
number that shows up as private can usually be *69ed.

Seems to work fine. I only wish it would tell which ringmaster number
was dialed.


Bill


[Moderator's Note: The number displayed when a call comes to you via a
switchboard or centrex will depend on how it is billed, I suspect. If
all the lines from the board are associated with and billed under the
main listed number, it may be that will be the only number which gets
transmitted to you.  PAT]

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

From: Superuser <celia!techsys!pain!elmo>
Subject: Single-Line PBX With Auto-Attendant Wanted
Date: 2 Aug 91 20:02:50 GMT
Organization: Public Access Info Network  (818/776-1447)


I am looking for a cheap (<$200) 1x4 PBX or switching box that will
transfer the caller to his choice of extension by pressing 1, 2, 3, or
4.

FAX-Switches I have seen are limited to only two selections, otherwise
they would be suitable.


Thanks,

Elmo

                         celia!techsys!pain!elmo
              Public Access Information Network  (818/776-1447)
                            ++ Waffle BBS v1.64 ++

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

Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 11:13:31 -0400
From: Stan Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)


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

> 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.)

This is a blatant lie.  According to Visa and MasterCard national
policies, you don't even have to give your telephone number when
making a purchase.  This is part of the operating rules that apply to
all merchants, and any merchant that requires ANY additional ID as a
condition of sale should be reported to the customer's card-issuing
bank and the merchant's processing bank.

The one exception is when there is reason to suspect fraud in use of
the credit card.

I have letters from MasterCard and Visa concerning these policies, and
will email summaries on request.


Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA   [phone]
      email: [e-mail] -or- [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 21:59:49 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where Can I Get "Telephony"?


Shuenn Hwang <[e-mail]> writes:

> Hi, can someone out there tell me where I can get subscription
> information for {Telephony Magazine}? Thanks.

Telephony Magazine
PO Box 12091
Overland Park, KS 66212

Write them on a company letterhead and very likely you'll get a free
subscription.  If you have to pay, expect it to be expensive, as
Telephony is published every week.


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL      [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 1:39:22 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX


A curious article appeared in the {Chicago Sun Times} a couple weeks
ago. The {Sun Times} called it "I Have an Obscene Call For Anyone at
This Number -- Will You Accept the Charges?"  It is excerpted here for
your consideration.

It seems a convict switchboard operator at the Trenton, NJ State
Prison has been charged with making obscene phone calls to women
around the nation -- collect.

"It's just bizarre. The guy was serving a sentence of 84 years and you
can't stop him from reaching out and touching someone," said
prosecuutor Paul T. Koenig, Jr.

Antoine Graham, 27, who is in the the fifth year of a 84 year sentence
for multiple rapes, had a better than average job assignment at the
prison where he was phone operator on the night shift. Part of his
duties included monitoring and timing the telephone calls of other
inmates who had telephone privileges to call their families. He had
held the job for four years.

In his spare time at the switchboard, Graham was allegedly making
obscene calls to women and children all over the United States.
According to Koenig, he got the victims to accept his collect phone
calls by posing as an official with information about some member of
their family.

Although Graham isn't talking, prison officials suspect he found the
names of his victims by reading the newspapers which arrived at the
prison front desk every night. They say he would scan the paper
looking for people involved in accidents or other newsworthy
incidents.  Then posing as a 'government official' -- exact title and
duties of said official not explained -- he'd call collect.

Koenig pointed out that when a stranger calls on the phone and
identifies himself as a government official of some kind, the
recipient of the call is more inclined to listen, and if they are not
too bright, they'd even accept a collect call, not realizing the
government never calls anyone collect on the phone.

Graham would give the called party -- always a woman or a child --
some baloney story about their loved one, and then gradually lead up
to obscene comments and suggestions before hanging up. One of his
favorite lines was to pose as a 'doctor at the public health service'
and tell women their husband had some sexually transmitted desease. Of
course, he'd ask the women to confide in him with sexual details of
their relationships, and if the victims were really dumb he could
convince them to touch themselves in certain places and ways as they
were talking to him.

And this went on for four years!  Koenig said, "The prison had left a
fox in charge of the henhouse", in reference to Graham's duties
monitoring the phone privileges of other inmates.

Graham finally got caught during a call to a woman in Oregon who was
smart enough to play along and keep him on the phone for quite awhile.
The call was traced back to the switchboard at the prison and then to
Graham. Prison officials met with police officers and Graham was
arrested while at his work assignment.

Following his arrest, he was relieved of duty at the switchboard, and
has been charged with making terrorist threats and impersonating a
public official, based on remarks he made in the phone call to the
woman who aided police in the investigation. Graham has also been
administratively charged with violating prison regulations.

The new charges against Graham carry a sentence of two years on
conviction; his trial will be later this year. But for someone already
serving an 84 year sentence for rape, I cannot fathom what difference
an additional two years will make one way or the other!  :)


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #603
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26635;
          4 Aug 91 23:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08017;
          4 Aug 91 21:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26773;
          4 Aug 91 20:49 CDT
Date:     Sun, 4 Aug 91 20:27:40 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #604
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 4 Aug 91 20:23:45 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 604

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Local Calls and 10xxx Routing [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Local Calls and 10xxx Routing [Al L Varney]
    Non-Local Calls and 10xxx Routing [David Lesher]
    Re: Looking For Reference Literature [Julian Macassey]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Calls and 10xxx Routing
Date: 4 Aug 91 17:44:02 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

[stuff deleted]

> Any 10xxx plus seven digits (to call within Chicago) went through with
> no hassle, on any of the codes.  Any 10xxx plus 1708+seven digits for

Any valid code except MCI 10222 works here. It seems this all started
to work after the Bell Atlantic/PacTel mess.  Also you will be billed
my most (if not all carriers) for these calls as a short range long
distence call.

> In the case of 10835 (Telecom USA) I could either dial 10835 + 7D or
> I could dial 10835 + 1 + 700 + 7D and get the same results.

Same here execpt the PIC is 10852 (SouthernNet as oposed to
Teleconects PIC) If you dial 1-700-555-xxxx where xxxx is anything but
4141 or 4343 you will be connected to directory assistence and billed.
Also 1-700-950-5000 will connect you to Voice News Network.

> Calls to 10xxx + 976 did not complete on any carrier, and various
> intercept messages were heard, leading me to believe the actual
> carriers had been handed the call and were dealing with it, by
> refusing to process it.

Not here, it seems to be intercepted by Southern Bell.

[stuff deleted]

> And calls to 10xxx + 1 + 510 were *immediatly* intercepted at that
> point (no need for seven more digits) with the three tone intercept
> signal and a message saying "when dialing a call outside your area
> code you must dial 1, the area code and the number. When dialing a
> call within your area code, dial only the seven digit number."  Always
> the same intercept, coming from the same place.

Here it is intercepted with your call cannot be competed as dialed. I
assume it is because we have never had a exchange of 510.

> So this would imply that IBT *is* screening what is handed off to
> the carriers, and taking back what it considers to be a local call,
> with the end result being the switch only deals with the !absolute!
> result desired, regardless of routing instructions otherwise
> tendered.

Same with Southern Bell. As soon as it finds a 1 + valid area code
(none of our exchanges duplicate area codes), Southern Bell passes the
call and ignores the rest. But when it finds a 1 + invalid areacode or
exchange it says call cannot be completed as dialed.

[stuff deleted]

> Oh yes ... calls to *any* 800 number always failed when placed via
> 10xxx and always went through when dialed as 1+800+7D.
> ... in the case of 800 numbers, any attempt to go
> through 10xxx caused an intercept after all ten digits were dialed to
> say 'the number you are calling cannot be reached with the carrier
> access code you have dialed ...'

Same here.

> I also tried 10xxx# and 10xxx .....

> 10333# wait a few seconds, 'your long distance service has been
>        temporarily discontinued. Please call customer service.'

I think this one is strange.

> 10777# immediate intercept, 'number cannot be reached with the carrier
>        access code dialed...'

Same basic recordings ... slightly different words.

Without the # on the end,  a half ring and a reorder.

> 10835# wait a few seconds ... Telecom USA dial tone!!!!! I tried at
> that point to enter my Telecom*USA calling card number, and that
> failed. I just dialed '0' for the operator, and that failed. No matter
> what I tried agains this dial tone I got only the same recording,
> 'zero nine, zero four, there is an error in your dialing procedures.'

Same here but I get a your call cannot be complete as dialed recording
N-6 if I dial without a 1.  With the 1 its recording N-11.

ATC advertises something similar for LATA calls dial 10789 (or any other
ATC PIC) + 1 areacode + number within your LATA.  It does not work
this way. You can dial 10789-1-Number or 10789# wait for tone 407
number.

Long ago (two or three years) you could dial 10xxx# and then dial like
you did with the carriers 950 number. Or you could do a 10xxx0 areacode
number and dial your IEC's card number and the call would go through
and bill as a calling card call.  Now the 10xxx-0 + calls require a LEC
card.

> So -- does or does not the local telco switch examine what it hands
> off to the carriers?

They must.

> If so, why is 10xxx# with nothing else considered an acceptable thing
> to give the carriers?

There might be some test codes or something that some carriers want
available or it could be a carry over from the above info.

> Why do calls to known flakey numbers in 312 or 708 seem to get
> suspiciously similar complaint messages from the switch regardless of
> the carrier they were supposedly handed off to?

Because the long distance switch asks the BOC's switch to complete the
call when it can't?

> Does anyone know PRECISELY what happens when the local telco switch is
> given 10xxx and something (or nothing) following?  Is there some table
> used to decide whether or not to hand off the digits dialed?

Good question. It apears so.

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

Date: Sun,  4 Aug 91 14:24:51 CDT
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Calls and 10xxx Routing
Organization: AT&T Network System


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

> I have to wonder how the local telco interacts with 10xxx routing
> when a local call is being placed.  Consider these experiments from
> Chicago today:

Patrick, I envy your free time (or hobby time)!

[ Summary of experiments: Various 10xxx with seven-digit inside NPA
312, using NNX/NPA of 510 and NNX 976.]

  IBT implements the same screening that almost all other LECs are
using, specified in the Carrier Interconnect requirements, Bellcore
FSD 20-24-0000 (Feature Group D) and 20-24-0300 (Feature Group B).
Since I'm at home, this is all from memory, so forgive any slipped
digits. :-) I'll include only needed context to answer your questions.

  First, a summary.  Each 7/10 digit number in a CO Switch will yield
an indication of "Inter-LATA" or "Intra-LATA".  If "Inter-LATA", your
line must have a pre-subscribed IXC, or you must have dialed 10XXX.

If "Intra-LATA", without 10XXX, LEC carries the call.  If "Intra-LATA"
with 10XXX, call is carried IF Switch database is set to allow this
for particular carriers.  (The state PUC usually gets to regulate
this, as well as rates.)  This simple summary ignores lots of
exceptions, such as "0+", International, Feature Group B access via
950-WXXX, etc.

> In the case of 10835 (Telecom USA) I could either dial 10835 + 7D or
> I could dial 10835 + 1 + 700 + 7D and get the same results.

Just as Telecom USA tells their customers.  But do 10835 + 555-1212
and 10835 + 1 + 700 + 555-1212 get the same result?  With the same DA
charge?

[Moderator's Reply: NO! The first gets DA, the latter gets the carrier
ID message, as does 700-555-4141. That is one exception.  PAT]

> Calls to 10xxx + 976 did not complete on any carrier, and various
> intercept messages were heard, leading me to believe the actual
> carriers had been handed the call and were dealing with it, by
> refusing to process it.

Carriers get these calls because some "Service Providers" that handle
976 calls are really IXCs from the Switch's perspective.  At any time,
any IXC could handle 976 calls as they wish (it's not a real NXX).
IBT gets to negotiate how "non-10XXX" 976 calls are handled by either
marking them "Intra-LATA" or selecting a particular carrier for a
given 976 number.  The second option would over-ride any 10XXX dialed.

> Calls to 10xxx + 1 + 312 + 976 always got me back to the IBT recording
> saying 'when dialing a call outside your area code dial one plus the
> area; when dialing within your area dial just the seven digit number.'

Standard multi-purpose intercept for blocking 1+312, forcing 1+FNPA.
(FNPA = Foreign NPA)

> And calls to 10xxx + 1 + 510 were *immediatly* intercepted at that
> point (no need for seven more digits) with the three tone intercept
> signal and a message saying "when dialing a call outside your area
> code you must dial 1, the area code and the number. When dialing a
> call within your area code, dial only the seven digit number."  Always
> the same intercept, coming from the same place.

Same intercept, different reason.  510 is an NXX, which moved from 312
to 708 with the split.  You would get the same recording by dialing
10xxx + 1 + 665, I believe.  Neither 510 nor 665 are NPAs, and they
both moved from 312 to 708.  This is the generic intercept one
receives for forgetting about the big "312" split.  IXCs are only
involved in this when IBT adds a "708"-only NXX into 312, and the IXC
forgets to make provisions in their tables.  Then calls from (say)
Newark over carrier XXX might reach an IXC intercept falsely.

> So this would imply that IBT *is* screening what is handed off to the
> carriers, and taking back what it considers to be a local call, with
> the end result being the switch only deals with the !absolute! result
> desired, regardless of routing instructions otherwise tendered.

I don't understand the statement.  Each number (or at least NPA-NXX)
is treated as the Switch is provisioned to handle it.  Even though
10XXX is at the beginning of the digit string, it is only one
component of the routing algorithm.  If you think you give a switch
"routing instructions" by the way you dial, you are mistaken.

> But yet, if it refuses to pass 1-510-anything because it thinks of it
> as a local call, then why does it pass 10xxx-976-anything (and it does
> wait for a full number) to the carrier for rejection?

See above.  976 is a valid (but non-real) NXX in NPA 312.  510 is not
a valid NPA (yet) from NPA 312.

> In regular dialing, 1-510 is immediatly intercepted with the same
> recording as 10xxx-1-510.

See, I told you.  No 510 from 312.... :-)

> 10xxx-510-anything (four more digits required) gets an intercept
> saying 'the area code has been changed to 708'. This is the identical
> recording I get from merely dialing 510-anything, only in the latter
> case it does not wait for the last four digits.

These cases are asking the Switch to treat 510 as an NXX in NPA 312.
BUT, as I've explained, 510 is one of the NXXs moved to 708 when 312
was split.

> 1-708-510-anything (full load of digits is required) gets a recording
> saying 'the prefix of the number you are calling has been changed to
> 224. Please hang up and redial your call using 224 and the last four
> digits.'    [Same for 10xxx + 1 + 708 + 510 ....]

Just a bad choice of digits, Partrick.  My work location, AT&T Network
Systems Network Software Center in Lisle, IL, changed from a PBX
hanging off the Wheaton 1A ESS(tm) Switch to an ISDN Centrex service
from the Naperville North 5ESS(rg) Switch.  Since IBT had already
assigned many non-AT&T individuals to the 510- prefix, they could not
easily move the 510 NXX to Naperville.  We had to take a change in
NXX; the new NXX is 224.  The intercept is the one we asked IBT to
give our callers that mistakenly continued to use "708-510-xxxx".  I
can assure you that there are still valid 510-xxxx numbers in Wheaton,
but please don't bug my neighbors by calling them.

> It seems like anything I tried using regular seven or eleven digit
> dialing locally (312 or 708) got the same response from the same
> switch as when I dialed 10xxx and the same number. The only difference
> seemed to be the 10xxx method always required a full load of digits
> after it, where local dialing would frequently intercept after the
> prefix if there was an area code (312 vs. 708) or other discrepancy.
> The exception was 976.

Hope this answers your questions.

> Oh yes ... calls to *any* 800 number always failed when placed via
> 10xxx and always went through when dialed as 1+800+7D. So again it
> looks like the local switch is sorting things out in the process of
> handing them off ... in the case of 800 numbers, any attempt to go
> through 10xxx caused an intercept after all ten digits were dialed to
> say 'the number you are calling cannot be reached with the carrier
> access code you have dialed ...'

Another rule required by Bellcore, since the carrier selected by the
800 database cannot be over-ridden by 10XXX.  Folks that were allowed
to use 10xxx + 1 + 800 might think they were using the 10xxx IXC, so
it's blocked.

> I also tried 10xxx# and 10xxx .....

     [ ... deleted attempts ... ]

> If so, why is 10xxx# with nothing else considered an acceptable thing
> to give the carriers?

This is called "cut-through" to IXC, and is allowed if the IXC wants
to handle such access.  Most don't -- use 950-WXXX instead.  10xxx +
00 is operator cut-through to IXC (as is plain "00" ).  10xxx + 0#
will also cut-through without the timing for a number.

> Why does 10xxx without the # terminator always fail for lack of
> digits, and timing out with the local switch talking back to me?

It's not enough digits for valid 10xxx calling.

> Does anyone know PRECISELY what happens when the local telco switch is
> given 10xxx and something (or nothing) following?  Is there some table
> used to decide whether or not to hand off the digits dialed?

Lots of tables, lots of software, lots of rules.  Take a look at the
FSD.  After that, I can give you some AT&T Practices that give you
more details than you want ... but the LEC is the one that ultimately
populates those tables.


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

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Non-Local Calls and 10xxx Routing
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 7:25:21 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


The infamous 700-xxx-xxxx number those of us in Dade County must use
(to reach an IOC operator) to call Havana will NOT work on other than
AT&T. I discovered this one morning when another c.d.t.'er called me to
ask about it. With MCI as my default, it bombed. 10288-1-700 etc.
worked.

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking For Reference Literature
Date: 4 Aug 91 14:41:07 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Karl T.
Braun) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 597, Message 6 of 11

> I'm looking for a good reference book (or two) on telephone
> technology.

    The best primer I know of is "You and Your Telephone" by Tom
Rogers. Published by Howard W. Sams & Co Inc. ISBN: 0-672-21744-9

    The book was first published in 1980. It is an excellent start
on what the wires do, etc.

    There are also various magazine articles floating around. One
notorious one from the June, 1975 "73" magazine called "Inside Ma
Bell".  Good stuff about 2600 Hz etc. This one really upset the
establishment.  Funny thing is that it was preceeded that in April of
that year with a load of drivel titled "Ma Bell vs. Foreign
Attachments". This article had a scenario where connecting your own
phone could cause aeroplanes to crash. It was a wonderful piece of
scare propaganda designed to dissuade people from messing with their
phone lines and attaching stuff they were not renting from AT&T.

    Then there is "Understanding Telephones" from the September,
1985 Ham Radio Mag. I am the author of this piece. There should be a
copy in the telecom archives.

    Rat Shack used to sell a book by Texas Instuments called
"Electronic Telephones" or some such. It was written in the UK, so
they talk about "tinkle" rather than "bell tap" etc. But the meat is
there.

    That should get you started. But {Teleconnect Magazine} at
1-800-LIBRARY sells telecom books. Get their catalog. The "ABC"
training books are good for basics.


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 do not think we have your article in the archives
right now. Want to send another copy?    PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #604
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29236;
          5 Aug 91 0:35 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07352;
          4 Aug 91 23:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08017;
          4 Aug 91 21:54 CDT
Date:     Sun, 4 Aug 91 21:17:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #605
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 4 Aug 91 21:16:58 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 605

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX [David Lesher]
    Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX [Wm. Carpenter]
    Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX [Patton Turner]
    Re: Sprint Price Change [Rob Knauerhase]
    Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911 [Joe Stein]
    Re: Calling Line ID in Florida [Bill Huttig]
    Calling Card Magnetic Strip Format? [David Foster]
    Millenium Payphones (Northern Telecom) [Dave Leibold]
    Telecom Book of the Month (or not...) [Dave Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 7:37:25 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


> Graham finally got caught during a call to a woman in Oregon who was
> smart enough to play along and keep him on the phone for quite awhile.
> The call was traced back to the switchboard at the prison and then to
> Graham.

The most obvious problem with this story: How difficult can it be to
trace a call back to the source -- when the number shows up on YOUR
bill at the end of the month ;-? Oh sure, it will only show the PBX
trunk, but come on folks. If you are Warden Jones, and YOU hear a
complaint about calls from your PBX on a Saturday night last month,
I'm sure you have SOME ;-] idea where to start investigating.

What this really says to me is that Ms. Oregon was the first person
smart enough to complain. P. T. (No - not the Moderator, the circus
mogol) was right.......


[Moderator's Note: I expect many of the callers did not bother to
challenge the call on their bill; and others challenged it but were
told something like 'you should not have accepted it it you did not
want to pay for it ...'. Still others may have been satisfied when
they challenged it and either their local telco or the originating
telco wrote it off. A few complained, and depending on who they spoke
to at the prison, the complaint fell on (at the time) deaf ears.
There had to be a combination of circumstances which kept this from
getting back to him for a long time.  Yes, PTB was right ...  PAT]

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

Date: Sun,  4 Aug 91 12:01:38 EDT
From: William J Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> Graham finally got caught during a call to a woman in Oregon who
> was smart enough to play along and keep him on the phone for quite
> awhile.  The call was traced back to the switchboard at the prison
> and then to Graham.

So, like, how hard is it to trace a *collect* call?


Bill Carpenter         att!hos1cad!wjc  or  attmail!bill
[phone]         AT&T Bell Labs,  HO 1L-410


[Moderator's Note: Not hard at all, but see my reply to the previous
message. It took someone who was willing to go to the trouble and was
willing to push on it.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 14:25:22 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX


Pat writes:

> Koenig pointed out that when a stranger calls on the phone and
> identifies himself as a government official of some kind, the
> recipient of the call is more inclined to listen, and if they are not
> too bright, they'd even accept a collect call, not realizing the
> government never calls anyone collect on the phone.

This is not always the case.  Twice while working out of town, and one
while here in Auburn, I have had equipiment stolen.  After filling a
report with the local PD, and giving them my phone number to call if
anything turns up, they have told me the call will be collect.  I'm
not really sure why they told me unless people were refusing their
phone calls.

BTW if anyone is ever in a Memphis pawn shop and sees a set of hooks
and a lasher for sale along with a length of fiber optic cable, let me
know :-).


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I'm sure *local government* sometimes calls collect
to out of town / state locations when dealing with private citizens in
some other jurisdiction, but the federal government never does. Maybe
they would if it was an international call.  :)   PAT]

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

From: Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Price Change
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1991 09:49:46 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Newman) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
> ny.us (seth cohn) writes:

>> 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.

Just another data point in the ongoing Sprint rate melange.  After
getting $5 credit for the calls I made between the rate increase and
reading about it here (credited without certificate) and the $5
certificate with the actual (gasp) notification of the increase,
yesterday I got a $10 certificate with notification that I'm now in
their "Priority customer" program.

All this hasn't added up to enough to pay a month's bill, but I've
become quite eager to open any envelopes I get from Sprint!

Somewhere, deep in the algorithmic heart of Sprint's billing computer
(which used to be employed calling Bingo numbers), there's a method to
this madness ...


Rob Knauerhase
[e-mail]     Intel Development Tools Operation (for the summer)
[e-mail]        Univ. of Illinois, Dept. of CS, Gigabit Study Group

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep?
Date: 4 Aug 91 14:12:19 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Elizabeth
Schwartz) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 597, Message 3 of 11

> 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??

    Ah yes, the kill the DTMF pad rip-off. One of the COCOT faves.
They do this to prevent you using your credit card or a remote access
port and denying them income. They want you to use their rip-off
services. They don't want you to use your own choice of carrier. This
is an FCC/PUC no-no, but they still do it.

    Last Friday night I was in "RJs The Rib Joint" in Beverly
Hills. Not a great restaurant, but a nice place to watch women. They
had a COCOT that not only returned an error tone when I punched in
10288 (AT&T access code), it killed the DTMF pad after a number was
dialed.

    But the best bit was how they did it to themselves. When you
dialed 00 to get their sleezy AOS, the DTMF pad immediatly went dead.
Then an automated attendant came on and said "If you want an English
speaking operator - dial 1 now". It then offered the same in Spanish
if I dialed 2. Despite this being Beverly Hills, operator assistance
was not offered in Farsi, French, German or any of the other languages
commonly heard there. Anyhow, it was impossible to get the operator of
your choice as the DTMF pad was dead. I had to wait for the Automated
Attendant to time out.

    I explained a few things to the AOS operator and was at my
request handed to a Los Angeles AT&T operator. AT&T put through my
call at regular rates.

    Need I say, that the level of helpfulness and politeness of
the AT&T operator was way above the surly AOS operator.


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: It is my pleasure to announce that the COCOT phone
in the coin-op laundry a block from my house screens out all the 10xxx
codes and denies connections to AT&T. So what is my pleasure, you ask?
Whoever programmed the phone *forgot about 976*, although they did
lock out 900. This is an AT&T COCOT, and after dialing 976-anything,
the phone cuts through and rings the desired number ... without asking
for any money at all!  I asked the lady who runs the laundry who
should I contact about the phone (of course there was no ID of any
sort on the phone itself). But she hates the customers, hates her job,
hates the world and hates herself ... "I dunno nuttin about it", was
her reply; and that's fine with me. :)   PAT]

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

From: Joe Stein <sequent!techbook.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 05:36:40 GMT


In Oregon, there is a '911 Tax' which everyone pays, which is 3.5%.

This is true of US West in the Greater Portland area and also of GTE
in the Beaverton/Salem/Eugene area.

I have no idea what other carriers do in Oregon.


Joseph W. Stein - [e-mail]  -or-
[phone]   [e-mail] -or- [e-mail]
    (voice)

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Line ID in Florida
Date: 4 Aug 91 17:49:44 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

[stuff deleted]

> [Moderator's Note: The number displayed when a call comes to you via a
> switchboard or centrex will depend on how it is billed, I suspect. If
> all the lines from the board are associated with and billed under the
> main listed number, it may be that will be the only number which gets
> transmitted to you.  PAT]

Each number from the switchboard shows up, not the billing number.
That is what is so strange. I think that explains the question a few
days ago about the PacTel Billing disk where the person's number
showed up three times: once for CLID, once for the number and once for
the billing number. But if that is the case does caller ID show a
number and call return not allow a return to be made? If you know the
number you can just dial it.

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

From: David Foster <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Card Magnetic Strip Format
Date: 4 Aug 91 18:31:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


My question: Where can I get the ANSI specs for the magnetic strip
track format for RBOC and long distance calling cards.

Background: A friend is trying to integrate the use of calling cards
into his telecom business.  He contacted several of the phone
companies and they all subcontract out to card manufacturers.  The
card vendors in turn subcontract the magnetic strip and its
formatting.  However, none of the vendors had their particular
subcontractor name available, but they would get back to my friend.
Needless to say it's been a while, so my friend asked me to post.

Is there an organization that specifies standards for magnetic cards?
Is there a publication?  Any help is appreciated.


David Foster   KB6VVV                 Internet:  [e-mail]
Lab Manager                           Bitnet:  [e-mail]
Univ California, Santa Cruz


[Moderator's Note: Maybe if he had a card reader he could swipe it
through there and make sense of it.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat,  3 Aug 91 14:29:00 PST
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Millenium Payphones (Northern Telecom)
Reply-to: [e-mail]


One of the nicer models of payphones in service these days is the
Millenium, which can be seen in some parts of Toronto and other
places. These are Bell Canada payphones (COCOTs as such do not
officially exist in Canada yet).

These phones allow for use of calling cards, or credit cards such as
Visa, MC, Amex, etc. In Toronto's case, a calling card issued from
Telecom Canada (eg. Bell Canada, BC Tel, AGT, MTS, etc) could be used,
or AT&T cards can be used. No provision for MCI or Sprint offerings,
last I checked, other than the ability to dial their 800 number access
lines.

Major features of the phones include a two line character display
(green, fluorescent-like dot matrix display) which can be switched
between French and English messages. If the phones have the coin slot
installed, the new Canadian $1 coins can be used. There is also a
"Next Call" diamond button which will return another dial tone when
pressed. A canned voice (also in either French or English) backs up
messages that are displayed, such as "Please deposit..." or invalid
number announcements. No live operators were encountered during this.

At first, these phones were put into service as card-only systems. The
coin mechanisms were added later. I found the first of these at
Toronto's Union Station. At this point, calls made as 1 + NPA + number
would have the cost listed on the display, with a canned voice also
announcing the cost. Some fun can be had when calling Inmarsat numbers
(country codes 871 through 874); the cost of such calls were displayed
as $42 something, while the canned voice claimed an amount much smaller
(I forget the exact amount, but I recall it being quoted under the $20
range).

The phones seem to be tolerant of whatever syntax is used to dial the
call. A call from Toronto to Hamilton (long distance) can be dialed as
1-416-number (the way Bell Canada has now set up intra-NPA calling),
or the phones seem to accept just 1-number (with a timeout before
processing the call), and I think just dialing the seven digits will
also work. In all cases, a deposit request for the long distance cost
appeared.  Even the 10XXX syntax seems to be parsed by these things,
although 10XXX carrier selection is not available in Canada yet.  800
numbers and Directory Assistance calls complete without charge as they
should.

I didn't have a chance to check out other aspects, such as what
happens to the tone pad after the call is dialed, or other things. In
any case, this technology is a bit too good to be used as a COCOT :-).


replies: [e-mail]
Dave Leibold via oneb.wimsey.bc.ca!onebdos
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri,  2 Aug 91 22:51:00 PST
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Book of the Month (or not...)
reply-to: [e-mail]


Is your telecom book collection complete? Is this book in your
collection?

Authors: Kraus, Constantine Raymond and Duerig, Alfred W
Title: The Rape of Ma Bell: The Criminal Wrecking of the Best
       Telephone System in the World
Pub: Secaucus NJ, Lyle Stuart c1988
Lib. of Congress call: HE8846.A55 ...

I haven't had a chance to read it since it's supposed to be located in
another library than the one this listing was found.


replies: [e-mail]
Dave Leibold via oneb.wimsey.bc.ca!onebdos
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: When you finish reading it, please do post a
review. Other readers who have (plan to) read it are also encouraged
to comment.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #605
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07705;
          6 Aug 91 2:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25711;
          6 Aug 91 0:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05559;
          5 Aug 91 23:32 CDT
Date:     Mon, 5 Aug 91 23:15:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #606
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 5 Aug 91 23:15:21 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 606

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911 [Macy Hallock]
    Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number [S. Thornton]
    Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Re: City Code 91 in England [David Heale]
    Re: City Code 91 in England [Martin Harriss]
    Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? [Elizabeth Schwartz]
    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [D. Levenson]
    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [Sean Malloy]
    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Netowrk B'casters [Bud Couch]
    Re: Working Assets Long Distance [Andy Sherman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 21:07 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]>:

> 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!

This Ohio PUC specifically allows for emergency calls to law
enforcement authorities to be at no charge.  In the past, this meant
you could dial 0 and get the Police, Fire and Rescue services by
stating it was an emergency ... and not be charged for the call, period.

With the advent of 911, specific provisions were put into place that
made 911 calls toll free and no local message unit was to be charged.
Every subscriber in a 911 calling area pays a small monthly fee to
defray the cost of the service (I regard this as dubious, at best, BTW).

If your call was from a cellular telephone, the rules are different.
I am not aware of a PUC requirement for toll free calling to 911 for
cellphones at this time.  Most of the local cell carriers say they do
not charge (at least in Northern Ohio) for 911 access as a service to
their customers.  Makes sense to me.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol established a special number for charge
free reporting of emergencies when cellular service first came to
Ohio: 800-525-5555.  This number remains in service to this day ...
and I have used it several times.  (A friend at the Highway Patrol
says they have nabbed many a drunk driver thanks to calls on this
line ...)

This 800 number was established with the cooperation of the cellular
companies in Ohio, who all agreed it was not to be charged airtime.
It works well, but rings in regional dispatch centers for the Highway
Patrol, which takes the information and passes it on to the correct
agency using the state's LEADS (the law enforcement database and
message system used by all Ohio police/investigative agencies).  My
friends in the law enforcement community say it works well and is well
regarded.

Of course, one would expect 911 calls to receive similar treatment by
the cellular companies, if for no other reason but their public
service responsibilities.

As for your 911 charge ... I suggest you make a couple of calls to
determine the nature and reason for this charge, and then complain
very loudly about it!  A letter to the PUCO would be of great
interest.

(Note ... I wonder if they are charging a monthly access fee like the
land line customers pay for 911?  I have heard this might happen but I
do not see any such charge on my cell bill.  For the moment I suspect
you got hit with a per call billing.)

I will inquire of GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One in Cleveland about 911
charges again sometime this week.  In Cincinatti, Aeritech Mobile
and/or Cellular One may do things differently, so please act
accordingly.  Charging for access to call 911, which all subscribers
subsidize monthly, is absurd!  There's no doubt in my mind that the
telco does not charge the cellular company for 911 access, so the only
cost to the cellular company is "lost airtime" ... and where's their
sense of public service ... or are they waiting for the PUCO to assist
them?

Please consider following up on this and posting the results.


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, 05 Aug 91 09:54:09 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number


> This is a blatant lie.  According to Visa and MasterCard national
> policies, you don't even have to give your telephone number when
> making a purchase.  This is part of the operating rules that apply to
> all merchants, and any merchant that requires ANY additional ID as a
> condition of sale should be reported to the customer's card-issuing
> bank and the merchant's processing bank.

> The one exception is when there is reason to suspect fraud in use of
> the credit card.

In my retail experience, the phone number was only collected because a
huge percentage of card users would leave the thing behind. We would
collect five or ten every day when I worked in a large bookstore. If
someone wanted to protest, we'd leave it off, no problem. The phone
number isn't useful for collecting bad debt -- any crook with a bad
card will give a false number (duh) and card charges can't bounce like
checks -- it's the card company that has to go get the money.


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

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext
Date: 5 Aug 91 14:16:30 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 573, Message 1 of 12

> 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.

Great.  More of what we really needed from the Baby Bells.  Since
there is already vital marketplace, what justification is there for
allowing protected, regulated entities with monopoly status to enter
the market.  Certainly not capital expense or interoperability, any of
the other reasons for natural monopolies.  I want ISDN and its
successors in my home, not more of the same old stuff.

Cincinnati Bell has been offerring a service called 'the Talking
Yellow Pages' for a few years now.  You dial the number [phone]
and enter some four-digit codes to get weather reports, movie
listings, and such.  A human used to be accessible by dialing 0, but
they discontinuted that feature, probably due to the expense.  The
service is supposedly advertiser supported, but there don't seem to be
enough advertisers to make the service very profitable yet.  (Many of
the bits of information are now sponsored by 'the Talking Yellow Pages')

I like to be able to get weather for other cities without having to
use the {USA Today} 900 service.  I also enjoy getting movie listings
without having to get through the busy signals at most theaters.

Too bad it's not a 950 number so it's free from payphones.

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

Subject: Re: City Code 91 in England
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 16:29:27 BST
From: [e-mail]


[e-mail] writes:

> I recently received an address in Durham (postal code starting with
> DH1) in England with a phone number 091+7D.  How recent is this city
> code 91?  (When called from outside the UK, omit leading zero from
> city code.)

    This code has been in use for a few years and covers the
Tyneside area. Unlike the other 0n1 codes numbers in 091 are listed
with exchange names ( Tyneside, Newcastle and Durham) and 091 is
listed for seven digit numbers in those exchanges, while other codes
were listed for five and six digit numbers with the same exchange
names.  It would appear that exchanges were gradually converted to
have seven digit numbers and moved into 091 over a few years.


David Heale

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

From: Martin Harriss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: City Code 91 in England
Reply-To: Martin Harriss <bdsgate![e-mail]>
Organization: Beechwood Data Systems
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 19:18:25 GMT


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

> I recently received an address in Durham (postal code starting with
> DH1) in England with a phone number 091+7D.  How recent is this city
> code 91?  (When called from outside the UK, omit leading zero from
> city code.)

This has been around for about two or three years.  The code is for
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the surrounding area, what used to be STD code
0632.  What happened is that the demand for telephones grew to such an
extent that six-figure numbers were not enough, so they went to seven-
figure numbers.  Some existing British Telecom STD register-translator
equipment limits the total naumber of digits in a number to ten,
including the initial '0', so a currently unused three digit STD code was
chosen.

Note that 091 is not a director area, it just has seven-figure numbers.
The official name of the 091 charge group is Tyneside.


Martin Harriss   [e-mail]

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

From: Elizabeth Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep?
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 17:51:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Julian Macassey <julian@
bongo.info.com> writes:

>    Ah yes, the kill the DTMF pad rip-off. One of the COCOT faves.
> They do this to prevent you using your credit card or a remote access
> port and denying them income. They want you to use their rip-off
> services. They don't want you to use your own choice of carrier. This
> is an FCC/PUC no-no, but they still do it.

So is this actually illegal? Could I complain to someone if a particular
payphone in my neighborhood behaves this way?

Related gripe: these phones also NEVER make change or remember how
much money you put in. I once spent $1 in quarters because the machine
made no change, and I was asked "Please deposit 5c for an additional
three minutes) three times. After about ten minutes on the phone, I
persuaded them to send me a refund. I do not ask why the phones are
made *this* way, its obvious.  :-P


Betsy Schwartz    Internet: [e-mail]
System Administrator BITNET:[e-mail]
U-Mass Boston   Computer Science Dept.  Harbor Campus    Boston, MA 02125-3393


[Moderator's Note: Isn't it neat how genuine Bell payphones allow you
to deposit ahead of time what you think you will use then the system
responds by saying "you have X cents credit for overtime."   PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Date: 5 Aug 91 18:36:46 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Wayne D.
Correia) writes:

[ regarding taxing cable TV subscribers and subsidizing the broadcast
industry]:

> I'm too disgusted to even write about my feelings on this but I'm sure
> there are others that would care to comment.

Pat responds, in part:

> [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...

A few thoughts on this:  If the cable company is picking up a
broadcast and distributing it in real time to its subscribers, why
is the network complaining?  I live on the wrong side of Watchung
Mountain, and I can't receive a good signal from the New York City
TV stations via the air.  For a few hundred dollars, I could buy a
tall tower and locate my antenna where it can 'see' the transmitters.

Instead, I choose to pay a few dollars per month and let the cable
company do that for me.  How does that hurt the network?  Why does the
type of antenna or its ownership change the relationship between the
viewer and the broadcaster?  If they make the cable too much more
expensive, it will eventually cost less for me to build my own
antenna, but I'll still get the same signals, won't I?


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

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

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 07:16:36 PDT
From: Sean Malloy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego


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

> [Moderator's Note:
> 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

I would hazard a guess that, should it come down to a legal battle,
the cable companies would use the argument that what they are
providing is a 'reception service' -- essentially, a shared community
antenna which enables the average viewer to receive stations with a
significantly higher signal quality than would be available from a
TV-top or rooftop antenna.

That argument, if successfully presented, might also torpedo the FCC's
'syndex' regulations for cable companies, where someone with their own
antenna can watch syndicated shows broadcast by a channel in a nearby
city, but cable providers have to black out syndicated shows on a
non-local channel which are broadcast by a local channel (local
example: _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ is broadcast on the San
Diego channel 6 and by the Los Angeles channel 13, but the San Diego
cable companies have to black out channel 13 during its broadcasts of
the show).


Sean Malloy      Navy Personnel Research & Development Center
San Diego, CA 92152-6800     [e-mail]

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 21:55:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wayne D.
Correia) writes:

> 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.

Boy, once they get hold of what seems to be a sure-fire money making
scheme (having the government collect money for you, using the coersive
powers of the state) they don't want to give up.

Wasn't it NARTB that had the brilliant idea that we should all pay a
tax on blank tape (procedes to go them, of course) to compensate for
all of the taping going on?


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 17:38:50 EDT
Subject: Re: Working Assets Long Distance
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


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

> 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."

Last I heard, Working Assets was an affinity program using Sprint long
distance.


Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ
AUDIBLE:  [phone]
READABLE: [e-mail]  or att!ulysses!andys
What? Me speak for AT&T?  You must be joking!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #606
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10207;
          6 Aug 91 3:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01540;
          6 Aug 91 1:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25711;
          6 Aug 91 0:40 CDT
Date:     Tue, 6 Aug 91 0:19:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #607
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Aug 91 00:19:34 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 607

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    What Number CLID Transmits (was Calling Line ID in FL) [Ken Weaverling]
    Bell Canada Proposes Sale of Northwest Territories Operations [Nigel Allen]
    Illinois Bell, Chicago Pay Phones, and Drug Dealers [Nigel Allen]
    Request For Information on 'Mirror' Software [Tim Sullivan]
    Wanted: Complete Rate Information for Chicagoland [H. Peter Anvin]
    Connecting a US Phone to a British Outlet [David Yip]
    Telephones in Illinois [Dave Niebuhr]
    Another Proposed Tax [David Gast]
    Interchangeable NPA's [Dave Leibold]
    MIR Email Address [Michael Gersten]
    Collect Government Telephone Calls [John Bruner]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ken Weaverling <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Number CLID Transmits (was Calling Line ID in FL)
Date: 5 Aug 91 02:15:22 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


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

> [Moderator's Note: The number displayed when a call comes to you via a
> switchboard or centrex will depend on how it is billed, I suspect. If
> all the lines from the board are associated with and billed under the
> main listed number, it may be that will be the only number which gets
> transmitted to you.  PAT]

The difference between Caller ID and ANI is that ANI reports the
billing number where CLID reports the actual number called from.

A call originating from a PBX will show the number of the trunk line
that that call goes out on. When I call home from work (which I do at
least once a day), my CLID box shows the different trunk numbers I
just happen by chance to go out on for each call.

A call from a Centrex number *will* display the actual number called from.

While I am not a telecom guru, I can see how the above makes logical
sense.  The CO only sees trunk lines coming from a PBX, and therefore
can't tell what actual number the call was dialled from. Since a
Centrex service is basically all contained in the CO, the CO then
knows the actual number called from.

'Tis a shame that some of the most avid telecom *nuts* out there live
in areas that are still in the telecom dark ages. Well, at least
Chicago has finally gotten Class service! :-) All I can say is I am
glad I don't live in Pac*Bell land! :-)


Ken Weaverling  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: So with automtic call back and call screening,
which version is used when there is a discrepancy -- ANI or CLID?  My
experience is here these services use the billing number.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 03 Aug 91 06:19:17 PDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada Proposes Sale of Northwest Territories Operations
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438


Bell Canada has apparently agreed to sell its operations in the
eastern half of the Northwest Territories (including Baffin Island) to
Northwestel Inc.  Both companies are subsidiaries of BCE Inc.
Northwestel, based in Whitehorse, used to be part of CN Telecommun-
ications, and provides telephone, telex and other telecommunications
services in the rest of the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and
parts of northern British Columbia.

Bell's Northwest Territories operations are based in Iqaluit (formerly
Frobisher Bay) on Baffin Island.  The company publishes a trilingual
phone book: English, French and Inuktikut (the language of the Inuit).

Like virtually everything else connected with telecommunications in
Canada, the proposed sale is subject to the approval of the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.  It is scheduled
to take effect on Janury 1, 1992.


Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 03 Aug 91 06:14:43 PDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Illinois Bell, Chicago Pay Phones, and Drug Dealers


I wonder if the drug dealers who won't be able to feed quarters into
pay phones after 7:30 p.m. are going to intimidate local residents and
store owners into letting them (the drug dealers) use the phones
belonging to the residents or stores.

I also wonder whether the drug dealers are going to start using stolen
lineman's test sets to use other people's phone lines without their
permission or knowledge.


Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Tim Sullivan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request For Information on 'Mirror' Software
Date: 5 Aug 91 14:30:13 GMT
Organization: Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos


My wife works for a newspaper that has a computerized publishing
system based on Novell linked PC clones. The people are not very
computer oriented and have asked me to look at their problem to see if
it has a simple fix. Briefly, they have lost their ability to dial in
stories and need the ability to locally connect a notebook computer
(the Tandy 102) and upload stories from the Tandy to the system.

First the dial in problem. I called in to their Courier 1200 modem
from my home computer (a PC clone with an Everex 2400 baud modem)
which answered the phone and I got a connect 1200 message, but no
further response (despite trying a couple of combinations of
protocols).

I went into their plant and logged on to one of the networked clones.
It was running Novell Netware. I grepped around and discovered a MODEM
subdirectory which had an executable called MIRROR. Does this program
have the ability to answer the phone and upload files?

The clone that the modem is attached to appears to be just another one
of the network, being used by one of the secretaries to type in copy.
Now if this is the dial in machine does it have to be dedicated to
running MIRROR or is there something about the network situation or
MIRROR that allows it to run in the background and do its phone
answering and file capture thing? (That is, I'm wondering if they lost
their dial in capability because they are simply not setting the
machine up to accept calls after using it to type in copy).

Now for the local connection problem. The Tandy has an RS232 port and
a terminal emulating program that emulates a vt52. Can I connect (with
a null modem cable) the Tandy to an RS232 port on one of the clones
and use MIRROR to do file captures?

Thanks for any help or helping me to ask the right questions.


Tim Sullivan ([e-mail])

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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Complete Rate Information For Chicagoland
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 15:10:30 GMT


As some of you people may know, I am the editor of the Stillwaters
Chicagoland BBS List.  I have for a while had a program package
(freeware) called LISTUTIL which permits people to among other things
enter their Illinois Bell provided list of calling bands and mark up
the Stillwaters List with the different call band fee zones.

The problem is just the manual step, especially since IBT no longer
provides the band listing without request.

Does anyone know where/how it would be possible to get the any
exchange-to-any other exchange rate information, preferrably in
machine-readable form, that could be packaged with this software?


Peter Anvin

The Stillwaters Chicagoland BBS List is FTPable from ftp.acns.nwu.edu
as /pub/bbs.lists/cbbslist.

INTERNET: [e-mail]   ([e-mail] after this summer)
BITNET:   HPA@NUACC           HAM RADIO:  N9ITP, SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/989.4
"finger" the Internet address above for more information.

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

From: David Yip <[e-mail]>
Subject: Connecting a US Phone to a British Outlet
Date: 5 Aug 91 14:00:38 GMT


Hello out there,

    I was wondering if anyone could help me.

    I will/have a US phone with a "standard" white plastic socket
on the end to plug into the wall and I would like to replace this with
a British style socket arrangement that will plug into a British style
wall mounting.

    I have a couple of questions to ask, as anyone who is reading
this can tell I AM NO EXPERT :

    Q1 : Is the above possible?
    Q2 : If it is possible how do I go about doing it?

BUT i have this piece of information :

 On the RJ-11 jack (which I presume is the American socket "bit"
(won't for another word) that plugs into the wall), the two center
pins (3-red and 4-green) carry the phone line. The ringing is also
supplied on the "red and green". In the UK, there is a ringing signal
on pins 2 and 5 though most UK phones derive ring signals from pin 5
and a signal from pin 2 connected to 3 via a 2uF capacitor. UK
extension phones use the capacitor in the jack. US phones have the
capacitor in the phone.

    This seems to me the it is possible to connected the a US
phone. But not being an expert I am not quite sure.

    So Q3 : Could someone explain it a bit more for me PLEASE !!??

    Thanks for any help that may be forthcoming in advance.


David Yip
Manchester Computing Centre,|Janet       : [e-mail]
Computer Graphics Unit,     |Internet    : [e-mail]
Oxford Road,                |Earn/Bitnet : yip%uk.ac.mcc.cgu@UKACRL
Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K.   |Voice       : [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 15:26:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephones in Illinois


I will be in Illinois the third week of September and will probably be
placing a few 312-516 and 708-516 calls and possible one or two
between 708 and 312 (both directions).

Is there anything special needed about doing the above seeing as I
have AT&T as my long distance carrier as well as their calling card?

The reason I ask is that I have read some of the comments about
Illinois Bell Telephone and want to make sure that I can use my
carrier of choice without worrying about getting ripped off by some
third-party outfit.

One more question: Who is the Baby-Bell in that area?  Just curious.
I'm assuming Ameritech but not sure.


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


[Moderator's Note: If AT&T is your carrier of choice then you'll get
along fine with Illinois Bell, provided you stick to their payphones
and not the COCOTS you may see here and there. IBT and AT&T (like the
other Bells and their former parent) are like two peas in a pod ...
all very friendly and accomodating, etc ... and yes, Ameritech is now
the 'foster parent' of Illinois Bell since Ma was forced to give up
her kids a few years ago.    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 15:28:46 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Proposed Tax


The recent thread here about the networks wanting to tax cable tv 20%
for retransmission of broadcast television reminds me of the propsed
tax on digital recorders and blank digital tapes.  In both cases, the
tax will end up subsidizing programs the consumer is not interested
in.  I think that both should be unconstitutional under the First
Amendment because essentially a tax is an abridgement of free speech.

My primary concern, however, is that I should not be forced to
subsidize some program (digital audio, free tv, etc) that I
specifically do not like.  Specifically, there are some broadcast tv
stations that I never watch.  Why should I be forced to subsidize
them?  If they want my money, they can put on programs I want to
watch.  Similarly with digital audio.  Why should I be forced to
subsidize an artist whom I don't like?  Just because others like
him/her, does not mean that I have to.  The result will be that the
most commercial and hence most popular get even more millions and
those that appeal to smaller groups will get less money.  In fact, if
you want to record yourself, you will have to pay the tax supporting
others.  [And don't give the argument about pirates; if they priced
the material at a reasonable price, people would buy instead of
copying.]

More to the point, in either of these cases, the message may be
political or religious and it may be for a point of view that you
definitely do not agree with.  Why should you be forced to subsidize
them?  I clearly do not believe that you should.


David

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

Date: Mon, 05 Aug 91 19:08:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interchangeable NPA's
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Given Carl Moore's message, perhaps the source of the story for
bringing on the 1+10D dialing everywhere for intra-NPA calls should be
revealed; as mentioned before, this appeared on Fido's MDF echo, and
in turn on IMEX Telecom. This message was posted by Nigel Allen as a
reply to Charles Ring.

One possibility is that this is being confused with Atlanta's area
code split (404/706) since that is starting up the beginning of May
'92.  There are regional 1+10D conversions that have happened such as
416 going to NXX prefixes from NNX.

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

 Msg#   : 933    Sat 27 Jul 91  6:42a
 From   : Nigel Allen
 To     : Charles Ring
 Subject: Area code required?

In a message of <Jul 25 11:06> in FidoNet's MDF echo, Charles Ring
(1:2601/100) writes:

> **What follows is an unconfirmed rumor**

> Someone on another echo claims that, effective May 2, 1992,
> everyone across the nation will be required to dial ten digits
> including area code to make all calls, including local calls.

> Is there any truth to this?

Probably not for local calls. For some time now, we have been aware
that North America is running out of area codes. The current crop of
codes all have 1 or 0 as their middle digit. Starting in 1995 or
thereabouts, new area codes with digits *other* than 1 or 0 will be
introduced. Since these area codes are also plausible exchange codes
(NXX, formerly NNX), you will have to dial the full ten digits, even
for long distance calls within your area code. This is already the
case in areas which use area code-like numbers as local prefixes
(Toronto, for example).

While the new area codes may not arrive before 1995, the telephone
companies obviously want to give people time to get used to the new
style of dialling long distance calls. This is the first I have heard
of the May 2, 1992 date, but it sounds plausible.

I would guess that you would have to dial the area code for a local
call only if it differs from your own. In other words, if you live
downtown and want to call a suburb in a different area code (but it's
still a local call for you), you may have to include the area code
sooner or later.

 --- NDA
 * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto (89:480/501)

[end of posting]

replies: [e-mail]--
Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:3609/1
UUCP: !djcl    INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Subject: MIR Address
Date: 4 Aug 91 19:23:56 PDT (Sun)
From: Michael Gersten <[e-mail]>


Now that we have the shuttle's address, whats the MIR station address?
After all, someone said that they wanted some more news about what's
going on in the world, right?


Michael

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

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 08:39:17 CDT
From: John Bruner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Collect Government Telephone Calls


A couple of months ago I received a call that stated "This is a
collect call from the county jail.  To accept the charges, press [some
DTMF digit]."  Without any further information I just hung up.

I called the Champaign County (IL) sheriff's office and asked them
about this.  They told me that calls from prisoners were placed this
way.

A recorded message that clearly identifies the jail as the point of
origin seems like a good idea, but it might have been helpful if it
had stated from *which* county jail it came.  (Long distance from
"the" county jail?  It must have been some other county, as calls from
Urbana to the city of Champaign are local.)


John Bruner    Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois
    [e-mail]        [phone]


[Moderator's Note: But this was not the *government* calling you
collect. It was a jail inmate doing the calling.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #607
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17540;
          7 Aug 91 2:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11453;
          7 Aug 91 1:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21935;
          6 Aug 91 23:57 CDT
Date:     Tue, 6 Aug 91 23:47:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #608
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Aug 91 23:46:49 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 608

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [TELECOM Moderator]
    Two New Archives Files [TELECOM Moderator]
    Randy Wants You to Know ... [TELECOM Moderator]
    Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Marcel Mongeon]
    Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News [Gregory G. Woodbury]
    Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX [Dan Jacobson]
    Key System Wanted For Residence Use [Michael Bender]
    Re: Hotels and AOS's Again [Marcel Mongeon]
    Re: Calling Card Magnetic Strip Format [Laird P. Broadfield]
    Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep? [Bud Couch]
    Long Distance Across a Road [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 2:18:36 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice


A recent advertisement in the papers here tells of a new telephone
with some sort of chip(s) in it which allow six different voices to be
heard in addition to your own.

Biosynetic Research has developed this phone and is offering it for
sale via mail order for $19.95.

The picture of the phone in the ad shows one of those cheapie little
one piece plastic units which hangs up when you set it down on the
table. It is only one line, naturally.

Biosynetic Research describes it thus:

"Can be used as an extension phone, or to replace your present phone.
Turned off, it is a normal phone, but at the flip of a switch it
changes your voice. It has six built in voices, which can be changed
from male to female and vice-versa. Easy to use, with just one switch
which is moved to various positions."

The company claims similar units have been used by private
investigators, 'government agents' and others for many years, but that
the price was much higher. Modern technology has allowed the price to
be greatly reduced, they say.

The company discusses applications for the phone:

"Control who you talk to. Eliminate unwanted calls and annoying
people. You can answer the phone, screen the call and claim you are
not there. With six different male/female voices, the caller will
never be able to tell who s/he spoke to."

"Security for children. Children home alone can answer the phone in an
adult voice. A good way to guard against molestors, obscene callers
and burglars."

"Safety for single women. Don't worry about obscene or crank calls
late at night ... have a 'man' answer the phone for you."

"Find out information from others without revealing who you are. Even
your close friends won't recognize you ... we guarentee it. You can
leave joke messages on your friends' answering machines, and let them
try to figure out who the prankster was ... "

The company continues:

"Plug right into modular jack. Registered with FCC. This is a complete
phone, not an attachment. It is easy to use since there is nothing to
learn except how to position the switch for the desired changes in
your voice. A complete instruction booklet explains everything. We
offer a one year guarentee against defects, and a thirty-day return
policy if you are not satisfied.  No batteries or extra wires needed
since the unit operates entirely from line voltage. Just plug it in
and start using it. Note, the unit may not be compatible with certain
kinds of office phone systems."

If you want to hear a demonstration of the unit, you may do so by
calling 1-900-737-9343. The cost is 75 cents per demonstration.

To order, use money order, check or Visa/MC:

Biosynetic Research
Suite 161
163 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10003

For Visa/MC orders only:  1-800-677-3939. Sorry, no 212 number given
                          in the ad. Probably available from 212-555-1212.


Allow up to 30 days for delivery. NY/NJ residents must add sales tax.

A footnote at the bottom of this *full page ad* makes this cautionary
statement:

"Legal warning: This phone is not to be used for fraudulent purposes
or to make crank or obscene calls so you cannot be recognized."

If anyone wishes to purchase a unit -- $19.95 isn't bad for a new toy
which seems sort of clever -- I will entertain your reviews here in
the Digest at a later time.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 23:29:47 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two New Archives Files


Two new files have been contributed to the Telecom Archives by Julian
Macassey, a regular correspondent here.

    "How Phones Work"

    "Phone Patches"

These are both tutorials with technical information of particular
interest to our readers who have a limited knowledge of telephony and
who wish to learn more ... but everyone should read them.

They'll be available later this week in the main directory under the
titles 'how.phones.work'  and 'phone.patches'.


PAT

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

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 23:37:08 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Randy Wants You to Know ...


I had a chance to chat briefly with Randy Borow a few days ago and he
shared an update with me:

The appeal drags on, and will apparently go to litigation. He and his
attorney are not backing down, and apparently neither is AT&T at this
point.  Randy says his intention is to regain his employment and all
the back pay he is missing.

As a side issue, he went to apply for unemployment compensation and it
had gotten started, however AT&T is also appealing that. A ruling is
expected soon. Apparently AT&T is claiming Randy should not recieve
unemployment compensation since his discharge from employment was due
to actions on his part. Randy and his attorney intend to battle the
company on this point as well as the matter of his employment.

Further news when I hear it.


PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel Mongeon)
Subject: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes?
Organization: The Joymarmon Group
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 16:59:25 GMT


I live in that part of 416 which will soon be 905.  I certainly don't
need any explanation why a new area code is needed. However, isn't
there an easier way to accomplish the splits?  I propose the
following:

On an appropriate cutover date just add the number 0 to the end of
every area code in the North American Numbering plan system.  212
would become 2120, 312 to 3120 and so on.  Everyone would be equally
inconvenienced to begin with!  Then when an area code has to be split
all that would have to be changed would be the fourth digit.  The
advantage of such a plan is that on a split, the original identity of
the area would be maintained.  For example in Chicago, the city could
have been 3120 and the suburbs would be 3121 and 3122.

Maybe the experts could tell us if a lot of CO reprogramming would be
required?


Marcel D. Mongeon
e-mail:    ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root  or  joymrmn!marcelm

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

From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Freedom!  AT&T Reports the Good News
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 01:43:34 GMT


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

> [Moderator's Note: 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]

This is an awful lot like Attorney General Ed Meese's comment that
"...if you aren't guilty, then the law wouldn't be charging you...."
(or whatever it was that Meese did say along those lines.)


Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...duke!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: [e-mail]     [e-mail]
<standard disclaimers apply>

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX
Date: Mon,  5 Aug 91 12:16:00 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: I'm sure *local government* sometimes calls collect
> to out of town / state locations when dealing with private citizens in
> some other jurisdiction, but the federal government never does. Maybe
> they would if it was an international call.  :)   PAT]

In a few years for local calls too: "Hi, this is the U.S. Federal
Government, uh, due to the fact that nobody wants to lend us any more
money for our budget deficits, could you accept this collect call?"

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

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 04:30:25 PDT
From: W7EGX <[e-mail]>
Subject: Key System Wanted For Residence Use
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


I will shortly be moving in with five other friends into a cooperative
living situation; I would like to set up a key system or a small PBX
in our home so that we can provide call accounting as well as have a
local intercom system using the various phones that we will have
around the house.  We have 4 people that use modems fairly regularly,
and we all get a fair amount of calls.  What type of system can anyone
recommend, inexpensive and available surplus preferably?

Thanks,


Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel Mongeon)
Subject: Re: Hotels and AOS's AGAIN
Organization: The Joymarmon Group
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 16:52:46 GMT


Some of you may remember about a year ago I posted on the issue of
"How should a hotel charge for telecom?"  After enduring many flames
on the issue as a whole (I administer a hotel PBX) I instituted the
following charging policies:

        Local calls : free
        800 calls   : free
        Cr. Card calls: free
        900 & 976 calls: blocked

                1+ calls:     The regular long distance rate as
            determined by our Bell provided CDR PLUS
            50% with a $1.00 service charge (if you
            don't like these rates put it on your
            credit card!)
        0+ calls:     What Bell charges us PLUS a
            sliding service fee.

        10XXX calls:  We are located in Canada so these do
            not apply.  However, we keep a fairly complete
            list of 800 numbers for MCI, Sprint etc. (funny
            thing is that our number one question from
            American visitors is "How do I get an AT&T
            operator" and we have to tell them it is not
            possible! -- so much for the best LD service!

The result of all of these policies is that our revenues dropped by
about 25% on telephone.  The fact that we are the only hotel in town
with Free local calls has not attracted a single piece of new
business.  Anyone want to suggest why?


Marcel D. Mongeon
e-mail:    ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root  or  joymrmn!marcelm

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Magnetic Strip Format
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 17:28:05 GMT


In <[e-mail]> tigger%jupiter.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.
ucsc.edu (David Foster) writes:

> My question: Where can I get the ANSI specs for the magnetic strip
> track format for RBOC and long distance calling cards.

> Background: A friend is trying to integrate the use of calling cards
> into his telecom business.  He contacted several of the phone
> companies and they all subcontract out to card manufacturers.  The
> card vendors in turn subcontract the magnetic strip and its
> formatting.  However, none of the vendors had their particular
> subcontractor name available, but they would get back to my friend.
> Needless to say it's been a while, so my friend asked me to post.

> Is there an organization that specifies standards for magnetic cards?
> Is there a publication?  Any help is appreciated.

I seem to recall this being discussed a few months ago, wrt the the
numbers themselves, and the verification services is an ongoing topic.
(Maybe someone who remembers/knows the formats and syntax for calling
card numbers can chime in, I wouldn't mind a recap myself.)

As far as the cards themselves and the stripe and the encoding, the
applicable standards are ISO 7810 through 7813, describing everything
from the plastic card itself, through the stripe physical and magnetic
parameters, even the shape (in all three dimensions) of the embossed
digits.  (Anybody wants to camp out on a '7', this is where you get
the topo maps.  Seriously; contour lines and all.)

ISO 7811/3 and /4 (parts 3 and 4) cover the stripe, the bit density,
the character set, and so forth.  7813 shows 'standard' formats for
tracks 1 and 2, along with 'service code assignments'.

Your friend will get much better results by going directly to the
vendors of the readers that he proposes to use/integrate.  They will
be happy to explain how to read the data intelligibly using their
devices; the ISO standards are useful and interesting, but not really
a good *starting* point.  The card vendors themselves are plastic
stampers, they have no idea what they're putting on the cards.  They
just write whatever they are supplied by the purchaser.  As for the
data he reads from the cards, I suspect Bellcore has the answers (this
is where somebody else needs to chime in.)  (At a glance, I note that
SR-BDS-001511 is described as "Administration Guidelines for Card
Issuer Identifier", but that's all that's indexed under 'cards'.


Laird P. Broadfield
UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
INET: [e-mail]

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep?
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 21:39:20 GMT


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

>   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")?

The reasoning behind this requires a bit of knowledge of paystation
techniques.  In the old days, when your money rolled down the slot, it
would hit either the bell or the gong. You would hear one bell for a
nickel, two bells for a dime, and the gong for a quarter. So would the
operator; this is how she counted up your total. BTW, this is also the
reason that paystation handset cords are short: so that the handset
couldn't be placed on an adjacent paystation to fool the operator
(this was in the days when a tape recorder did not fit in your
pocket).

Today, the operator counts the coins deposited using electronic tones
generated by the paystation. The tone used is very close to one of the
standard DTMF tones used by the keypad. You will notice at home that
if you push two keys simultaneously that you get one tone.  Push two
keys, and, unless the operator has perfect pitch, a potential defraud.

There are a number of ways to prevent this. Some paystation
manufacturers used the fact that when a TSPS (operator) board is
connected to the line the tip side remains at ground, but the battery
goes to +48V (from -48V).  This reverses the current flow on the line.
By placing a diode in series with the keypad, it is shut off. One of
the side effects here is that when that paystation is used on a line
which reverses battery at answer (ring at ground, -48V on tip) the
diode also shuts off the tone pad.

At least one paystation manufacturer that I know of (A.E.) did it
differently; they put a different keypad (more expensive) in
paystations which would not produce *any* tone when two keys were
pressed. This was probably due to the fact that their primary market
(GTE companies) had lots of SXS which reversed battery on answer.

Is there a way to tell beforehand? Unfortunately, no. It requires a
knowledge of the CO type as well as the paystation.


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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 18:33:09 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long-Distance Across a Road


Passing by the entrance to the Great Adventure amusement park in
central New Jersey is county route 537.  It turns out this route is an
area code boundary in this area, with calls across it also being long
distance!  To the east of that road is 908-928 (Lakewood, I believe)
serving the Jackson area and recently moved from area 201.  To the
west is 609-259 Allentown.  In addition, dialing 259 from a 908-928
pay phone immediately got the intercept "Due to an area code change,
your call cannot be completed as dialed." (201-259 in Newark remained
in 201 and now requires 1 + 201 + 7D to be reached from 908-928.)


[Moderator's Note: We have lots of that on the far northwest side of
Chicago where the villages of Harwood Heights and Norridge (708) are
completely surrounded by Chicago (312). All along Harlem Avenue around
Lawrence Avenue is like a checkerboard of 312/708 phones on opposite
sides of the street and sometimes next door to each other. But
Illinois Bell stresses it is a local call, regardless of area code.
Ask David Tamkin <[e-mail]> for details on this.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #608
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20766;
          7 Aug 91 4:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02613;
          7 Aug 91 2:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11453;
          7 Aug 91 1:07 CDT
Date:     Wed, 7 Aug 91 0:27:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #609
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Aug 91 00:27:25 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 609

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Historical Note - Operator Intertoll Dialing [[e-mail]]
    Switches That 'Know' Extension Numbers [John Pettitt]
    Areacodes 200, 300, 400, 500, & 600 [Will Martin]
    Billing INTRA-Lata Calling to My Carrier [Daniel Wynalda]
    Comsec Finally Gets Their Day on Television [David Querin]
    Short Course on Telecom Basics in Columbus, OH, August 29 [Jane Fraser]
    V&H Report [David Esan]
    Long Distance Credit [Dennis G. Rears]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Historical Note - Operator Intertoll Dialing
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 91 22:57:42 BST
From: [e-mail], [e-mail]


Someone gave an interesting description of operating procedures in the
days when toll calls were dialed by operators.  Then I happened across
a blueprint "Block Schematic, Intertoll Dialing Arrangement" for the
SxS office in my home town, circa 1953.  This gives some of the
technical details.

At the top of the picture is a three-ported circuit, Intertoll Trunk
(a plate full of relays).  One port goes to the actual trunk to the
city where the toll switch is located.  A second port goes to the
outgoing jacks on the switchboard, so the operator can seize the trunk
from this end to place a dialed call through the toll switch.  The
third port goes through an Intertoll Auxiliary Trunk into a switch
called a Combined Intertoll and Transmission Incoming Selector.  The
drawing shows connections for each of the ten levels of this switch,
corresponding to the first digit received from the toll switch.

Level 1 goes to an Auxiliary Intertoll Selector.  On this switch:

   Level 1 is shown as "absorb repeatedly"
   Level 2 is shown as "inward opr. 121"
   Level 3 is shown as "inf. opr. 131"  (so I guess that's Information)
   Level 4 is shown as "delayed opr 114"
   Level 5 is shown as "univ. delayed opr 1150"
   Level 6 is shown going to reorder
   Level 7 is shown as "wh-opr 117"
   Level 8 has a line going to level 2 - dunno what this means
   Level 9 goes to reorder
   Level 0 goes through a Ring Control circuit to Another Auxiliary Intertoll
      Selector.  From this switch:

      Level 1 goes to "Test Trunk 101"
      Level 2 goes to "Transmission Measuring 102"
      Level 3 goes to "Test Line 103"
      Level 4 goes to Intercept
      Levels 5,6,7, and 9 go to ringdown trunks to nearby small towns.
      Level 8 is shown as "absorb once only" and goes to intercept
      Level 0 goes to "Balanced Termination 100"

Levels 2,3,4, and 5 go to toll intermediate selectors and thence to
connectors for the local numbers 2xxx, 3xxx, etc.

Levels 6 and 9 go straight to connectors (???), or maybe it's 6 thru 9.

Level 8 goes into the Ring Control along with Level 0 of the auxiliary
selector, so it looks like the toll switch can send either an 8 or a
10 and get to the same places.

Level 0 goes to reorder.

There are some mysteries here, or at least some things I don't
understand.  The inward and information operators are 121 and 131.
Does the auxiliary intertoll selector require that last 1 digit before
it will rotary hunt, or does the 1 digit activate something in the
circuit going to the switchboard?  But 114 and 117 on the same switch
don't seem to need a terminal 1 digit.  The multiple initial 1s are
explained by the fact that level 1 absorbs repeatedly.  And why is the
"Univ. Delayed Opr" 1150?  Does it really require a final 0 digit?

Maybe someone can enlighten us about the 101 test trunk and the 103
test line.  I'd guess the 102 transmission measuring probably goes to
a source of miliwatt 1000Hz and the 100 bal. term. is just a balanced
resistive termination.

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

From: John Pettitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers
Organization: Specialix International, London
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 06:28:44 GMT


[e-mail] (Ken Weaverling) writes:

> While I am not a telecom guru, I can see how the above makes logical
> sense.  The CO only sees trunk lines coming from a PBX, and therefore
> can't tell what actual number the call was dialled from. Since a
> Centrex service is basically all contained in the CO, the CO then
> knows the actual number called from.

In the UK we use Mercury for our long distance and international
calls.  One of the better features of the this is that we get an fully
itemised bill each month because Mercury `knows' the extension number
of the calling party.

It works like this: When an user dials a number our PBX looks up the
area code in the `Mercury' table.  If it gets a match the PBX dials
131 (Mercury access), waits for a second tone and dials our access
code, a three digit extension number and the number to be called.
Some time later (Mercury is slow to complete calls) you get a ring.
When the called party answers and the line supervises you hear a beep
(nice touch that -- you know when billing starts).

Because we send the extension number to the Mercury switch they can
(and do) give us a bill broken down by extension.  All calls are
listed with the area code `decoded' into a town name and the cost.  We
also assign phantom extension numbers to our modems to allow us to
cost each UUCP site we talk to (having a Singapore office makes you
want to do that !).

Overall it works quite well -- if we could only get them to set up
calls a little faster!

The original thread was CLID/ANI -- we don't have that in the UK (call
waiting is still a major new feature to BT), however the Mercury
system could provide the information needed to give per extension
CLID/ANI.


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!

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 7:53:09 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Areacodes 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600


I took a look at the "areacode.guide" file in Telecom archives to see
what was said about the other "double-zero" US areacodes.  It appears
that "200" is being used in some areas for telco test numbers of some
kind, but that 300 thru 600 are listed as "[ Reserved - Service Access
Code ]".

I was wondering if any of these are planned for use as an expansion of
the 800-number calling space?  Since the 800 prefices are assigned by
LD carrier, this limits the assignment/usage of those numbers, and
we've seen MCI (for one) go to multiple-party-per-800-number usage
with their "access codes" for personal 800 numbers.  I would think
that most businesses would not accept such shared 800 numbers; they'd
have, in effect, a 14-digit (or longer) phone number, which would put
them at a disadvantage to their competitors with regular 10-digit 800
numbers.

So is it likely that at some future date, not only "800" calls will be
free to the caller, but also "300" (or one of the others) calls?

What other uses are planned for the double-zero area codes?

What sort of test numbers use "200"? Are they reachable nationwide? If
so, are they billable calls, and how do they show up on an itemized
bill? Is this a temporary use of the areacode, or a permanent
assignment?

Regards,


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

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

Subject: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling to My Carrier
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 9:12:06 EDT
From: Daniel Wynalda <[e-mail]>


AT&T's universal card offers a 10% discount on AT&T long distance
rates, but charges more for establishing the calling card connection.
Michigan Bell charges almost TWICE what AT&T does for the same call,
plus I don't get the discount -- even if charged to the same card.

I made it a regular practice of dialing 102880 before ANY long
distance calling (even intra lata) last month.  All calls were
completed with the AT&T bong and billed WITH the discounts.

I take it this means that AT&T CAN carry intra lata calling but MI
BELL chooses to route ALL 1+ dialing via themselves.  If the FCC
doesn't allow this, why do the carriers complete the call?

I was told be the local MCI representative that he'd put a dialer on
my lines to "dial around" the intra lata calls to save money on the
Michigan Bell (Ameritech RBOC) rate.  If the reps can be this blatant
about it, it MUST be legal.


Daniel Wynalda       | [phone] X22 Ham:N8KUD Net:[e-mail]
Wynalda Litho Inc.   | 8221 Graphic Industrial Pk. | Rockford, MI  49341

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

From: David Querin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comsec Gets Their Day on Television
Date: 6 Aug 91 13:31:38 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station


Well, they made it.  Comsec Data Security co-founder Scott Chasin was
on Good Morning America this morning (August 6).  They zapped John
Markoff in via satellite.  Not a great deal was said, but it was kind
of interesting to hear the "media perception" of crackers/cracking (a
distinction was not made between hacker and cracker though!).  Oh
well, off to work.


David

The opinions expressed are mine.  No one planted them in me, and they
in no way reflect on my employer, university, dentist, hair dresser,
or otherwise.

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 10:30 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Short Course on Telecom Basics in Columbus, OH, August 29


On Thursday, August 29, 1991, from 9AM to 5PM, CAST, The Center for
Advanced Study in Telecommunications at The Ohio State University will
offer a one-day short course, The Basics of Telecommunications for
Businesses.

The course is aimed at small and medium sized business, not at telecom
professionals such as read comp.dcom.telecom. Our intent is to promote
economic development through the use of telecommunications. Readers of
comp.dcom.telecom might be interested in recommending the course to
others in the Columbus area or in seeing the types of topics we plan
to cover.  The rest of this posting gives a brief outline of the
course and details on enrollment.

9-9:30 AM: Introduction to course - Jane M. Fraser, Department of
Industrial and Systems Engineering, Ohio State University.

9:30-10:30 AM: An overview of the telecommunications market place -
Thomas A. McCain, Department of Communication, Ohio State University.

Topics include: the past and the present - break up of the Bell
System; LECs and long distance companies; the MFJ; the FCC and the
PUCO; what the future may hold.

10:45-11:45 AM: An introduction to customer premises voice equipment -
Ray Essex, President, Executone of Columbus.

Topics include: features of phones; what to look for in a phone; what
questions to ask before buying a phone; special features; voice paging
systems; voice mail systems; who are the available vendors; what
features are important; what to expect to pay;

1-2 PM: Long Distance Carriers; Sherry Wells, LiTel Telecommunications
Corporation.

Topics include: how to decide which LD carrier to use for your
business; how much to expect to pay; comparison of vendors; how to
access your LD carrier from any phone; 800 numbers; how to use 800/900
numbers provided by others; how to obtain 800/900 numbers for your
company.

2-3 PM: Using your computer and modem to connect to the world - Jack
Anderson, Battelle.

Topics include: data communication; how do computers talk to each
other over the phone line; what is a modem; what kind of computer and
communication software do you need for different purposes; electronic
mail; what systems can be purchased and implemented in a small office;
what larger networks can be used to keep in touch with other
organizations.

3:15-4:15 PM: Information services - Dave Eastburn, CompuServe.

Topics include: what are the major services; what type of information
can be obtained; what to expect to pay.

Enrollment limit is 80 people. Registration is $45 ($50 after August
22) to CAST/OSU at 210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH,
43210.  For more information, call CAST at 614-292-8444.  As an
educational center, CAST deliberately sets the cost of this course low
to encourage attendance.

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

From: David Esan <[e-mail]>
Subject: V&H Report
Date: 6 Aug 91 14:10:42 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


Once a quarter I receive the BellCore V&H tape.  Using this
information I can total the number of exchanges in each area code.
The twenty most populous area codes are listed below.  After the
written text of this article I have included the count for each of the
area codes.

I have not included the 52? series of area codes that are in use for
Mexico, since they are not yet dialable from the US.  (Note: Don't ask
me when they will be dialable, I don't know, although I will guess
sometime after 1995.)

I have not included the 82? series of area codes which include many
more Mexico exchanges, as well as the non-diable locations in the
NANP.

The new tape included information (finally) for three new NPA's, 310,
410, and 510.  They are included below.


The fields are:
                        ------------ rank last quarter
          213: 736 (1, 7)
  area code --^^^  ^^^     ^------- number of new exchanges
                    |-------------- total number of exchanges

213: 742 (1, 6)        212: 674 (6, 6)     313: 634 (10, 4)     714: 591 (16, 10)
201: 708 (3, 5)     214: 672 (2, -58)   919: 632 (12, 8)     206: 586 (17, 7)
301: 701 (4, 7)        512: 653 (8, 14)    215: 607 (13, 4)     501: 574 (18, 5)
404: 691 (5, 11)    416: 644 (9, 11)    602: 594 (15, 5)     713: 564 (21, 17)
415: 679 (7, 24)    205: 641 (11, 11)   403: 596 (15, 5)     703: 557 (20, 5)

Of the top 20 NPA's we can note: (I have no details on calling
patterns in those NPA's not noted, and have no information of
impending splits in those NPA's).

#1. 213 - due to split to 310  beginning February 1, 1992.
#2. 214 - has split to 903.  Permissive dialing will end 11/91.
#3. 201 - has split to 908.  Permissive dialing will end this year.
#4. 301 - due to split to 410 beginning November 1991.
#5. 404 - due to split to 706 beginning in  May 1992.
#6. 212 - due to split to 917 sometime in 1992.
#7. 415 - due to split to 510 beginning October 7, 1991.
#8. 512 - no plans to split at this point. Intra-NPA calls require the dialing
      of the NPA.
#9. 416 - due to split to 905 in 1993.  Intra-NPA calls require the dialing
      of the NPA.
#10. 313- no plans to split at this point.  Intra-NPA calls require the
      dialing of the NPA.

#16. 714- will split to 909 beginning November 1992.


201: 708  304: 325  406: 343  508: 371    612: 526  714: 591  816: 449
202: 267  305: 465  407: 386  509: 240    613: 287  715: 313  817: 486
203: 485  306: 447  408: 307  510: 315    614: 403  716: 377  818: 364
204: 346  307: 153  409: 289  512: 653    615: 534  717: 469  819: 308
205: 641  308: 197  410: 386  513: 454    616: 376  718: 408  901: 223
206: 586  309: 259  412: 421  514: 484    617: 382  719: 160  902: 263
207: 337  310: 380  413: 131  515: 411    618: 326  801: 336  903: 266
208: 282  312: 423  414: 473  516: 377    619: 501  802: 175  904: 494
209: 334  313: 634  415: 679  517: 316    701: 351  803: 512  905: 311
212: 674  314: 523  416: 644  518: 251    702: 296  804: 463  906: 109
213: 742  315: 254  417: 198  519: 346    703: 557  805: 282  907: 408
214: 672  316: 362  418: 361  601: 395    704: 335  806: 262  908: 316
215: 607  317: 418  419: 334  602: 600    705: 269  807: 105  912: 324
216: 548  318: 331  501: 574  603: 232    706: 184  808: 255  913: 435
217: 356  319: 328  502: 338  604: 557    707: 180  809: 497  914: 336
218: 291  401: 134  503: 532  605: 343    708: 539  812: 277  915: 307
219: 350  402: 407  504: 331  606: 266    709: 260  813: 494  916: 427
301: 701  403: 596  505: 313  607: 164    712: 272  814: 259  918: 314
302: 114  404: 691  506: 175  608: 246    713: 564  815: 291  919: 632
303: 518  405: 545  507: 267  609: 269  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 8:46:27 EDT
From: Dennis G. Rears <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Credit


As I just got done dialing my umpteenth wrong number last night, I had
the thought "Is it worth it to call the LD operator to request a
credit?".  The call will typically cost 6-10 cents.  I find that I
normally don't request the credit because it is not worth my time.
BTW, my LD bill is typically $100-> 150.  How many of the TELECOM
readers think it is worth it to request a refund?


Dennis

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #609
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26125;
          7 Aug 91 6:14 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07463;
          7 Aug 91 4:32 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10374;
          7 Aug 91 3:24 CDT
Date:     Wed, 7 Aug 91 2:19:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #611
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Aug 91 02:18:57 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 611

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters[M. Gersten]
    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [Tim Irvin]
    Re: Another Proposed Tax [Jordan M. Kossack]
    Re: Another Proposed Tax [Linc Madison]
    Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number [Brad Hicks]
    Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number [Linc Madison]
    Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number [Tim Irvin]
    Re: Collect Calls From the Government [Bob Vaughan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Gersten <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Organization: The Serial Tree BBS, [phone]
Date: 6 Aug 91 03:47:49 PDT (Tue)


> THE TV NETWORKS WILL CONTINUE TO TRANSMIT TELEVISION FOR FREE.

> BUT THEY WANT TO TAX YOU 20% WHEN YOU WATCH IT ON CABLE.

> Moderator's Note: ... then called 'basic service' for some paltry
> sum per month.

First off, around here it is not paltry. They want $20/month just for
basic cable even though their reception is no better than over the
air. CNN isn't worth that much.

Secondly, there is a much better solution.

#1. Allow more than one company to offer cable service in an area.

#2. All channels have the right to demand a per user fee to cable
operators that provide it. I have no objection to broadcast companies
getting compensation from the cable operators. I object to a flat 20%
fee. If KTTV wants to charge 2 cents/user, let them. If they want 50
cents/user, let them. If all the cable companies in the area drop them
(This is why we need more than one!!!), then maybe they will get the
idea that they charge too much.

Soap box time (hit 'n' now) ...

Why do we have so many essentially unregulated monopolies in this
country, such as local telephone and cable? There is a very simple way
to actually let the market regulate these monopolies. This also
applies to broadcast television, as there the number of stations is
fixed by nature, so the monopolistic effect still shows up.  Here's
how:

1. Recognize that the primary distiction of a free market that we are
concerned with is free entry into the market.

2. Allow anyone who wants to enter the market to file an application
with the city.

3. If there is more than one such active application, then the current
company is not providing enough service for the buck, and would be required
to increase service or lose the contract.

4. Similarly, if there are no outstanding applications, the requirements
would be lowered.

5. Instead of increasing the service level, the current company would
be allowed to leave the market (this is needed as there is no
guarantee of profit under this system). In this case the new company
would be required to meet the higher service level (so no bluffing --
they would have to actually be willing to provide the service to get
into the market or to raise the customer service level).

This is designed to reflect that in a free market, more people
providing service means better service and lower prices (99 times out
of 100).


Michael      [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 91 16:15:31 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #598, "Wayne D. Correia" <[e-mail]> writes:

> THE TV NETWORKS WILL CONTINUE TO TRANSMIT TELEVISION FOR FREE.

> BUT THEY WANT TO TAX YOU 20% WHEN YOU WATCH IT ON CABLE.

> [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.

> ...  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]

It is my understanding that the cable companies are *required* by FCC
regulation to carry all local over-the-air stations.  If this
requirement remains, then the local stations shouldn't receive a dime.
But if the law makers are determined to go through with this, then the
cable company should be able to choose which network affiliate it
carries (if any).  If the cable companies start choosing large
metropolitan stations over the local ones, then you might see a number
of network affiliates fighting to get this law overturned.


Tim Irvin

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

Subject: Re: Another Proposed Tax
Organization: A corner of their bedroom
Date: 6 Aug 91 18:43:31 CDT (Tue)
From: Jordan M Kossack <[e-mail]>


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

> I think that both should be unconstitutional under the First
> Amendment because essentially a tax is an abridgement of free speech.

Books are taxed.  Does this also violate free speech?

> My primary concern, however, is that I should not be forced to
> subsidize some program (digital audio, free tv, etc) that I
> specifically do not like.  Specifically, there are some broadcast tv
> stations that I never watch.  Why should I be forced to subsidize
> them?  If they want my money, they can put on programs I want to

By the same token, do you object to paying for X number of cable
channels if you only watch one or two?  Or is your objection only
because the government might impose a tax?  If the latter, I agree as
long as the broadcast stations can impose whatever charge they wish
for redistribution of their signal and prosecute the cable companies
for copyright violation if they retransmit the broadcast station's
signal w/o permission.  Fair is fair.  The cable companies get all
upset over theft of services if one accesses their signal w/o paying
for it, so it is really hypocritical for them to expect to be able to
retransmit (for example) NBC's signal w/o paying for it.

> More to the point, in either of these cases, the message may be
> political or religious and it may be for a point of view that you
> definitely do not agree with.  Why should you be forced to subsidize
> them?  I clearly do not believe that you should.

In the case of cable, nobody is proposing that you should be forced to
subsidize programs that you don't agree with.  The cable companies are
free to NOT redistribute the signals of ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and
whatever local broadcast stations that are in your area.  Too, you are
not being forced to subscribe to cable.

However, until Da Judge allows the cable companies to provide dial
tone, perhaps this topic should move elsewhere.  Suggestions?


Jordan

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 14:22:26 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Proposed Tax
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> The recent thread here about the networks wanting to tax cable tv 20%
> for retransmission of broadcast television reminds me of the propsed
> tax on digital recorders and blank digital tapes.  In both cases, the
> tax will end up subsidizing programs the consumer is not interested
> in.  I think that both should be unconstitutional under the First
> Amendment because essentially a tax is an abridgement of free speech.
> My primary concern, however, is that I should not be forced to
> subsidize some program (digital audio, free tv, etc) that I
> specifically do not like.

Your subsidy argument works; the free speech one doesn't.  Taxing
cable or taxing digital audio tape isn't abridging your right to say
or write whatever you please.  The only way a free-speech concern
would enter in is if the tax differentiated in rate among different
uses -- 10% if you're recording red-blooded American programs, 20% if
it's some of that commie-pinko claptrap ...

Yes, the networks are losing viewers to cable.  It's called
COMPETITION, which is part of what is called the FREE MARKET.  There
was a lovely cartoon on the front cover of my most recent _Santa Cruz
Comic News_.  On the top panel was a crowd of people rushing towards a
banner; below an almost identical scene.  The top was labeled "USSR"
and the people were running to a banner marked "Democracy"; the lower
"USA" and "Police State."  The same parallel could be drawn with free
market vs. government control.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]  =  ucbvax!tongue1!linc

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

Date: 06 Aug 91 11:32:37 EDT
From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number


> This is a blatant lie.  According to Visa and MasterCard national
> policies, you don't even have to give your telephone number when
> making a purchase.  This is part of the operating rules that apply to
> all merchants, and any merchant that requires ANY additional ID as a
> condition of sale should be reported to the customer's card-issuing
> bank and the merchant's processing bank.

Quite correct.  See below.

> In my retail experience, the phone number was only collected because
> a huge percentage of card users would leave the thing behind.

Although I am only a LAN specialist here and am not an official
MasterCard spokesperson, I have been at enough security briefings and
read enough security bulletins to tell you three things:

1) No matter how you slice it, whenever you (or any other merchant)
collect a phone number or any other personal information from a
cardholder as a condition of a sale, or imply to the cardholder that
you are doing so, then you are in direct violation of your merchant
agreement, whether your bank holds you to it or not.

2) Most merchants that do so claim that they are enhancing security.
In point of fact, the merchant agreement clearly states that if the
merchants make a good-faith effort to verify the SIGNATURE PANEL ON
THE BACK OF THE CARD against the signature on the card slip, and
comply with the authorization amount limits, then they will get their
money, even if the card was fraudulently used.  However, out of all
of the hundreds of times I have used a credit card, I have only seen
the signature panel looked at twice.  If merchants are so interested
in security, then they need to educate their clerks to UPHOLD the
merchant agreement, not to break it.

3) There is a non-trivial reason for the prohibition on personal
information on a charge slip.  (This same information has appeared in
{American Banker} and the {Wall Street Journal}, so I don't think I'm
violating any rules by telling you.)  By placing any personal
information, whether a telephone number or an address, on a charge
slip, you are INCREASING the odds of fraud.  I assume that by now
everybody knows that there are crooks out there collecting card
numbers off of charge slips for fraudulent use.  What you may not know
is that the best defense currently in place against such a thing is a
service that the credit card providers offer that (along with the
authorization code) provides a card-holder's phone number and address
 ... which is used for confirmation.  If the crook knows your phone
number and/or address, it is that much easier for them to get away
with credit card fraud.

If SNET is putting the phone number on the front of the card in raised
letters so that it appears on the charge slip, then they are almost
certainly violating both the security and fraud guidelines and the
affinity/co-branding card standards, and I personally wish that some
SNET customer would refer this question to MasterCard Rules and
Procedures.

VERY IMPORTANT: I repeat, this is all my understanding.  I am not an
official spokesperson for MasterCard, nor am I a member of its Rules
and Procedures department.  For clarification of this or any other
MasterCard policy, bylaw, or rule, please call 1-314-275-6100 and ask
for Rules and Procedures, or else write to MasterCard International,
Rules and Procedures, 12115 Lackland Road, St. Louis, MO 63146.


   J. Brad Hicks                  email: [e-mail]
   Senior PC Specialist           phone: [phone]
   Macintosh PC Support           mail:  12115 Lackland Road
   MasterCard International              St. Louis, MO 63146


[Moderator's Question: Mr. Hicks, can you comment on the gasoline
service stations which nearly always require your license plate number
and/or drivers's license number on the charge ticket? I know they may
have that right with their own company's card, i.e. Amoco, Shell, etc.
but what about when a Mastercard/Visa is presented?    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 14:00:45 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


[regarding credit cards with your telephone number printed on them, and
merchants who ask for your telephone number on the charge slip]

It seems to me that the credit card companies should streamline and
standardize a simple system for returning credit cards that have been
left behind at a cash register.  First, print the customer service
number (toll-free and POTS) on the back of the card.  Second, tell the
merchant to call customer service if they have a lost card.  Third,
the card issuer can try to contact the card holder and tell him, "Mr.
Smith, you left your Bankfoo MasterCard at World of Merchandise this
afternoon.  If you'd like to pick it up, speak to Ms. Jones, the
manager; otherwise, we can cancel the card and issue a new one."  The
card issuer should also tell the merchant, "if the card holder hasn't
picked it up within X period of time, please mail the card back to
<address>."

That way, only the card issuer has your phone number.  Some people may
argue that even they shouldn't have it, in which case, you just don't
get your card back.

BTW, in California, there is now a $2500 fine for asking for a telephone
number on a credit card transaction.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]  =  ucbvax!tongu1!linc


[Moderator's Note: Anyone who would 'argue that the credit card issuer
should not have your telephone number on file' must be a Bozo! OF
COURSE they are entitled to this information as part of the credit
application, for purposes of needed contact for collection, etc.  PAT]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 91 11:39:59 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #597, Mark Seiden writes:

> 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.)

According to the Bankcard Holders of America, it is a violation of
Visa and MasterCard Merchant agreements to require any customer to
provide a telephone number or address on any charge receipt.  Also,
according to BHA (and my own common sense) it is a terrible security
risk to do so, it provides too much info to the would-be credit card
thief.  You would think that MasterCard would have put a stop to this
practice, and you would hope that SNET and People's Bank would
understand the risks of credit card fraud.


Tim Irvin

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 14:03:11 PDT
From: "Bob Vaughan  [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Collect Calls From the Government
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. Contact: [e-mail]


Here's one case where the government does call collect.

In California, operators of towing companies that provide service for
the rotation list can expect collect calls from the California Highway
Patrol.

This is a condition of staying on the rotation list. Other conditions
include: being available 24 hours / 7 days, periodic safety
inspections, and properly equipped trucks.  The companies on the
rotation list are called to accidents, impounds, and service calls,
etc, 24 hours / 7 days.)


Bob Vaughan  ## [e-mail] {apple,fernwood,hpabs,ucbvax}!well!techie
415-856-8025 ## [e-mail]  ## (packet radio) [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #611
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20957;
          7 Aug 91 19:16 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac03222; 7 Aug 91 18:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10374;
          7 Aug 91 3:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad02613;
          7 Aug 91 2:17 CDT
Date:     Wed, 7 Aug 91 1:42:58 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #610
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Aug 91 01:42:51 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 610

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Results of 510 Area Code Experiment [Bruce Perens]
    C&P Wants to Expand Caller ID [UPI via Bill Berbenich]
    Standards For Mag-Stripe Cards [Niall Gallagher]
    Changed Prefixes in Chicago Area [Carl Moore]
    ISDN B-Channel Terminal Equipment [David E. Martin]
    Syndex Explained on a 900 Number [Terry Gold]
    Collect Calls From Jail [J. Philip Miller]
    Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: Results of 510 Area Code Experiment
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 01:23:43 GMT


Two weeks ago, I asked people to try to dial a number in the new area
code 510, which is splitting from 415 in a month. Only a 10% of tries
got through. The failure modes are interesting - there's some
mis-configuration out there!

You will need a wide window to view this listing without line-wrap.

Dialing into 510-215-3596, a voice-mail system at Pixar, Richmond CA.
510 is splitting off of area code 415 on September 2, and these calls
were made in the last week of July. LATA means the call should have
been handled within the local Pacific Bell offices. Long-distance
carriers are listed, but often the problem is with the local CO, not
the long-distance carrier. The only calls that went through seem to be
from a Pacific Bell office that would not have needed a long-distance
carrier, and one call placed through Sprint.

NPA        LD    Result        Comment or Intercept Message
                        Correspondent            Internet

201-514        Any    CO Intercept    "...you must dial 1, plus 908, plus the number..."!!!!!                    [e-mail]
201-915        Any    CO Intercept    "...you must dial 1, plus 908, plus the number..."!!!!!        Terry Kennedy        [e-mail]
206-941        ATT    CO Intercept    "Your call cannot be completed as dialed... 206,,,2T".        Roger Clark Swann    [e-mail]
206-941        Sprint    Works        Sprint has the programming in before ATT!            Roger Clark Swann    [e-mail]
212-85[34]    ATT    Fails                                        Andrew M. Boardman    [e-mail]
301-278        ATT    Fails        This office will be moving to area code 410.            Carl Moore        [e-mail]
302-731        ATT    Fails                                        Carl Moore        [e-mail]
408-428        LATA    CO Intercept    "...cannot be completed as dialed..."                Tom Ace            [e-mail]
408-733        LATA    Works        408, 415, 510 are a Pacific Bell local area.            Herb Jellinek        [e-mail]
408-945?    LATA    Re-order                                    Dave R. Turk        [e-mail]
408-954        LATA    Fails        North San Jose, CA.                        Steven A. Minneman    [e-mail]
412-?        ?    Fails        Bell of PA                            Jeff Carpenter        [e-mail]
708-840            CO Intercept    "...cannot be completed as dialed...".                David E. Martin        [e-mail]
708-840            CO Intercept    "...you do not need a carrier access code for this number..."    David E. Martin        [e-mail]
805-543        ?    Failed        This is a Pacific-Bell served area.                Pete J. Bowden        [e-mail]
817-249            CO Intercept    "...not necessary to dial a long-distance access code...".    Gordon Burditt        [e-mail]
817-249        null    CO Intercept    "...cannot be completed as dialed...".                Gordon Burditt        [e-mail]
919-851        ATT    CO Intercept    "...cannot be completed as dialed...".                Henry Schaffer        [e-mail]
919-991        ?    Fails        Surprised that intercept was _male_ voice.            Charles Hoequist    [e-mail]
Cambridge MA    ?    Fails        Interrupted as soon as he dials 1-510.                John R. Levine        [e-mail]
Japan        All 3    Fails        All three overseas carriers block the attempt.            Jim Gottlieb        [e-mail]
Madison, WI    MCI    CO Intercept    "...cannot be completed as dialed..."                Tim Petlock
Santa Barbara    222    CO Intercept    "The number you have dialed requires a carrier access code"???    Lars Poulsen        [e-mail]
Santa Barbara    ATT    CO Intercept    "...cannot be completed as dialed..."                Lars Poulsen        [e-mail]
South Florida    ?    Fails        See comments.                            Dave Leibold        [e-mail]
U.K.        ?    Unobtainable    "Unobtainable" tone.                        Richard Jennings    [e-mail]
U.K.        BT    Unobtainable    "Unobtainable" tone on the third digit of area code.        Gordon Grant        [e-mail]
U.K.        Mercury    Intercept    "Code is wrong from the country you have dialed"        Gordon Grant        [e-mail]

Comments:

Terry Kennedy:
    201-915 (1AESS), AT+T. Rings after the "3" is dialed, jumps into a
    random middle part of the recorded message:

    "Due to an area code change, your call cannot be completed as dialed.
    You must dial 1 plus 908 plus the number you wish to reach. Please make
    a note of the change." [No recording ID]

    That's when dialing 15102153. This is a switch configuration problem,
    as 1+ should not route to that A/C intercept recording. I'll have to
    have it fixed.

Carl Moore: By the way, he's speaking, not singing, the words to "She
Loves You".

David Martin: From the 708-840 exchange it gets blocked by Illinois
Bell telling me ``...cannot be completed as dialed...'' If I dial an
access code, Illinois Bell tells me ``...you do not need to dial a
career access code for this number...''  Looks like they think its a
misdialed 708-510 exchange number. <<I like the idea of a "career"
(sic) access code! -BP>>

Dave Leibold ([e-mail]): It doesn't seem to work from
southern Florida as of yet, as it gets the number cannot be completed
recording however, 510 area is listed on the map in the Toronto phone
book that came out in March, and some phones in Toronto had the
bizarre ability to dial out calls to 510, so that 1 510 555.1212 would
get TWX warble. This was last year, and perhaps the system is getting
ready for 510.  <<Perhaps it took the number as 510-5551? -BP>>

Gordon Burditt:
  From:  817-249  Default carrier: null
         1-510-215-3596 "We're sorry your call cannot be completed as dialed"
         10288-1-510- <ringback> "I'm sorry, it is not necessary to
           dial a long-distance access code for this call".
         10222-1-510- <ringback> "I'm sorry, it is not necessary to
           dial a long-distance access code for this call".

     As a reference for normal behavior:

     1-717-xxx-xxxx "We're sorry, a long-distance company access
         code is required"
     10288-1-717-xxx-xxxx (call goes through)

Lars Poulsen:

    1+ (ATT): "We are sorry, you call cannot be completed as dialed"
          No location information on the SIT intercept, which
                  leads me to believe that this was from the local switch
                  (GTE; 5ESS).
    10222+: "The number you have dialled, requires a carrier access code."
    This number is especialy bad. Not only does it have an "invalid" area
    code; it also has an "area-code" prefix !!
    <<The area-code split is happening because they've run out of
        prefixes. -BP>>

[e-mail]:

    I'm at 201-514-xxxx.  Any of the following

    1-510+
    10288-1-510+
    10222-1-510+
    10333-1-510+
    0-510+

    results in "due to an area code change, your call cannot be
        completed as dialed.  You must dial 1, plus 908, plus the number..."

    908 just became official here, so it appears that 510 is a
        former 201 exchange that's now in 908.  The message really does
        say "you must dial 1..." when the call was attempted as a 0+
        call, strangely enough.

Bruce Perens (preparer of the summary):

    Anyone who does this again should compose a form and ask
people to fill it out, since lots of people left out information. It's
interesting that more COs aren't configured ahead of time in the case
of an area-code split, but I guess there's no sense in putting through
a call to an area code until it "exists". I'm surprised that so many
COs considered a number preceded by 1- to be a local prefix instead of
an area code.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: C&P Wants to Expand Caller ID
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 14:17:11 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


The following was on the UPI wire recently:

   BALTIMORE (UPI) -- Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. wants to
expand its Caller ID system to businesses with centrex systems.

   C&P has submitted a plan to the Public Service Commission that
would allow any business with three or more lines to buy Caller ID.

   The service, which permits users to obtain the numbers of incoming
calls, has been available in Maryland since October, 1989.

   So far, Caller ID mainly has been marketed and sold as a service
for residential and small business customers.

   It also has been available to large businesses with PBX switchboards
on a special-order basis.

   But the service has not been widely available to C&P's 11,000
business customers with centrex. Centrex are large-scale
telecommunications systems that can handle anywhere from three to
10,000 or more telephone lines.

                             ---------

If this proposal is granted approval, it should either confirm or lay
to rest the alleged horrors of large-scale commercial access to CLID.


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

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

Date: 6 Aug 91 15:53:00 EDT
From: Niall Gallagher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Standards For Mag-Stripe Cards


In response to David Forster's query about standards for the mag
stripe on telephone calling and credit cards, CCITT Recommendation
E.118 (Automated International Telephone Credit Card System)
recommends that phone companies should comply with ISO standards for
Identification cards:

ISO/7810    Identification cards - Physical characteristics
ISO/7811/1  Identification cards - Recording technique - Part 1: Embossing
ISO/7811/2  Identification cards - Recording technique - Part 2: Magnetic
            Stripe
ISO/7811/3  Identification cards - Recording technique - Part 3: Location
            of embossed characters on ID-1 cards
ISO/7811/4  Identification cards - Recording technique - Part 4: Location
            of read-only magnetic tracks - Tracks 1 and 2
ISO/7811/5  Identification cards - Recording technique - Part 5: Location
            of read-write magnetic track - Track 3
ISO/7813    Identification cards - Financial transaction cards

You may also be interested in in bank cards coding:

ISO/4909    Bank Cards - Magnetic stripe data content for track 3

This should help you figure out what's encoded on the cards.


Niall Gallagher,
Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, CANADA

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 17:52:33 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Changed Prefixes in Chicago Area


The notes about 510 area code not yet working from Chicago area
indicate that 510 prefix in 708 has been changed to 224 prefix.  I
recall this or some other change as well.  Any reason for this change
other than to get rid of "strange-looking" prefix?


[Moderator's Note: As a correspondent pointed out yesterday, AT&T was
using much of 510 on their centrex. They moved things around, and
rather than have to move all the private individuals off who also had
510-xxxx numbers, AT&T went to the prefix 708-224. Apparently not all
510 numbers get the special intercept; just those which had been part
of the AT&T centrex prior to the move to 224.   PAT]

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

From: "David E. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN B-Channel Terminal Equipment
Date: 6 Aug 91 21:25:37 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Batavia, IL


Several people here are interested in getting a 64Kbps ISDN B-channel
from our site to their homes.  Does anyone have any experience with
doing this?  And, more specifically, can anyone recommend some
manufacturers of the ISDN terminal equipment needed to make the PC's
and Mac's of the world setup and talk ISDN.

Please e-mail me and I will summarize.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue Aug  6 09:24:09 MDT 1991
Subject: Syndex Explained on a 900 Number


Someone mentioned SYNDEX, the deal that would keep the cable companies
from showing a syndicated show if a broadcast station also carried the
show at a different time.  I was contracted about a year ago to
develop a voice response application to explain this proposed rule.
Callers could dial a number and hear the whole thing explained.  What
was interesting about this was that they set it up on a 900 number!
It was for a broadcasting association and I guess they thought they
could get the information out at minimal cost by making the callers
pay a few bucks.  Not many people thought it was worth it.


Terry Gold                       4880 Riverbend Road
Gold Systems, Inc.               Boulder, Colorado 80301
ISDN & Voice Response            [phone]  [e-mail]

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Collect calls from jail
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 6:57:24 CDT


John Bruner <[e-mail]> writes:

> A couple of months ago I received a call that stated "This is a
> collect call from the county jail.  To accept the charges, press [some
> DTMF digit]."  Without any further information I just hung up.

I received a call the other day from "the MCI operator" who had a
collect call "from a correctional institution".  I refused the
charges.  Later I wished I had thought to ask more information, but
since I wasn't aware of any of my friends being currently incarcerated,
and being in a hurry ...

What is up with these calls?  Just random dialing looking for a
sympathetic ear or is there some other scam going round?


     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


[Moderator's Note: More than likely it was just a misdialed zero plus
call from some inmate. Cook County Jail (Chicago) is on the centrex
for the Criminal Courts complex here, and inmate use rotary dial wall
phones with armored cables to the handset mounted in each cell block.
Inmate phones are on the same prefix (312-890) as the centrex, but are
wired in a funny way: They are rigged for one-way outgoing collect
calls only; all calls MUST be 0 + NPA + 7D. No credit card or third
party billing accepted.  Calls not zero-plussed will fail. No calls to
0, 411, 611, 911 or any other jail extension. The operator knows the
call is from a jail inmate and must go collect. If you dial one of
those phones from elsewhere and the line is in use (nearly always!)
you get a busy signal. If it is not in use, you get an intercept
message saying, "the number you dialed, xxx-xxxx is not in service for
incoming calls."  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 01:49 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep?


On Aug 5 at 23:15, TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: Isn't it neat how genuine Bell payphones allow you
> to deposit ahead of time what you think you will use then the system
> responds by saying "you have X cents credit for overtime."   PAT]

Possibly without realizing it, you have summed up the core technical
reason why COCOTs are and will always be inferior to utility pay
phones. In a COCOT, all of the "smarts" -- the rate tables, the coin
procedures, the tone recognition, operator control (if any), and
accounting must be handled completely within the case that houses the
telephone.

On the other hand, a utility pay phone has no "smarts" inside
whatsoever. It is controlled by the entire switching facility of the
sponsoring utility. Whatever can be programmed into the local switch
and even in the host tandem is available to the coin phone.

Now with this in mind, is it not amazing that utility phones do as
little as they do?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #610
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13344;
          8 Aug 91 3:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25215;
          8 Aug 91 1:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32252;
          8 Aug 91 0:42 CDT
Date:     Wed, 7 Aug 91 23:48:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


This special report cross references the LATAs in the United States
with their official number designation. You may wish to keep it with
other reference materials in your collection. Thanks to Mr. Huttig for
sending it along.       PAT


   From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
   Subject: Lata Number Reference Table
   Date: 5 Aug 91 20:06:48 GMT
   Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
   Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


   Page No. 1


                United States Telephone LATA Numbers

          STATE  NAME                  NUMBER

          AK     ALASKA                832
          AL     BIRMINGHAM            476
          AL     HUNTSVILLE            477
          AL     MONTGOMERY            478
          AL     MOBILE                480
          AR     FORT SMITH            526
          AR     LITTLE ROCK           528
          AR     PINE BLUFF            530
          AZ     PHOENIX               666
          AZ     TUCSON                668
          AZ     NAVAJO RESERVATION    980
          CA     SAN FRANCISCO         722
          CA     CHICO                 724
          CA     SACRAMENTO            726
          CA     FRESNO                728
          CA     LOS ANGELES           730
          CA     SAN DIEGO             732
          CA     BAKERSFIELD           734
          CA     MONTEREY              736
          CA     STOCKTON              738
          CA     SAN LUIS OBISPO       740
          CA     PALM SPRINGS          973
          CO     DENVER                656
          CO     COLORADO SRPINGS      658
          CT     CONNECTICUT <SNET>    920
          DC     WASHINGTON            236
          FL     PENSACOLA             448
          FL     PANAMA CITY           450
          FL     JACKSONVILLE          452
          FL     GAINESVILLE           454
          FL     DAYTONA BEACH         456
          FL     ORLANDO               458
          FL     SOUTHEAST             460
          FL     FORT MYERS            939
          FL     GULF COST             952
          FL     TALLAHASSEE           953
          GA     ATLANTA               438
          GA     SAVANNAH              440
          GA     AUGUSTA               442
          GA     ALBANY                444
          GA     MACON                 446
          HI     HAWAII                834
          IA     SIOUX CITY            630
          IA     DES MOINES            632
          IA     DAVENPORT             634
          IA     CEDAR RAPIDS          635
          ID     IDAHO                 652


   Page No. 2


                United States Telephone LATA Numbers

          STATE  NAME                  NUMBER

          ID     COEUR D'ALENE         960
          IL     CHICAGO               358
          IL     ROCKFORD              360
          IL     CAIRO                 362
          IL     STERLING              364
          IL     FORREST               366
          IL     PEORIA                368
          IL     CHAMPAIGN             370
          IL     SPRINGFIELD           372
          IL     QUINCY                374
          IL     MATTOON               976
          IL     GALESBURG             977
          IL     OLNEY                 978
          IN     EVANSVILLE            330
          IN     SOUTH BEND            332
          IN     AUBURN/HUNTINGTON     334
          IN     INDIANAPOLIS          336
          IN     BLOOMINGTON           338
          IN     RICHMOND              937
          IN     TERRE HAUTE           938
          KS     WICHITA               532
          KS     TOPEKA                534
          KY     LOUISVILLE            462
          KY     OWENSBORO             464
          KY     WINCHESTER            466
          LA     SHREVEPORT            486
          LA     LAFAYETTE             488
          LA     NEW ORLEANS           490
          LA     BATON ROUGE           492
          MA     WESTERN MASSACHUSETT  126
          MA     EASTERN MASSACHUSETT  128
          MD     BALTIMORE             238
          MD     HAGERSTOWN            240
          MD     SALISBURY             242
          ME     MAINE                 120
          MI     DETROIT               340
          MI     UPPER PENINSULA       342
          MI     SAGINAW               344
          MI     LANSING               346
          MI     GRAND RAPIDS          348
          MN     ROCHESTER             620
          MN     DULUTH                624
          MN     ST CLOUD              626
          MN     MINNEAPOLIS           628
          MO     ST LOUIS              520
          MO     WESTPHALIA            521
          MO     SPRINGFIELD           522



 Page No. 3


                United States Telephone LATA Numbers

          STATE  NAME                  NUMBER

          MO     KANSAS CITY           524
          MS     JACKSON               482
          MS     BILOXI                484
          MT     GREAT FALLS           648
          MT     BILLINGS              650
          MT     KALISPELL             963
          NC     ASHEVILLE             420
          NC     CHARLOTTE             422
          NC     GREENSBORO            424
          NC     RALEIGH               426
          NC     WILMINGTON            428
          NC     FAYETTEVILLE          949
          NC     ROCKY MOUNT           951
          ND     FARGO                 636
          ND     BISMARCK              638
          NE     OMAHA                 644
          NE     GRAND ISLAND          646
          NE     LINCOLN               958
          NH     NEW HAMPSHIRE         122
          NJ     ATLANTIC COSTAL       220
          NJ     DELAWARE VALLEY       222
          NJ     NORTH JERSEY          224
          NM     NEW MEXICO            664
          NV     RENO                  720
          NV     PAHRUMP               721
          NY     NEW YORK METRO        132
          NY     POUGHKEEPSIE          133
          NY     ALBANY                134
          NY     SYRACUSE              136
          NY     BINGHAMTON            138
          NY     BUFFALO               140
          NY     FISHERS ISLAND        921
          NY     ROCHESTER             974
          OH     CLEAVELAND            320
          OH     YOUNGSTOWN            322
          OH     COLUMBUS              324
          OH     AKRON                 325
          OH     TOLEDO                326
          OH     DAYTON                328
          OH     CINCINNATI BELL       922
          OH     MANSFIELD             923
          OK     OKLAHOMA CITY         536
          OK     TULSA                 538
          OR     EUGENE                670
          OR     PORTLAND              672
          PA     CAPITAL               226
          PA     PHILADELPHIA          228


 Page No. 4


                United States Telephone LATA Numbers

          STATE  NAME                  NUMBER

          PA     ALTOONA               230
          PA     NORTHEAST             232
          PA     PITTSBURG             234
          PA     ERIE                  924
          PR     PUERTO RICO           820
          RI     RHODE ISLAND          130
          SC     GREENVILLE            430
          SC     FLORENCE              432
          SC     COLUMBIA              434
          SC     CHARLESTON            436
          SD     SOUTH DAKOTA          640
          TN     MEMPHIS               468
          TN     NASHVILLE             470
          TN     CHATTANOOGA           472
          TN     KNOXVILLE             474
          TN     BRISTOL               956
          TX     EL PASO               540
          TX     MIDLAND               542
          TX     LUBBOCK               544
          TX     AMARILLO              546
          TX     WICHITA FALLS         548
          TX     ABILENE               550
          TX     DALLAS                552
          TX     LONGVIEW              554
          TX     WACO                  556
          TX     AUSTIN                558
          TX     HOUSTON               560
          TX     BEAUMONT              562
          TX     CORPUS CHRISTI        564
          TX     SAN ANTONIO           566
          TX     BROWNSVILLE           568
          TX     HEARNE                570
          TX     SAN ANGELO            961
          US     MIDWAY/WAKE           836
          UT     UTAH                  660
          UT     NAVAJO RESERVATION    981
          VA     ROANOKE               244
          VA     CULPEPER              246
          VA     RICHMOND              248
          VA     LYNCHBURG             250
          VA     NORFOLK               252
          VA     HARRISONBURG          927
          VA     CHARLOTTESVILLE       928
          VA     EDINBURG              929
          VI     US VIRGIN ISLANDS    822
          VT     VERMONT               124
          WA     SEATTLE               674



 Page No. 5

                United States Telephone LATA Numbers

          STATE  NAME                  NUMBER

          WA     SPOKANE               676
          WI     NORTHEASST            350
          WI     NORTHWEST             352
          WI     SOUTHWEST             354
          WI     SOUTHEAST             356
          WV     CHARLESTON            254
          WV     CLARKSBURG            256
          WV     BLUEFIELD             932
          WY     WYOMING               654












Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16688;
          8 Aug 91 4:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25692;
          8 Aug 91 2:58 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25215;
          8 Aug 91 1:50 CDT
Date:     Thu, 8 Aug 91 0:53:00 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #612
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Aug 91 00:52:51 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 612

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Information Services From Local Companies [Michael Gersten]
    Re: Calling Card Magnetic Strip Format [Michael G. Katzmann]
    Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911 [Jim Allard]
    Re: What Number CLID Transmits (was Calling Line ID in FL) [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Poor Abused Phreakers [David Gast]
    Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? [Rob Stampfli]
    Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep? [Linc Madison]
    Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep? [Jim Allard]
    Re: Sprint Price Change [Linc Madison]
    Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Jack Dominey]
    Re: Collect Calls From Jail [Peter Marshall]
    Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Carl Moore]
    Re: Telecom Book of the Month (or not...) [Arnold Robbins]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Information Services From Local Companies
Date: 6 Aug 91 03:16:13 PDT (Tue)
From: Michael Gersten <[e-mail]>


Hmm ... you seem to be stuck on 64kbit/sec, or 128kbit/sec.

What I'd like to see is ATM ISDN at the home, i.e., true packet
switched ATM at the home. None of this 2B + D nonsense.

Granted it won't be able to go as fast over copper as over fiber, but
it would have plenty of benefits:

#1. You could charge by the use. The prices I've seen so far for STM
ISDN were 120% of normal for 1B + D, and 220% of normal for 2B + D. In
other words, you'd get no discount, and you'd have to pay for the D
channel even though it is only used for dialing and such.

#2. Few computers can work at 64kbit/sec. Why pay for what you can't
use?

#3. STM seems to stand for straight-jacket. The 64K/sec fixed rate is
outdated (voice can be compressed smaller than that), unflexible (you
could conceivable use priorities on ATM to get lower quality voice at
a lower price), etc.

Note that this assumes that the ATM stuff we studied in school is
actually what the phone companies are planning on using :-)


Michael

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

From: "Michael G. Katzmann" <vk2bea![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Card Magnetic Strip Format
Date: 6 Aug 91 13:54:17 GMT
Reply-To: "Michael G. Katzmann" <vk2bea![e-mail]>
Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland.


In article <[e-mail]> tigger%jupiter.UCSC.EDU@
ucscc.ucsc.edu (David Foster) writes:

> My question: Where can I get the ANSI specs for the magnetic strip
> track format for RBOC and long distance calling cards.

> Background: A friend is trying to integrate the use of calling cards

  et-cetera.......

> Is there an organization that specifies standards for magnetic cards?
> Is there a publication?  Any help is appreciated.

I have a copy of Australian Standard AS-2623 "Credit Cards: Magnetic
Stripe Encoding for Tracks 1, 2, & 3".

The reference to the international standard is:

ISO 1864, Information processing - unrecorded 12.7 mm (0.5 in) wide
      magnetic tape for information interchange-8 and 32 rpmm
      (200 and 800 rpi) NRZI, and 63 rpmm (1600 rpi), phase-encoded.

ISO 2894, Embossed credit cards - Specifications, numbering system and
      registration procedure.

ISO 3554, Bank cards - Magnetic stripe data content for track 3.


I don't know who handles ISO standards in the US, but my guess would
be ANSI.


Michael Katzmann     Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~     Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A
Amteur Radio Stations:
NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV     opel!vk2bea![e-mail]

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

From: Jim Allard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911
Organization: Equicom Communications, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1991 15:58:43 GMT


Cellular One in Columbus, OH does not charge for 911 or Highway Patrol
connections (*HELP).  I had used the 911 system recently when my car
was in an accident.  No charges appeared.

Their promo materials clearly indicate there are no charges for this
type of call.


Jim Allard <[e-mail]> THE BOTTOM FEEDER

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Number CLID Transmits (was Calling Line ID in FL)
Date: 6 Aug 91 18:32:40 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

> The difference between Caller ID and ANI is that ANI reports the
> billing number where CLID reports the actual number called from.

Not always true ... calls to the ANI demo line that was posted here a
few months ago from FIT gave the trunk number not the billing number.
Also calls to my Personal 800 number shows the trunk number.  I guess
it depends on how the LEC sets up the lines.

[Stuff deleted]

> [Moderator's Note: So with automtic call back and call screening,
> which version is used when there is a discrepancy -- ANI or CLID?  My
> experience is here these services use the billing number.   PAT]

So why does Call Return (*69) not return calls that show up on a CLID
display when the call comes from a PBX? (It is logical not to return a
PBX call since you don't know which extension made the call but why
should the CLID use the trunk number and not a billing number of some
other type of display.

How it should work ...  (In my opinion)


Calling From    CLID/ANI            Call Return
Centrex         calling number      calling number

PBX             billing number      N/A
                with special flag
                saying this is a
                PBX call

Single line     calling number      calling number

Hunt Group    billing number      billing number


[Moderator's Note: Well, *69 works okay here, PBX or not ... if it can
capture some number, it is more than happy to call the number back for
you, regardless of where / what it is.    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 13:58:08 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Poor Abused Phreakers


[e-mail] wrote:

> It's time to fight back and sell their [telemarker's] information.  With
> Caller-ID spreading across the country it's now possible to compile
> telemarketer lists.

As surely an employee of AT&T should know, Caller-ID at least as it is
now implemented is not going to help much with blocking telemarketers.

* many calls are out of state.  I hear Nebraska is the telemarketer
capital of the U.S.  No phone number sent on inter-LATA calls.

* many of the remaining calls would probably be from out of LATA.
No phone number sent on inter-LATA calls.

* many telemarketers use outgoing only trunks that have no associated
incoming number.  (I don't know if any CID information is sent or not).

* most telemarketers have multiple lines so knowing one is not going to
help a lot.

* with the large number of lines used by telemarketers, even if it
were possible to get the number, you probably would not be able to
determine quickly enough if the call is from a telemarketer or not.
You would probably need a PC with a database to give you any useful
information since the little CID Boxes do not store enough numbers.

The easiest way to block telemarketers is to screen your phone calls.
They usually just hang up although last night I did get a message of
two of them talking to each other.  They never did mention what they
were hyping, however.  Very odd conversation, they were talking about
something that happened to them.

Have any of you with CID found that you can use it to determine
reliably when a telemarketer is calling?


David

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

From: Rob Stampfli <colnet![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep?
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1991 17:57:08 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Isn't it neat how genuine Bell payphones allow
> you to deposit ahead of time what you think you will use then the
> system responds by saying "you have X cents credit for overtime."

Actually, I was in Ireland several years back, and thought they had
the best system I've ever seen: Prior to making a call, you set out
coins on edge into a slightly inclined slotted rack which ran across
the top of the phone.  As the call progressed, the pay-phone ate the
left-most coin as it needed more money, causing the other coins to
roll down the slot, with only a momentary interruption in the voice
path, similar to what you hear on a cellular call.  If the stockpile
of coins were getting low, you could add additional coins while you
talked, and when you hung up, you could simply remove any that were
left in the rack and pocket them.  Simple and elegant!  (I didn't test
what would happen if you ran out of coins, but would guess it would
just drop the call at that point.)


Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377,
[e-mail] (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 01:48:48 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


[regarding discussion of payphones that cut off the dial pad on answer]

It's important to remember that it isn't just COCOTs that do this
nasty trick: the AT&T "blue phones" have been known to do it, too.

BTW, will the AT&T blue phones also be required to provide 10XXX
access to other carriers?  They've generally been quite nasty about
blocking any attempt to use any other carrier.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]  =  ucbvax!tongue1!linc


[Moderator's Note: The AT&T 'blue phones' (I assume you mean the
charge-a-call units) are *NOT* operated by an LEC or an AOS. Phones
operated by the local telco or some other service intended for local
and long distance calling (by virtue of passing the LD call off to
some carrier) are required to provide equal access. A long distance
carrier which installs its own instruments for connection to its
network is not required to originate calls over its competitors
circuits!  For example, in a few places I have seen similar units
wired direct to MCI long distance.  The difference is if it is a phone
on the local exchange which hands off long distance traffic or if it
is a phone installed by a carrier primarily for its own long distance
traffic.  The charge-a-calls are in the latter category. PAT]

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

From: Jim Allard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep?
Organization: Equicom Communications, Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 14:20:49 GMT


Operators don't count beeps or tones anymore.  The software has (at
least in my case) advanced to the point that the operator sees the
dollar amount required descend until it reaches zero, for the initial
period.

Certainly the switch is "reading" the coin drops, but operators don't
have to count or add it up in their heads anymore.


Jim Allard <[e-mail]> THE BOTTOM FEEDER


[Moderator's Note: One exception, and that is when the equipment fails
to register properly. Sometimes it fails to capture the calling number
also. Have you ever had an operator come on the line after you dialed
a long distance call direct and say "Due to equipment failure, your
number was not recorded. What number are you calling from, please?"
Then she enters it manually at the terminal and releases the call to
go on its way. Likewise, if the coin count gets screwed up (rare, but
it happens) the operator will come on and say something like, "I am
returning your coins and must ask you to redeposit them" ... chunk!
the coins fall out, and you put them in again. On those, the operator
still counts the beeps and manually releases the call on her terminal
when satisfied with what she hears.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 13:42:57 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Price Change
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Newman) writes:

> 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.

Well, I have SPRINT SELECT (tm), which means I pay $7.50/month
minimum, including my first hour of out-of-state evening/night/weekend
calls, and then $6.50/hr pro rata for additional calls in those hours.
(Weekday calls are at the regular -- I guess that's SPRINT PLUS --
rates.)

I had assumed from all the discussion here and my (admittedly cursory)
reading of the mailing from Sprint, that this plan was being replaced
-- particularly that the merging of evening and night rates was going
away.

However, my latest bill, dated 7/29/91, still shows the same old plan.
The only problem was that I didn't make enough LD calls last month for
it to be worth my while -- I used only 32 minutes of my first hour :-(


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]  =  ucbvax!tongue1!linc

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Aug  7 09:05:32 EDT 1991
Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes?


Referring to Marcel Mongeon's ([e-mail]) suggestion of
four-digit area codes as an alternative method of area code splits:

> Maybe the experts could tell us if a lot of CO reprogramming would be
> required?

I can't say what would be required within telco central offices, but
consider for a moment the number of computer systems that handle phone
numbers.  Virtually every one of them would require extensive
reprogramming.  Heck, it would take me two or three hours to fix my
phone lists at home on the PC.  I'll bet there are literally millions
of systems that take advantage of the xxx-xxx-xxxx arrangement of the
North American Numbering plan.  The economic cost of changing the
number of digits could easily run into the billions of dollars.


Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA
404-496-6925 or AT&TMail: !dominey

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

Subject: Re: Collect Calls From Jail
From: halcyon![e-mail]
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 91 07:22:13 PDT


Mr. Miller's post asked "What is up with these calls?"  With collect
calls from inmates in some institutions, "what's up" also seems to
affect the privacy of those accepting these collect calls.

Some vendors supplying inmate phone systems also make available the
capacity to generate SMDR reports re: these collect calls that appears
to pose a problem for the called parties, many of whom are likely to
be attornies. The transaction-generated data produced includes the
number called, and in many cases there would appear to be little if
any restriction on the subsequent dissemination and use of this
information.  Of course, the called parties are unlikely to know about
this data collection.

Although in some jurisdictions there are statutes dealing with
"monitoring" of inmate calls, these provisions often are irrelevant to
the situation described, which is an affair of information *about* the
call.


Peter Marshall

  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA
                           PEP, V.32, V.42

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

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 12:23:07 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes?


I think the equipment here in country code 1 is much more dependent on
fixed-length phone numbers than is the equipment overseas.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Arnold Robbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Book of the Month (or not...)
Date: 7 Aug 91 23:28:03 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta Georgia


> Authors: Kraus, Constantine Raymond and Duerig, Alfred W
> Title: The Rape of Ma Bell: The Criminal Wrecking of the Best
>       Telephone System in the World
> Pub: Secaucus NJ, Lyle Stuart c1988
> Lib. of Congress call: HE8846.A55 ...

Gee, given the title, are we sure our Esteemed Moderator didn't have a
hand in the authorship?  :-) :-)


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]



[Moderator's Note: Sorry, I cannot and will not accept any credit for
this. I must admit though, I wish I'd thought of the title first!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #612
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19679;
          8 Aug 91 5:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02866;
          8 Aug 91 4:05 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25692;
          8 Aug 91 2:51 CDT
Date:     Thu, 8 Aug 91 1:50:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #613
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Aug 91 01:49:59 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 613

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers [Huw Jonathan Rogers]
    Re: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers [John Pettitt]
    Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Mark Miller]
    Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Carl Moore]
    Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards [Steve Thornton]
    Re: Areacodes 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Hotels and AOS's Again [Jim Allard]
    Re: Hotels and AOS's Again [Tony Harminc]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 18:18:12 JST
From: Huw Jonathan Rogers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers
Organization: Murder Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> is written:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 609, Message 2 of 8

> [e-mail] (Ken Weaverling) writes:

>> While I am not a telecom guru, I can see how the above makes logical
>> sense.  The CO only sees trunk lines coming from a PBX, and therefore
>> can't tell what actual number the call was dialled from. Since a
>> Centrex service is basically all contained in the CO, the CO then
>> knows the actual number called from.

> In the UK we use Mercury for our long distance and international
> calls.  One of the better features of the this is that we get an fully
> itemised bill each month because Mercury `knows' the extension number
> of the calling party.

> It works like this: When an user dials a number our PBX looks up the
> area code in the `Mercury' table.  If it gets a match the PBX dials
> 131 (Mercury access), waits for a second tone and dials our access
> code, a three digit extension number and the number to be called.
> Some time later (Mercury is slow to complete calls) you get a ring.
> When the called party answers and the line supervises you hear a beep
> (nice touch that -- you know when billing starts).

    Are you using tone dialing for the twelve digit Mercury
authorization code, three digit cost centre number, and dialed number?
Even if your local BT exchange isn't tone dialling, as soon as the 131
has connected you to Mercury you can switch to tone dialing for the
rest (the three aforementioned items). Using this setup I have never
experienced any delay at all after the 131 has connected. (BTW, I am
normally in the UK -- ignore the fact that this email address is in
Tokyo). The 131 itself, even on pulse dialing, takes around one second
and the rest is near instantaneous.

    Of course this presupposes your PABX/phone isn't so brain-
damaged as not to be able to tone dial.

    On another topic, you can dial *any* number via Mercury that
you can via BT -- and it's *always* cheaper (except local calls -- but
there is a fix for this - see next paragraph). The probem with certain
areas is that they can't get Mercury to call *you* using Mercury,
however that doesn't stop you calling them. This need to use a lookup
table strikes me as either being a throwback to Mercury's early days.
It's certainly totally unnecessary on the Mercury accounts I have
used.
    If you want to make local calls via Mercury you can prefix
them with your local area code and they are connected as if a trunk
call by Mercury; note this may not work in certain areas. Despite the
trunk vs local call, the difference in cost is actually minimal, and
you get the call on your itemised bill which BT would never do.

    Lastly if you want to make calls from payphones free of charge
and have them billed to your Mercury account there is a way. Most
privately rented payphones and a large number of BT payphones (but
strangely enough no Mercury payphones) will accept the 131 code with
no money or just 10p (which is never used). You can type in your
authorization code manually followed by any cost centre, then the
dialed number.  The call is connected, and is billed on your monthly
account as if you had made it from the home/office. This only works
for payphones within your area code, although Mercury is planning a
national autorization code system I have heard.

    Hope this helps some,


H.J.Rogers  INTERNET: [e-mail]
            JANET: [e-mail]-relay
            THIS EMAIL ADDRESS ONLY VALID UNTIL 12/9/1991

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

From: John Pettitt <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 17:41:09 BST
Organization: Specialix International
Subject: Re: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers


Huw Jonathan Rogers writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 609, Message 2 of 8

>     Are you using tone dialing for the twelve digit Mercury
> authorization code, three digit cost centre number, and dialed number?
> Even if your local BT exchange isn't tone dialing, as soon as the
> 131 has connected you to Mercury you can switch to tone dialing for
> the rest (the three aforementioned items). Using this setup I have
> never experienced any delay at all after the 131 has connected. (BTW
> I am normally in the UK -- ignore the fact that this Email address is
> in Tokyo). The 131 itself, even on pulse dialing, takes around one
> second and the rest is near instantaneous...     Of course this
> presupposes your PABX/phone isn't so braindamaged as not to be able
> to tone dial.

We are tone dialing both the 131 and the Mercury numbers (I tried
pulse ONCE it was so slow as to be a waste of time).  The delay I was
complaining about was from the last digit being sent to Mercury to
getting a ring tone the other end.  This is most noticable on calls to
the US where BT will get you a ring in about seven seconds from the
last digit (this to 408-354 - GTE in Los Gatos CA).  Mercury takes
twenty seconds to do the same thing.

>     On another topic you can dial *any* number via Mercury that you
> can via BT - and it's *always* cheaper (except local calls - but there
> is a fix for this - see next para). The probem with certain areas
> is that they can't get Mercury to call *you* using Mercury, however
> that doesn't stop you calling them. This need to use a lookup table
> strikes me as either being a throwback to Mercury's early days. It's
> certainly totally unnecessary on the Mercury accounts I have used.

We use the lookup because local calls are cheaper on BT than mercury
and because our PBX will not work without it !


John Pettitt   Specialix International    [e-mail]

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

From: Mark Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 17:28:25 EDT


After reading Pat's description of the Biosynetic Research voice
disguising phone, I was intrigued.  Rather than send off $19.95 I
decided to call the 900 number demo line for 75 cents.

The demo line *does* announce the 75 cents cost, and tells you to hang
up if you don't want to pay, that's nice!

The demo voice is a woman, who demos four of the voice settings.  The
first one is a male voice, somewhat synthetic sounding, but mostly
understandable.  From here on, it got much worse.

The second was a lower pitched male voice, very synthetic sounding,
and full of high pitched harmonics.  The other two voice settings were
some form of female/little girl voice, that was very shrill, high
pitched, distorted, and almost unintelligible.

While it is true that the phone *does* disguise your voice, from the
demo, it does not seem to change it so that it sounds like anything
other than a electronically processed voice. Due to this fact, I don't
think you'd really want to use it for some of the scenarios presented
by the company.

This is of course my opinions of the demo, your opinion may be
different, and maybe the phone is worth $19.95.  I think I'll wait
till some other telecom-er gets one, and submits his review of the
phone though :-)


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 14:18:39 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Pat, I tried to get a 212 POTS number for these people and they don't
have a listing in NYC.  I called the 800 number and got what appeared
to be a small "boiler room" operation - you know, like when you call
for one of those TV ads and the 800 number just goes to a giant
ordering department somewhere.

In any event, being a sucker for many things telephonic, I immediately
called the 800 number and placed my order for one of these devices.  I
used my MasterCard to pay for the merchandise, so at least I have some
recourse if all is not as it seems.  The price is $19.95 each, plus $3
s&h.  No tax for those of us not in NY/NJ.

I will let Digest readers know how this thing turns out.  I don't
think I'll be disappointed, 'cuz I'm not expecting much!


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


[Moderator's Note: I'm a sucker and ordered one also with my Visa
card. We shall see how good it is. Maybe you and I can call each other
both using it at the same time for laughs!  :)   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 12:02:41 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice


At this writing, I have not called 900-737-9343 for the demo.  Is this
gadget supposed to respond to YOUR voice input and then output the
desired voice?

[Moderator's Note: No. A woman speaks normally, then we hear her voice
go in different directions.  The demo lasts about a minute.   PAT]

A crude form of electronic voice changing appeared several years ago
on the old "To Tell The Truth" TV game show, in its "celebrity"
version.  (For those who don't know, I will describe the game in the
next paragraph.)  In the "celebrity" version, a well-known person
appears at the beginning of the TV program and, after an intervening
"non-celebrity" game, becomes one of the three people in a new game.
The measures taken to hide identities:

1. faces covered by hoods.
2. the celebrity is wearing different clothes than seen at the start
   of the TV program.
3. the item of interest in this message: VOICES ARE ELECTRONICALLY
   DISTORTED.

In "To Tell The Truth", the panel has to decide which of three people
is the person whose story is read at the beginning of the game; the
other two people are impostors, trying to fool the panel.

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

Date: Wed, 07 Aug 91 10:27:00 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards


On Wed, 7 Aug 91 2:19:06 CDT Linc Madison said:

[regarding credit cards with your telephone number printed on them, and
merchants who ask for your telephone number on the charge slip]

> It seems to me that the credit card companies should streamline and
> standardize a simple system for returning credit cards that have been
> left behind at a cash register.  First, print the customer service
> number (toll-free and POTS) on the back of the card.  Second, tell the
> merchant to call customer service if they have a lost card.  Third,
> the card issuer can try to contact the card holder and tell him, "Mr.
> Smith, you left your Bankfoo MasterCard at World of Merchandise this
> afternoon.  If you'd like to pick it up, speak to Ms. Jones, the
> manager; otherwise, we can cancel the card and issue a new one."  The
> card issuer should also tell the merchant, "if the card holder hasn't
> picked it up within X period of time, please mail the card back to
> <address>."

Well, I guess I'm just out of touch with the super-security-conscious
and bureaucratic world of today. The "system" we had was for me to
call the person up and say, "Hi, Mary, this is Steve down at the
Upstart Crow. You left your Mastercard here. You can come by and pick
it up anytime", and she would reply (get this), "thank you". No need
to involve a dozen people and phone calls. Worked pretty well, too.
The ones we couldn't return we chopped up after a couple of weeks. The
$2500 fine would put an end to that, I guess.

Now I know that the appropriate thing to do when someone attempts to
take my number is to raise hell, demand my rights, shout at the clerk,
demand the manager, refuse to pay, and finally storm out after a half
hour's commotion. Or am I exaggerating slightly?

No, I'm not trying to make light of a real security concern, I'm just
sorry to see an atmosphere of mistrust take over yet more of my daily
life. Everyone seems to assume that everyone is trying to rip
everybody off all the time. I don't want to think that's true.


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


[Moderator's Note: I find it easier, when asked for my phone number to
just say I don't have a phone. Gives them something to think about.  PAT]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Areacodes 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600
Date: 7 Aug 91 17:40:00 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

[stuff deleted]

> So is it likely that at some future date, not only "800" calls will be
> free to the caller, but also "300" (or one of the others) calls?

I wish they would make 400 a SAC for Personal 800 service. I heard at
one time there was talk about the 300/400 used to assign phone lines
to faxes/computers and it would be imposible to call from those
area/codes to the regular one ... like the TWX codes.

> What other uses are planned for the double-zero area codes?

See above.

> What sort of test numbers use "200"? Are they reachable nationwide? If
> so, are they billable calls, and how do they show up on an itemized
> bill? Is this a temporary use of the areacode, or a permanent
> assignment?

Here in Melbourne, FL 200 used to be the ANI readback number. Now the
readback number is 2000.


Bill


[Moderator's Note: I still hear rumblings about this from time to time
also. 300 will be used nationally for data, like 800 is used
nationally for in-wats. The way I hear it, AT&T has fantasies about
giving Telenet/Sprintnet some stiff competition to their own public
switched data network, at *dirt cheap* rates, ala PC Pursuit.  PAT]

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

From: Jim Allard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotels and AOS's Again
Organization: Equicom Communications, Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 14:15:10 GMT


Re: Marcel changed hotel phone charges, lost revenue and didn't get
any additional business.

I suggest again that the readers of this Digest are unique in their
knowledge and awareness of telecommunications issues.  The vast
majority of the traveling public (including most business people)
don't even think about the telephone other than the fact that one is
there.  A great number of these people's expenses are paid by their
company.

We've tried adding modem capable phones, multiple line phones, etc.,
and as in Marcel's case it just didn't make a bit of difference in
occupancy.  I'd be willing to bet that if you reinstituted
"reasonable" charges for service your occupancy will be unaffected.

The reasons people select hotels are very simple, location, cleanliness,
and room price, NOT THE PHONE.

Go ahead, flame away.


Jim Allard <[e-mail]> THE BOTTOM FEEDER

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

Date: Wed, 07 Aug 91 15:04:58 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotels and AOS's Again


[e-mail] (Marcel Mongeon) wrote:

[description of allegedly non-ripoff hotel telecom policies]

>        10XXX calls:  We are located in Canada so these do
>             not apply.  However, we keep a fairly complete
>             list of 800 numbers for MCI, Sprint etc. (funny
>             thing is that our number one question from
>             American visitors is "How do I get an AT&T
>             operator" and we have to tell them it is not
>             possible! -- so much for the best LD service!

Doubtless years of Americans listening to AT&T stories about "hotel
ripoffs in foreign countries".  Now how far d'you think I'd get if I
insisted on getting a Bell Canada operator from a hotel in the US?

> The result of all of these policies is that our revenues dropped by
> about 25% on telephone.  The fact that we are the only hotel in town
> with free local calls has not attracted a single piece of new
> business.  Anyone want to suggest why?

No -- but tell me what town and the name of your hotel and I'll
mention it to colleagues who travel a lot.  "Somewhere in 416 --> 905"
is not much of a description  :-)


Tony H.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #613
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19978;
          8 Aug 91 5:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02866;
          8 Aug 91 4:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac25692;
          8 Aug 91 2:58 CDT
Date:     Thu, 8 Aug 91 2:12:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #614
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Aug 91 02:11:47 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 614

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Historical Note - Operator Intertoll Dialing [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Historical Note - Operator Intertoll Dialing [Tony Harminc]
    Re: Randy Wants You to Know ... [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Long-Distance Across a Road [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers [Peter Thurston]
    Re: Millenium Payphones (Northern Telecom) [Gary L. Dare]
    Re: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling to My Carrier [Madhumitra Sharma]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Historical Note - Operator Intertoll Dialing
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 12:02:25 GMT


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

> Someone gave an interesting description of operating procedures in the
> days when toll calls were dialed by operators.  Then I happened across
> a blueprint "Block Schematic, Intertoll Dialing Arrangement" for the
> SxS office in my home town, circa 1953.  This gives some of the
> technical details.

> Level 1 goes to an Auxiliary Intertoll Selector.  On this switch:

>   Level 1 is shown as "absorb repeatedly"
>   Level 2 is shown as "inward opr. 121"
>   Level 3 is shown as "inf. opr. 131"  (so I guess that's Information)
>   Level 4 is shown as "delayed opr 114"
>   Level 5 is shown as "univ. delayed opr 1150"
>   Level 6 is shown going to reorder
>   Level 7 is shown as "wh-opr 117"
>   Level 8 has a line going to level 2 - dunno what this means
>   Level 9 goes to reorder
>   Level 0 goes through a Ring Control circuit to Another Auxiliary Intertoll
>      Selector.  From this switch:

>      Level 1 goes to "Test Trunk 101"
>      Level 2 goes to "Transmission Measuring 102"
>      Level 3 goes to "Test Line 103"
>      Level 4 goes to Intercept
>      Levels 5,6,7, and 9 go to ringdown trunks to nearby small towns.
>      Level 8 is shown as "absorb once only" and goes to intercept
>      Level 0 goes to "Balanced Termination 100"

> There are some mysteries here, or at least some things I don't
> understand.  The inward and information operators are 121 and 131.
> Does the auxiliary intertoll selector require that last 1 digit before
> it will rotary hunt, or does the 1 digit activate something in the
> circuit going to the switchboard?  But 114 and 117 on the same switch
> don't seem to need a terminal 1 digit.  The multiple initial 1s are
> explained by the fact that level 1 absorbs repeatedly.  And why is the
> "Univ. Delayed Opr" 1150?  Does it really require a final 0 digit?

I can't tell for sure.  It could be any of those.  The lines that
require another digit may have equipment or connectors on them that
actually look for another digit as needed, or they may not.  There
used to be lots of things that didn't require all the digits (which
were just absorbed in various ways).  Maybe someone who did more work
with mechanical switches than I can answer better...

> Maybe someone can enlighten us about the 101 test trunk and the 103
> test line.  I'd guess the 102 transmission measuring probably goes to
> a source of miliwatt 1000Hz and the 100 bal. term. is just a balanced
> resistive termination.

100 -- Termination for testing balance and noise.  In the good 'ol
days it provided off hook and a connection to a 2mfd cap is series
with a resistor of the proper value (900 or 600 ohms).  Today it is
more likely to send a 1004 Hz test tone at full level for 5.5 +/- .1
seconds before being connected to a quiet term.  There are also
several variations on the "T100" test with things like -13 dBm0 tones
for measuring noise with tone and so on.

101 -- Testboard tel line for maintenance personel.  This line is
available on any incoming trunk (the distant end can get on the trunk
and dial 101 and ring the testboard).

I don't know if 101 lines are used much elsewhere, but in Fairbanks if
it rings, it beeps one of those high pitched sounders that is located
at the top of a rack 25 feet from a test position. If you call 101 it
may take 15 rings for anyone to figure out where the beeping is coming
from and what it is!  They do appear on all test positions and we do
use them for outgoing calls.

102 -- 1004 Hz testtone at 0 dBm0.  Today this is usually an off-hook
tone on condition for nine seconds, a short on-hook connection to a
quiet term of about one second.  It may alternate or it may drop after
one cycle, with the last being not too common and very annoying.

103 -- Supervision test.  There were and are many variations on what
happens with a T103 test.  Things like each "1" dialed toward it would
cause it to alternate between on and off hook conditions.  (With pulse
dialing it was critical that a single pulse would work.)  I think that
today it is supposed to go to a 120 IPM busy signal after one or two
gyrations.

104 -- Two way automatic transmission and one way noise test.
Measures an incoming test tone, sends an outgoing test tone, adjusts
that tone by how much the incoming was off, and gives a quiet term.
It gives a "wink" of on hook in between each stage to let the distant
end know when it changes.

105 -- Connects to a "responder" which in conjunction with a Remote
Office Test Line (ROTL) unit can make all kinds of two way tests,
including frequency response and "echo return loss".  The ROTL is
usually connected to a computer (eg. an IBM PC) that keeps a data base
on each trunk group.  The data base has everything from the number to
dial to get the far end responder, to what test to make and what the
limits are for each test.  It's the kind of thing you set up to run
all night and in the morning it tells you what it found on about 1000
trunks (and it costs less than a technician...).

There are others too.  107 is a data line test, 108 is an echo
suppression test, 109 is an echo canceller test.  Another test line is
a TLPA/TLPB loopback which is usually two numbers that return a test
tone if only one is offhook, and connect to each other if both are off
hook.

There are also some standard numbering schemes, that are not
necessarily followed, for how different types of switching offices
make these lines available (what the full seven digit number is
supposed to be for instance).

This is more than even I ever really wanted to know...


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, 07 Aug 91 22:38:25 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Historical Note - Operator Intertoll Dialing


[e-mail], [e-mail] wrote:

> Someone gave an interesting description of operating procedures in the
> days when toll calls were dialed by operators.  Then I happened across
> a blueprint "Block Schematic, Intertoll Dialing Arrangement" for the
> SxS office in my home town, circa 1953.  This gives some of the
> technical details.

> Maybe someone can enlighten us about the 101 test trunk and the 103
> test line.  I'd guess the 102 transmission measuring probably goes to
> a source of miliwatt 1000Hz and the 100 bal. term. is just a balanced
> resistive termination.

Test lines (as of 1973 - my latest copy of _Notes on Distance Dialing_
(the pre-breakup version of _Notes on the Network_)) are:

100: Balance.  Provides off-hook supervision to calling end as long as
trunks are held by calling end.  A 5-second milliwatt tone is provided
on the newer version of the 100-type test line [probably not in 1953]
Provides a termination (600 or 900 ohms plus a capacitance) which
simulates the nominal office impedance.

101: Communications.  Provides a communication and test line into a test-
board or test position which can be used for reporting trouble, making
transmission tests, etc. [i.e. you get a person]

102: Milliwatt.  Provides connection to a 1000-Hz testing power source
for one-way transmission measurements. [Many details of timing and 2dB
pads left out.]

103: Signal-Supervisory.  Provides a connection to a supervisory and
signalling test circuit for testing intertoll trunk features.  On
seizure the test trunk returns off hook.  On receipt of a ring-forward
signal the test trunk returns on-hook.  On receipt of a second ring-
forward signal the trunk returns 120IPM flash.

104: Transmission Measuring and Noise Checking.  This is a
semi-automatic test circuit that allows two-way loss measurement by
one person (or an automated test set).  [I'm sure this didn't exist in
1953.]

105: Fully automatic transmission measuring test line.  This is
intended for use with an automatic test equipment at the near end.

> itemised bill each month because Mercury `knows' the extension number
> of the calling party.

107: Data Transmission test line. [also clearly not around in 1953.]

108: Echo Suppression Loop-Around test line.

All this brings back curious memories.  Back in my earliest days of
playing with the phone (early 1960's when I was about 10), I can
remember discovering that 112 + 10x produced various interesting
results.  A couple of times I had long interesting chats with the
fellows who answered 112 + 101.  I think they were as confused as I
was about how I had got through to them.  It was only years later
after these codes were blocked that I discovered what I had been
dialing.  Actually these codes were not blocked in Toronto until 1
replaced 112 as the long distance prefix (very late 1960s).  And to
think if I'd known I could've called anywhere this way!  Sigh.


Tony H.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 11:49:38 EDT
Subject: Re: Randy Wants You to Know ...
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


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

> The appeal drags on, and will apparently go to litigation. He and his
> attorney are not backing down, and apparently neither is AT&T at this
> point.  Randy says his intention is to regain his employment and all
> the back pay he is missing.

I, as a management employee, had to sign a form acknowledging that I
had received a review of the AT&T Code of Conduct.  If Randy, as a
union employee, received a similar review and signed a similar form
then his case won't be in court for very long.  His situation is
covered in the code of conduct in two places - implicitly in the
section on protecting proprietary information and explicitly in a
section dealing with customer billing data.  I predict a successful
motion for dismissal of his suit.  Of course I'm not a lawyer ...

(And of course I am only speaking for myself).


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: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long-Distance Across a Road
Date: 7 Aug 91 19:18:32 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


    A friend of mine is priest in charge of a new parish recently
founded east of Lake Sammamish, on what is known as the Pine Lake
Plateau.  This is a region which has been rapidly developed in the
last few years as housing for California emigres. (For those who don't
know Seattle; Lake Sammamish is the smaller and more eastern of two
large lakes just east of the city. The city of Bellevue is located
between Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish.)

    The region is still unincorporated, and services are provided
from the cities of Redmond (north end of Sammamish) and Issaquah
(south end).  My friend reports that there are several cases of
neighbors straddling the Redmond/Issaquah telephone exchange boundary;
Redmond is served by GTE, Issaquah by US West, and Redmond-Issaquah
(as well as vice-versa) is a long distance call.

    My friend, who is connected to a Redmond exchange, has found
it necessary to get a Bellevue number to which his parishioners
connected to the Issaquah exchange (as well as his Redmond-exchange
parishioners) can place local calls.

    When annexation finally adjoins Redmond and Issaquah, or when
a new city is formed in this location, city limits will almost surely
not coincide with the telephone exchange boundaries, nor with the
school district boundaries (which are controlled by the state and
completely independent of local municipalities). There are already
many phones within the city of Bellevue connected to Redmond
exchanges, and some phones within Redmond connected to Bellevue USWest
exchanges (the area I'm talking about is just west of Microsoft HQ).


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

From: Peter Thurston <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 17:19:28 +0100
Subject: Re: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers


John Pettitt writes:

> It works like this: When an user dials a number our PBX looks up the
> area code in the `Mercury' table.  If it gets a match the PBX dials
> 131 (Mercury access), waits for a second tone and dials our access
> code, a three digit extension number and the number to be called.
> Some time later (Mercury is slow to complete calls) you get a ring.
> When the called party answers and the line supervises you hear a beep
> (nice touch that -- you know when billing starts).

    The beep has an unfortunate tendency to confuse fax-switches.
I find it to their fax. I do it every time. At least they now know if
the fax is activated but nothing comes out -- then the phone rings --
it's me!  There may also be circumstances under which it will affect
baud rate selection with modems -- although I have not encountered this
particular problem.


Peter Thurston    Applied Psychology Unit - CAMBRIDGE - UK.

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

From: Gary L Dare <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Millenium Payphones (Northern Telecom)
Reply-To: Gary L Dare <[e-mail]>
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 19:36:12 GMT


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

> These phones allow for use of calling cards, or credit cards such as
> Visa, MC, Amex, etc. In Toronto's case, a calling card issued from
> Telecom Canada (eg. Bell Canada, BC Tel, AGT, MTS, etc) could be used,

> Major features of the phones include a two line character display
> (green, fluorescent-like dot matrix display) which can be switched
> between French and English messages.

Does anyone know if these are the same make of phones found at LAX in
the name of PacBell?  I used one a couple of weeks back during a long
stopover (San Jose - New York via LAX) and the display was orange, in
English and Japanese.  I had no change, and no change machine in sight
so I just made a quick call (same area code) on my VISA.  It didn't
show up on my bill yet, so it's too soon to scream.  However, I don't
expect it to cost as much as the same amount of time on a NYTEL line.

Way to go, NorTel!


Gary L. Dare     [e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Madhumitra Sharma)
Subject: Re: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling to My Carrier
Organization: MIT Lab for Computer Science, Cambridge, Mass.
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 16:02:14 GMT


I don't think it is illegal for long-distance carriers to carry
intra-LATA calls. I use MCI to call intra-LATA all the time with
10222-1- ... (the first minute is much cheaper with MCI, and a lot
of these calls end up being very short -- so it saves quite a bit.)

When I found out that MCI could carry intra-LATA calls, I called Baby
Bell and asked them why all these long-distance calls don't go via
MCI, since they are my long-distance company. The Baby Bell rep said
that Baby Bell is not required to route those calls via MCI, and if I
wanted to use MCI for these calls, I should call MCI and ask them if
they handled intra-LATA calls and if so, find out the procedure.


madhu sharma     [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #614
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab25118;
          9 Aug 91 5:12 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27403;
          9 Aug 91 3:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29314;
          9 Aug 91 2:34 CDT
Date:     Fri, 9 Aug 91 1:25:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #616
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 9 Aug 91 01:25:12 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 616

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Looking For Good References on ISDN [Bill Schaefer]
    Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Service [Doctor Math]
    Small Panasonic PBX For Sale [Ed Greenberg]
    Postal Codes in Old 01 Area [Carl Moore]
    Message Light on Voice Mail System Phones [Lawrence Hare]
    UK Phone System: Director Areas [Martin Harriss]
    Lite Motorola Cellular Phone [David Leibold]
    AT&T International Rate Changes [David Leibold]
    Source For British Telecom Phone Boxes [Brian Montgomery]
    Directory Assistance Charges Increase Within Florida [David Leibold]
    Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Henry Mensch]
    Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Carl Moore]
    Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Jeff Carroll]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bill Schaefer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Good References on ISDN
Date: 7 Aug 91 06:07:13 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Schaefer <[e-mail]>
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


  I'm getting involved in various ISDN projects and need to come up to
speed on the state of the standards effort and, more importantly, for
now, what's out there, the differences between implementations, etc.
I'd like to read some good references on ISDN -- both technical and
tutorial.  Please send me your suggestions and I'll summarize them
back to this group.  Thanks for your time!


wbs

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

From: Doctor Math <[e-mail]>
Subject: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 91 09:12:15 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department


[e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre) writes:

> Cincinnati Bell has been offerring a service called 'the Talking
> Yellow Pages' for a few years now.  You dial the number [phone]
> and enter some four-digit codes to get weather reports, movie
> listings, and such.

Indiana Bell offers something similar, called "Touch Four". It's
loaded with advertising, of course. It's also got me quite curious:
What is it FOR?  It's not like the phone companies to offer a free
service such as this just out of the goodness of their hearts. Two of
the ideas I've come up with so far are:

1. It's been set up in anticipation of the RBOC's entry into so-
called "Information Services".

2. It generates some huge amount of marketing information by
cross-referencing the calling party's number and what codes they dial.
Anyone out there know for sure?

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

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 09:31 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Small Panasonic PBX For Sale


While we usually don't have for-sale messages here in Telecom, this
one is sufficiently telecom related that Patrick said it was OK.

My brother in law has a small Panasonic PBX for sale at $250, fob
Walnut Creek, CA. It's a KXT-616.  Six lines, 16 extensions.  Serial
printer port for SMDR. All normal PBX features including data privacy,
programmable pickup and ring groups, toll restriction, station-message-
detail-recording, etc.

Call Torre Liano at 415-933-7299 to arrange to buy or see.  Email me
for technical questions ONLY.

He has, and will ship the PBX.  I have the manual (in photocopy form)
and will mail it promptly to the purchaser (and will show it off
locally in Silicon Valley.)

History: I obtained this beastie for Torre's store about six months
ago.  It was used and he paid the same $250 for it that he wants.  I
installed it in March.  He closed shop in July.  We had it running
with three lines and about nine extentions. It took the staff about a
week to get used to it, and then they loved it.

Note: removed from service working, but sold as-is.  Some emailed
technical help for the EXPERIENCED phone hacker will be available, but
no hand holding.  Also, once I ship you the manual I'm at a
disadvantage.

I'll throw in my logging printer (an OEM relabelled Okidata) for
another $100.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 13:45:04 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Postal Codes in Old 01 Area


In the UK, the following postal areas are at least partly in the old
01 area, now split to form 071/081:

CR , E , EC , HA , IG , KT , N , NW , SE , SL , SM , SW , TW , UB , W , WC

(I assume that a fax I see in TQ on 071-376 is a foreign exchange there.)

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

From: Lawrence Hare <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 13:01:46 PDT
Subject: Message Light on Voice Mail System Phones


I am using an AT&T System 75 telephone system front-ended by an Aspen
Voice Processing System. It works wonderfully well and my somewhat
simple minded phone has a light (led) that blinks when a message has
come in.

I want to replace the phone with a more feature rich speaker-phone
purchased from a local vendor. I have checked these out and some are
excellent and well worth getting -- but no message light on any of
them.

Close inspection of the innards on my simple phone show that the
message light is driven off ring and tip with a little circuit
interfacing the lines to the LED. Closer examination of the circuit
would result in the destruction thereof, an action surely designed to
increase my popularity with those that count, hence I have desisted
from this path.

Does anyone know of a way to add a message ready light to a third
party phone? A little box with an RJ11 female and an RJ11 male
terminated cable could be easily placed in-line and would serve the
function admirably, presuming naturally that the little box had the
required led on its top. Any other suggestions would also be welcome.


Thanks.

Lawrence D. Hare        Control Data - Silicon Valley Operations
Consultant              Voice: [phone] - C/N [234] 4339
[e-mail]   Mail: SVLa60  FAX: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: From time to time in the past this has come up, and
perhaps some readers will respond to you with the schematics and notes
we have published previously.    PAT]

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

From: Martin Harriss <bdsgate.bdsi.com![e-mail]>
Subject: UK Phone System: Director Areas
Organization: Beechwood Data Systems
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 19:47:59 GMT


Referencing a message I recently posted to TELECOM Digest, someone
asked me, "What's a director area?"  I thought I'd share the answer
with everybody, and add a story about the development of the director.

Well, in case you havn't guessed by now, a director area is named for
the piece of equipment used to implement it - the director.  Although
I don't know how it got its name, the director is just an example of a
register-translator.  It sucks in seven digits dialled by the
subscriber, and generates routing digits based on the first three
digits (the exchange code).  The final four digits are stored and
retransmitted following the routing digits.

Why should you want do do this?  Because it gives you flexibility in
routing and exchange code assignment in a large metropolitain area.
Bear in mind that the UK telephone system was based on Strowger
step-by-step switches, where the subscriber had a list of codes to
dial in order to reach nearby exchanges.  The digits that the sub
dialled would directly route the call to the desired destination.  In
a large city, this was deemed unacceptable because the routing digits
could vary widely even in a fairly small geographical area.  By using
something that translates the exchange code, everyone can use the same
number to call from any place.  If you're really clever about
assigning codes, you can print letters on the dial and use the first
three letters of the exchange name as the dialing code.

The original implementation of the director used step-by-step
technology, although nowadays the are mostly electronic/computer
controlled.

And now the story about the development of the director.

By Act of Parliament, all (well, most) telephone systems were taken
over by the General Post Office in 1912.  Up until then, telephones in
the UK were run by private companies.  With the takeover, there was
obviously a desire to standardize the various diverse systems then in
use.  Unfortunately, this effort more of less came to an end two years
later with the shooting of the Archduke in Sarajevo.

The task was taken up again in 1918, and attention was turned to the
London area.  At the time, London's telephones consisted mostly of
manual exchanges, with patches of automatic switches here and there.
The GPO wanted a standard system that would offer flexibility in
routing and in assignment of exchange codes.  The latter would allow
them to print letters on the dial and give the exchange a name, the
first three letters of which would be used to dial a number on that
exchange.

The GPO looked around the world to see if anyone was doing this
already.  Looking west, they found none other than good old Ma Bell,
doing the self same thing in New York City.  So they went and talked
to Ma.  "Sure," said Ma; "we'll sell you all the Panel switches you
need!"

Not surprisingly, the British phone equipment manufacturers were
furious.  "Buy this American rubbish? Who do they think they are?"

At some point in these proceedings, the British phone manufacturers,
particularly Automatic Telephone and Electric (AT&E), met with the
GPO.  "We think we can build something that will beat the excrement
out of that American stuff," they said.  "Well OK," said the GPO, "but
you'll have to hurry -- we're about to settle the deal with Ma Bell."

Undaunted by this challenge, the AT&E men took the train back to
Liverpool.  Sitting in the dining car, they sketched out the design of
what was to be the director system on the back of the dining car
menus.

In a relatively short time, a prototype director system was available,
and the GPO was sold.  The rest, as they say, is history.

The menus are on display somewhere, but I forget where; the London
Science Museum, maybe?


Martin Harriss     uunet!bdsgate!martin

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

Subject: Lite Motorola Cellular Phone
From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 91 17:15:47 EDT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton


Motorola has unveiled what is now the lightest cellular phone in the
market at just under a half-pound. The MicroTAC Lite Digital Personal
Communicator Telephone is 7.7 oz, 11.6 cubic inches. There is a
continuous talk time of 45 min available, 24 hrs standby time and 2.5
hours with extended life battery. Cost has not been officially set
although Motorola officials are talking in the range of USD $1000.

Dials great ... less filling... :-)


replies: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 06 Aug 91 22:14:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T International Rate Changes


The following information was adapted (albeit hastily) from a notice
from AT&T. I supplied the difference calculations in the far right
column. This should give an idea of what's happening ...

AT&T has applied to the FCC to "adjust" (ie. increase) some overseas
rates. Here is what is proposed (effective 5 Aug 91 if approved).
Prices expressed in first minute/additional minute costs. Some prices
and discount times depend on whether the call originates from the
mainland or from Hawaii.

S: Standard  D: Discount  E: Economy

Macao
=====                Current      Proposed    Difference

Mainland 17h-02h S   4.16/1.55    4.16/1.63    0.00/+0.08
         02h-11h D   3.13/1.18    3.13/1.29    0.00/+0.11
         11h-17h E   2.50/0.93    2.50/1.06    0.00/+0.13
Hawaii   12h-01h S   3.26/1.27    3.56/1.63   +0.30/+0.36
         01h-12h E   2.34/0.86    2.50/1.06   +0.16/+0.20
(Hawaii has no in-between Discount rate for Macao)

China
=====                Current      Proposed    Difference

Mainland 17h-02h S   5.58/1.48    5.58/1.58    0.00/+0.10
         02h-11h D   4.18/1.12    4.18/1.36    0.00/+0.24
         11h-17h E   3.35/0.89    3.35/1.03    0.00/+0.14
Hawaii   12h-01h S   3.26/1.27    3.56/1.58   +0.30/+0.31
         01h-12h E   2.34/0.86    2.50/1.03   +0.16/+0.17
(Hawaii has no in-between Discount rate for China)


Ascension Island
========= ======     Current      Proposed    Difference

All U.S. 06h-12h S   2.71/1.39    2.95/1.53   +0.24/+0.14
         12h-17h D   2.04/1.04    2.22/1.14   +0.18/+0.10
         17h-06h E   1.62/0.84    1.77/0.92   +0.15/+0.08

Nigeria
=======              Current      Proposed    Difference

All U.S. 07h-17h S   2.12/1.09    2.31/1.23   +0.19/+0.14
         17h-01h D   1.60/0.81    1.74/0.91   +0.14/+0.10
         01h-07h E   1.27/0.66    1.38/0.74   +0.11/+0.08

AT&T will field questions about all this at 1 800 874.4000 extension 127.


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:3609/1
UUCP: !djcl
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 12:54:45 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Source For British Telecom Phone Boxes


Hi,

I came across something that may be of interest recently at an
airshow.  It's the company that removes BT's old red telephone boxes;
they then sell them off in various conditions.

Apparently, a fully re-conditioned one sells for around 950 pounds,
unconditioned ones straight from the ground can cost around 400. The
guy that I spoke to said that they had just exported one to Japan for
around 2000. If anyone is interested they are :-

     Hancon Limited     [phone] ex-UK [phone] - Office
     Charles Street     [phone]           709 546763 - Home
     Kilnhurst                 525932                      - home
     Rotherham                 585488                      - fax
     South Yorkshire
     S62 5TG


As an extra, is there an easy way of finding out what phone packages
there are? And which one suits you best? Any suggestions for
reasonable volume international calls to the UK?

BT are set to put up their charges by an average of 5%, although some
international calls are supposed to drop by 20%.  Bet it's not calls
to the US !!


Brian

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

Subject: Directory Assistance Charges Increase Within Florida
From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 91 17:11:31 EDT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton


The Florida Public Service Commission approved an increase for AT&T's
charges for in-state directory assistance from 35c to 40c, reportedly
the first since Nov. '89. Sprint charges 60c/call, MCI 24c/call
intra-state for directory assistance according to the records.  Rates
for out-of-state directory assistance have not changed and remain at
60c/call for AT&T and Sprint, 58c/call for MCI.

The increase should net AT&T an extra $830,000 per year, an increase
which was sought "to keep pace with competition in the long-distance
trade" according to AT&T officials (by way of the {Sun-Sentinel}).


replies: [e-mail]

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

From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 10:06:38 -0700
Subject: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Just where/how are these LATA numbers used?


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

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

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 15:58:33 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table


Yes, but where is the LATA number used?  Customers do not use it as
far as I know.

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table
Date: 8 Aug 91 18:27:18 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator <telecom@
eecs.nwu.edu> writes:

> This special report cross references the LATAs in the United States
> with their official number designation. You may wish to keep it with
> other reference materials in your collection. Thanks to Mr. Huttig for
> sending it along.       PAT

Just a couple of questions, and a comment:

What is an official LATA number designation good for?

Who made them up?

I suspect that the list (as I received it, anyway) is incomplete. I
also suspect that it was put together by AT&T or Bellcore or one of
the baby Bells. I'll go into the reasons for these suspicions in
another post if necessary (long edit sessions on this link are a
problem for me).


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: At this point, I'll turn the forum back over to Mr.
Huttig for a response, (a) as to the purpose of the numbers, and (b)
his source for the list.  His replies over the weekend, I assume?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #616
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25358;
          9 Aug 91 5:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27403;
          9 Aug 91 3:49 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac29314;
          9 Aug 91 2:34 CDT
Date:     Fri, 9 Aug 91 2:11:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #617
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 9 Aug 91 02:10:25 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 617

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [A. Payne]
    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [D. Cornutt]
    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [Knauerhase]
    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [L. Madison]
    Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Brian Charles Kohn]
    Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Ken Weaverling]
    Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards [Bennett Todd]
    Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards [Steve Shimatzki]
    Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Marc T. Kaufman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Payne)
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 23:50:49 GMT


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

> Why do we have so many essentially unregulated monopolies in this
> country, such as local telephone and cable? There is a very simple way
> to actually let the market regulate these monopolies. This also
> applies to broadcast television, as there the number of stations is
> fixed by nature, so the monopolistic effect still shows up.  Here's
> how:

    Wait!  You cannot put telephone monopolies and cable
monopolies in the same cart.  Telephone companies are far from
"essentially unregulated" -- look at a tariff sometime.  In many cases,
they have to file with the Public Utilities Commission just to wipe
their nose.

    On the other hand, most cable monopolies are essentially
unregulated.  The FCC specifies a few basic do's and don'ts and the
rest of the "regulation" is contained in the contract negotiated with
the local municipality.  These contracts are usually one-sided deals
in favor of the cable operator.  Case in point: our local cable
company recently dropped a channel (the weather channel) and the
locals raised a fuss.  They quickly found out that there is nothing
they could force the cable company to do for the next *ten* years
until the contract ran out.  Would *YOU* negotiate a ten year contract
for a high-tech serivce in this day and age??

> 3. If there is more than one such active application, then the current
> company is not providing enough service for the buck, and would be required
> to increase service or lose the contract.

    How to you quantify "service for the buck"?  Regulators around
the country would *love* the answer to that one.  Also, how do you
switch from one cable company to another?  Does A move out and B move
in? That takes a while.

    The reason monoplies usually exist is because of some natural
tendency, usually a huge investment.  In many areas like telephone,
cable, sewage, etc, there's just not enough room for more than one.

    One problem with unregulated monopolies is service
availability.  When was the last time you ordered telephone service or
electric service and were told: "we don't serve that area"?  Now, who
has ordered cable and been told they were "outside the service area"?
The phone company tariffs say they *must* provide service; cable
companies often have no such requirement.  They provide service only
where it is profitable for them to do so.

    One solution I've come up with is to split the cable company
into two parts: one providing the physical plant (cables, decoder
boxes, etc) and the other(s) providing the video.  Note the similarity
to the phone company.  If KABC wants their video on the cable, then
they make arrangements to have it fed in and they bill (or credit)
customers who subscribe.  The monopoly remains where it should be:
with the physical plant.  The free competition would (hopefully)
increase selection, increase quality, and decrease price.


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

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

From: David Cornutt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1991 22:36:38 GMT


One other thing that might torpedo the networks' argument is that, in
many areas these days, the network affiliates feed their signal
directly to the cable services via land line or other dedicated
circuit.  Many cable services don't even have VHF/UHF reception
antennas anymore.  So, the network case would seem to be weakened by
the fact that their own affiliates are willing participants in the
scheme which is allegedly costing them money.

All in all, it comes out looking like yet another demand for a
government bailout of a moribund segment of the entertainment industry
(the first being the ridiculous tape/DAT tax).  Actually, though, they
can pass all the cable taxes they want ... as long as they EXEMPT
CABLE SERVICES WHICH DO *NOT* CARRY NETWORK PROGRAMMING.  Then, all we
have to do is start letter-writing campaigns to convince our cable
providers that we don't watch broadcast-network programming, and
they'll have a powerful incentive to drop them and use the channels
for something worthwhile.  Let's see the networks sue their way out of
that.

(Is the law requiring cable services to carry all local affiliates
still on the books, or was that repealed?)


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

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

From: Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 20:46:53 GMT


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

> In TELECOM Digest V11 #598, "Wayne D. Correia" <[e-mail]>
writes:

>> THE TV NETWORKS WILL CONTINUE TO TRANSMIT TELEVISION FOR FREE.
>> BUT THEY WANT TO TAX YOU 20% WHEN YOU WATCH IT ON CABLE.

> It is my understanding that the cable companies are *required* by FCC
> regulation to carry all local over-the-air stations.  If this
> requirement remains, then the local stations shouldn't receive a dime.
> But if the law makers are determined to go through with this, then the
> cable company should be able to choose which network affiliate it
> carries (if any).  If the cable companies start choosing large
> metropolitan stations over the local ones, then you might see a number
> of network affiliates fighting to get this law overturned.

[This is getting further and further from telecom, but ...]

When Warner Qube first set up shop in Columbus, many people complained
that they carried a small religious-only station from out-of-town
[preferring another pay-per-view or national channel.  Qube's
explanation was that they had to carry all stations within a 50 mile
radius, to protect the "how many viewers are able to watch this
channel" number that determined advertising rates.

I also remember their mentioning that they paid WUAB (Cleveland
independent) some fee for use of their signal (maybe just equipment
maintenance costs?).


Rob Knauerhase
[e-mail]     Intel Development Tools Operation (for the summer)
[e-mail]        Univ. of Illinois, Dept. of CS, Gigabit Study Group

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

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 02:16:24 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters


I know I just said something on this thread yesterday, but I have some
additional comments.

Several people have said that it is reasonable for the networks or the
broadcast stations to charge for the redistribution of their programs.
It might be, but THAT ISN'T WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR!  They WANT the
cable companies to redistribute THEIR programs -- they want the tax to
reimburse them for the fact that the cable is carrying OTHER programs
to compete with theirs.

THAT is an idea that is utterly and completely without merit.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]  =  ucbvax!tongue1!linc

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

Date: Thu,  8 Aug 91 08:58:31 EDT
From: Brian Charles Kohn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes?
Reply-To: "The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality" <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Internet


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

> I propose the following:
> On an appropriate cutover date just add the number 0 to the end of
> every area code in the North American Numbering plan system.
> Maybe the experts could tell us if a lot of CO reprogramming would be
> required?

Someone else has already pointed out how embedded the n{1|0}x-xnx-xxxx
(North American Numbering Plan) is in our computer systems, etc ...

What I'd like to point out is that there's no need to do what you're
suggesting, for right now we really have a two-digit area code system
with a third digit restricted to 0 and 1.  So to simplify your
suggestion: 212 is NYC, when it needs to split just create 222 and
then 232, etc... instead of 2120 2121, 2122.  (Of course realizing
that Washington DC will have to have some of these numbers ... perhaps
make NYC use 212 232 252 ... and DC us 202 222 242 262.)

The problem is that there are two or three areas in the country that
still don't have 1+ dialing (Long Island, NY is one.)  Once the whole
continent is up to speed with 1+ dialing then 800 more area codes will
be available.  Does that mean the powers-that-be will have the
foresight to assign these numbers in an organized way?  bahahaha


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

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

From: Ken Weaverling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes?
Date: 8 Aug 91 23:27:15 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


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

> I can't say what would be required within telco central offices, but
> consider for a moment the number of computer systems that handle phone
> numbers.  Virtually every one of them would require extensive
> reprogramming.

Typical of programmers in the U.S ...

It is annoying to try and get U.S. produced software to run in a
foreign country for this reason and others, like programs that expect
a five or nine digit zip code, with no provisions for a postal code in
Canada, U.K., etc.

> I'll bet there are literally millions
> of systems that take advantage of the xxx-xxx-xxxx arrangement of the
> North American Numbering plan.  The economic cost of changing the
> number of digits could easily run into the billions of dollars.

A lot of programs are going to break when 2000 rolls around too, but
that is another thread for another newsgroup! :-)

I have also seen programs that validate area codes by looking for a 0
or 1 in the second area code position. These will obviously break when
we abandon this convention.


Ken Weaverling   [e-mail]

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

From: Bennett Todd -- gaj <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards
Date: 8 Aug 91 19:06:28 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC


> [Moderator's Note: I find it easier, when asked for my phone number
> to just say I don't have a phone. Gives them something to think
> about.  PAT]

Hi, I'm the person who posted the ``Customer opts for POTS'' note a
while back. GTE succeeded in convincing me that I didn't want
telephone service at all. When someone asks *me* for *my* number, I
answer, truthfully, ``I don't have a telephone -- and I *LOVE* it!''.

So what am I doing reading comp.dcom.telecom? Good Question! I guess I
am more interested in the historical notes than in most of the current
news, though it would certainly pump up my interest if telephone
systems were to offer 56KB+ data services via ISDN. However, it looks
like (since they've succeeded in browbeating Greene into backing down
off an important part of the judgment) they will instead be shutting
down modem traffic so they can put in place overpriced,
technologically inferior services. Let's hear it for Progress!


Bennett   [e-mail]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 8 Aug 1991 15:22:15 EDT
From: Wish-Bringer (Steve Shimatzki) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards


I know everyone has beat this back and forth, but I wanted to ask
this:

In TELECOM Digest V11, #611 Our great Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Question: Mr. Hicks, can you comment on the gasoline
> service stations which nearly always require your license plate number
> and/or drivers's license number on the charge ticket? I know they may
> have that right with their own company's card, i.e. Amoco, Shell, etc.
> but what about when a Mastercard/Visa is presented?    PAT]

WHEN?  I've never been to a gas station around my area that has asked
for my licence or plate number. Also, I've never been asked for a
phone number when I buy something on my Visa.  Then again, I never
ONCE saw anyone look at my sig.  No ... take that back, at a computer
show, they did when I bought a 250$ monitor.  (They also called the
bank to check. Seems they didn't think some snaught in college could
have that covered on his Visa.)

As a night deskclerk at a Day's Inn, I know that we were supposed to
be on the lookout for 'Suspiousous or nervous' people ... then do an
IMMEDIATE check on the point of sale terminal.  As long as we did
that, and got an approval for the sale, we could collect from the
Bank, even if it was fraud.  So, really a store has no reason to get a
phone number, as stated by others.

Well, I can't quit without telling of the one time I saw someone
actually try and commit CC fraud, so ...

I was at the gas station down the road with my little bro (he works
there).  A couple came in, and put $20 of gas on the card, and
also asked WHAT else they could put on it (groceries and food and such
that they sold.)  Well, the owner was still on shift, and was taking
care of them ... he went and called the CC company and it was over its
limit ... ok, he thought they were just trying to get it cause they
didnt have the cash. So he told them he couldn't take the card, and
the guy said something like 'Ok, I have some cash in my wallet in the
car ... let me get it.'

He left the girl there, and took off running over the hill.  everyone
was chasing after him, and his girl ran to the car, and tried to cut
us off. Turned out that after the cops eventually caught them and all,
they had robbed a house, and stole the cards from there.  It was
really wild.

Live and let live.


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 elses.


[Moderator's Note: Sometime please remind me to tell you of the time
when Alfred Bloomingdale (former chairman of Diner's Club) had his
wallet -- and personal Diner's Club card -- lifted by a prostitute in
New York City and how long it took for Diner's sales authorization to
pull the card -- despite it being on the 'hot list'. I know, 'cause I
pulled it! <wink!> ... a good story if anyone wants to hear it.   PAT]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1991 18:01:34 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> In any event, being a sucker for many things telephonic, I immediately
> called the 800 number and placed my order for one of these devices.  I
> used my MasterCard to pay for the merchandise, so at least I have some
> recourse if all is not as it seems...

> [Moderator's Note: I'm a sucker and ordered one also with my Visa
> card...

I'll be interested in knowing how many trips to Mexico you both just
bought with your charge cards.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

[Moderator's Note: Probably none. I don't think they'd pull that. PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #617
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26449;
          9 Aug 91 5:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31635;
          9 Aug 91 1:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05936;
          9 Aug 91 0:23 CDT
Date:     Fri, 9 Aug 91 0:21:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #615
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 9 Aug 91 00:21:52 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 615

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Electronic Mail Networks in Space [Joe Abernathy]
    MATRIX NEWS on the Telecom Industry and the NREN [Peter Marshall]
    SPRINT PLUS is Now Their Basic Service [Nelson Bolyard]
    ATT Universal Card Warning (Sometimes Free, Sometimes Not) [Mike Newton]
    Central Office Security [Dick Jackson]
    ISO Standards [Timothy Newsham]
    Cincinnati Bell Connection [Kyle Rudden]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 20:05:42 CDT
From: Joe Abernathy <chron!magic322![e-mail]>
Subject: Electronic Mail Networks in Space


[Moderator's Note: This article was provided by the {Houston
Chronicle} for republication on Usenet exclusively to TELECOM Digest.
It cannot be reprinted in any other media or newsgroup without the
written consent of the {Houston Chronicle}. In a personal note, Mr.
Abernathy said to me his inspiration for this story was the thread on
the same topic which appeared recently in the Digest.   PAT]


Electronic Mail Beams Shuttle's Message Home
8/5/91, Houston Chronicle, Page 1A

By JOE ABERNATHY
and MARK CARREAU
Copyright 1991, Houston Chronicle

   Electronic mail networks, the message medium of the information
age, made their debut in the space age Sunday aboard the shuttle
Atlantis as part of an effort to develop a communications system for a
future space station.

   Details of the test were being closely guarded because of concerns
over a possible hacker incident or "public free-for-all" on the
nation's computer networks, according to one engineer involved with
the project. Privacy and medical ethics also loom large as issues.

   Astronauts Shannon Lucid and James Adamson conducted the first
experiment with the e-mail system on Sunday afternoon, exchanging a
test message with Marcia Ivins, the shuttle communicator at Johnston
Space Center.

   The connection flickered out of focus after only a few minutes
because of alignment problems with one of the satellites in the
communications link, according to the flight director at JSC.

   The messages follow a winding path from the shuttle, to a satellite
in NASA's Tracking Data Relay Satellite System, to the main TDRSS
ground station in White Sands, New Mexico, back up to a commercial
communications satellite, then down to Houston, where they enter one
or more computer networks.

   Further tests of the system will be conducted on each remaining day
of the flight, which continues through Sunday.

   The shuttle tests are part of a larger project to develop computer
and communications systems for the space station Freedom, which the
agency plans to assemble during the late 1990s.

    "These are all steps toward that goal, how we work in space,"
said Byron Han of Apple Computer, whose machines are being used for
this stage of the experiment.

   Electronic mail offers a new way for astronauts to stay in touch
with their families, Mission Control, and potentially, the millions of
people who use the nation's interlinked computer networks. It could
produce far-reaching change in the way scientists and others interact
with the space program.

   Currently, only the shuttle communicator is allowed to talk with
the astronauts during a flight, except for a private medical
conference each day. E-mail could change that by letting any number of
people exchange information, while scientists and engineers on the
ground could assume direct control over their experiments in space.

   One drawback is the potential for NASA to impose a virtual reign of
silence regarding sensitive information without anyone realizing that
such had been done.

   E-mail, which is becoming commonplace in offices, is simply the
transmission of messages via computers to one or more people, using
electronic addresses. Users linked to the right networks can send
electronic messages or other data to specific recipients nearly
anywhere in the world -- and now to space.

   Han and fellow Apple employees Michael Silver and James Beninghaus
have donated their time to the project.  They are using low-cost,
commercially available products, rather than the costly custom
products often used in science.

   The e-mail will play a role in controlling experiments, electronic
flight information, and transfer of experiment results to the ground,
Han said, as well as sending data up to the shuttle.

   In the future, the system might be used to transmit and manipulate
information from the many medical experi ments NASA conducts. But this
raises a number of problems regarding privacy and medical ethics.

   For example, one experiment in this flight seeks to correct a
blood-flow problem associated with weightless ness that causes some
astronauts to faint upon their return to Earth.

   But this experiment is being monitored with the same Apple computer
that is playing host to the e-mail system.  Even though the results
aren't being transmitted over computer networks this time, they might
be next time -- and computer networks are notoriously insecure.

   Inquisitive computer enthusiasts -- hackers -- are in fact one of
NASA's chief concerns in regard to the use of electronic mail.

   The space agency initially sought to conduct the tests without
publicity, but word quickly percolated around the nation's computer
networks -- perhaps indicating that the concerns were justified.

   A chorus of calls was heard requesting the e-mail address of the
astronauts -- but that raised another problem more pressing than any
threat from malicious hacking, that of capacity.

   "We have things we need to accomplish with the limited amount of
time we have, and we do have a very limited amount of data we can move
between Mission Control and the orbiter," said Deborah Muratore, an
engineer in the space station support office at Johnson Space Center
and the experiment manager.

   In addition to voice communication, the shuttles are equipped with
Teletype and fax machines for the transmission and reception of
printed material and even photo graphs.

    "Conceivably, everything they move that way could be moved from
computer to computer," Muratore said. "From a space station
standpoint it would be much preferable to transfer the information
electronically without paper in the loop the way we do today on the
shuttle."

   "Paper is going to be a limited resource, something that
has to be thrown away or reused on the space station," she
said. "It becomes trash. So the more we can eliminate on the
space station the better off we are."

   The current experiment does not represent the first time that
civilians have had a direct communications link with those in space.
Since January, the Soviet space station Mir has maintained a "mail
drop" for ham radio operators to use in leaving messages for the
cosmonauts.

   "It's very similar" in function, said Gary Morris, a former member
of the Johnson Space Center Amateur Radio Club who now lives in San
Diego. "The packet bulletin board system on Mir allows an amateur (ham
radio operator) on the ground to leave mail messages.

   "What they're doing with the Mac is different in that they're going
through the whole (electronic mail) network.  It's much more complex."


Sidebar:

Send mail to Atlantis

   Computer users who presently have an electronic mail address of
their own can send electronic mail to the crew of the shuttle
Atlantis.

   The address to which your comments should be sent is:

       [e-mail]

   If you don't understand how to use this address, ask the
administrator of your online system to explain the procedure
and etiquette for sending Internet-style mail.

   Because of concerns over security, privacy and capacity, NASA has
not revealed the specifics of the Atlantis e-mail experiment, but the
information leaked out on the nation's computer networks. The e-mail
address is being provided unofficially to accommodate the resulting
flurry of inquiries. Using it sends mail to an earthbound network,
not Atlantis itself, so capacity is not a concern.

   It is not known whether the astronauts will read their electronic
mail while they are in space, or wait until they return.

   Atlantis is commanded by Air Force Col. John Blaha. His crew
includes pilot Mike Baker, a Navy commander; flight engineer David
Low; biochemist Shannon Lucid; and Army Col. James Adamson.


Joe Abernathy

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

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 11:52:11 -0700
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: MATRIX NEWS on the Telecom Industry & the NREN


 From Jeff Habegger, "Exactly What is the NREN?", MATRIX NEWS, 7/91:

How the scope of the network was expanding was revealed at hearings
held in the Seante on the Gore bill and in the House on the House
version of the "High Performance Computing Act"(H.R.3131).

Witnesses from the telecommunications industry held the opinion that
the government construction of the NREN would be useful in creating
new markets for the telecommunications industry. These witnesses
strongly believed that the NREN would create new markets and that
language in Title II of the Act would ensure the government's
departure from the field, allowing the communications industry to reap
large profits. Robert W. Lucky, an executive with Bell Laboratories,
discussed AT&T's position on the NREN and the HIgh Performance
Computing Act when he declared to Senator Gore that "AT&T supports
your bill [S.1067]" and continued: "...the business people do not
think there is money in it right now. But there will be, and there can
be a tremendous market if you get out there and stimulate it for us.
And then you get out of it. Okay?"

O. Gene Gabbard, then chairman and CEO of Telecom*USA, proposed that a
nonprofit corporation ... be established to build and operate the NREN
and that this corporation include a plan for its owm demise in its
charter.

Dr. Craig Fields presented the opinion that the HIgh Performance
Computing Act was essentially an industrial policy for the computer
and telecommunications industries. Field's opinions regarding
industrial policy were later rumored to be the cause of his removal as
Director of DARPA.

The signficance of the legislation lies not in the amount of funding,
but in the path it is charting for the future ... the constituencies
that have arisen in response to the legislation believe the network is
to become a new communications medium on a par with the present
telephone system.

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

From: Nelson Bolyard <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPRINT PLUS is Now Their Basic Service
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1991 03:18:12 GMT


About a month ago, SPRINT sent me a letter and a little flyer that
said that SPRINT PLUS is their "new basic service".  Since I had never
converted over to SPRINT PLUS from the "regular service", this flyer
seemed to imply that I was being switched over to SPRINT PLUS without
my consent.  I wasn't thrilled about it, especially since it mentioned
an average 3% increase for some customers.  I figured that meant some
customers got no increase, the rest got more than 3% increase.  But I
figured that I didn't have any choice (except to switch to another IXC).

Then Saturday I got anther letter from Sprint encouraging me to call
some toll-free number and switch over to SPRINT PLUS.  So, now I
figure it this way: New customers get no choice but SPRINT PLUS, but
old customers are "grandfathered" and can keep their old service.
SPRINT can't unilaterally switch the old customers to the new plan
without their consent (at least not for a while) but they want to stop
having to use two sets of rates and two billing programs, so they're
going to pester me about it until I do something.

A similar thing happened in the banking industry years ago.  The banks
wanted to reduce the cost of sending canceled checks back to the
checking account holders with their statements, so they told all new
customers that they did not return checks, but made copies available
for a fee.  Then they told all the old customers that "to reduce the
inconvenience and storage space required for cancelled checks" they
were going to stop sending you cancelled checks unless you wrote them
a letter immediately.  Years later, I'm still getting my cancelled
checks, but I'm locked into my current bank.  If I ever switch to
another bank, I'll never see another cancelled check.

I wonder how long it'll be before I get a letter saying "Thank you for
choosing SPRINT PLUS" despite any positive acceptance action on my
part.


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

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

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 00:07:38 -0700
From: Mike Newton <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATT Universal Card Warning (Sometimes Free, Sometimes Not)


Be careful if you want to sign up for the ATT Universal Card ... what
you do/don't tell the telesleaze at the other end could cost you a lot
over the years.

I'd been meaning to sign up for while -- due to its advertized (for a
while) free cost -- but finally got around to trying it a few days
ago.  I was told about that it was $20/year (wonder how fast that goes
up!) to which I said that I had heard it was free from annual charges
for a lifetime.  Telesleaze goes: "Oh, what's the number on your
mailing?" ... me: "what mailing?"  her: "the one advertizing the free
lifetime renewal" ...

After some questioning, it seems that ATT is 'randomly' sending out
offers for the same deal that had expired earlier, namely free
lifetime renewals.  When I said that I did not have the magic number
to give, she started in on an _obviously_ "prerecorded" spiel on how
great a bargain it was at $20 a year ... she just didn't seem to
understand that I knew it was possible to get it for free and that I
didnt want to spend $20 (and going up) a year.

Maybe you know the magic number?  Zzyzx?  I'd like to know it!


mike

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

From: Dick Jackson <riacs!rutgers!ttidcc.tti.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Central Office Security
Date: 8 Aug 91 15:12:14 GMT
Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica


Yesterday I enjoyed the interesting experience of a tour of the GTE
central office nearby. Main impressions were all the empty space
resulting from the transfer of lines from old equipment to the 5E, the
wonderful clicking from the 1A which still, for a few months, remains,
and the neat compactness of the 5ESS.

The 5E is physically quite robust, if someone could get in there and
go at it with a 16 lb hammer, it would be quite hard to do any serious
harm to service (we were told), i.e. because of the distributed
redundancy.

But the control console was just sitting there unattended.  Of course,
access to the building is controlled, but they are not paranoid about
it.  So if either someone sneaked in, or an employee became loony,
they could wreak havoc by a few shrewd commands at the terminal. Has
anyone heard of cases of central office vandalism?

About the empty space. I joked that pretty soon they would have
Teleport and Metro Fiber Systems sharing the building with them. The
GTE guy said grimly, "They won't be welcome!". So much for competition
in the local loop.

Dick Jackson


[Moderator's Note: It is not clear to me why they would share their
space with a competitor. Interconnection I can see, but sharing the
same office?  Why don't they just toss some wire out the door and say
"here are some pairs. Build your office where you like, equip it and
hook yourselves up to us when you are ready to go."  Or is this
another of the judge's bright ideas, that the local telcos have to
accomodate and bend over backwards for Teleport, et al?   PAT

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 23:06:57 hst
From: Timothy Newsham <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISO Standards


I have seen a number of references to ISO Standards in TELECOM Digest
in the years that I have been reading it.

I would like to know the story behind ISO and more importantly, how I
can go about getting ISO Standards.  Is there a place online that I
can pull certain ISO Standards by number?  Or would my library have
the ISO Specs?


Aloha,

newsham @ wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu

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

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 22:22:26 edt
From: Kyle Rudden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cincinnati Bell Connection


With all the talk about sending e-mail to the folks up in the shuttle,
I thought I'd request something more down-to-earth. :-)

Is it possible to send e-mail to someone at Cincinnati Bell via
Internet, and if so, what is the address for it?  A kind soul on the
Info-nets mailing list offered some suggestions for other RBOCs, but
CinBel was not one of them.


Mercy buckets,

Kyle Rudden <--> [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #615
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26634;
          10 Aug 91 3:28 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30581;
          10 Aug 91 2:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14608;
          10 Aug 91 0:52 CDT
Date:     Sat, 10 Aug 91 0:45:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #618
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 10 Aug 91 00:45:23 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 618

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Two New Archives Files [Robert D. Thompson]
    Re: Two New Archives Files [Paul Wexelblat]
    An Email FTP Server is Needed for Telecom [Bob Yazz]
    Re: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud [Joe McGuckin]
    Re: Long Distance Credit [Ravinder Bhumbla]
    Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Jerry Gitomer]
    Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Carl Moore]
    Re: City Code 91 in England [Clive Feather]
    Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Dave Leibold]
    Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Bill Huttig]
    Re: SPRINT PLUS is Now Their Basic Service [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service [Steve Kass]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 13:40:43 -0400
From: "Robert D. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two New Archives Files
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.


Pat,

    Where is the telecom archives (ftp address)?


Robert D. Thompson    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 12:14:47 -0400
From: Paul Wexelblat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two New Archives Files


Humble suggestion, reply not required:

Since we seem to get new newsgroupers regularly, I suggest that in
general all references to archives contain a boilerplate description
of where/how to access the archives.


[Moderator's Note: When references are made to the Telecom Archives I
almost invariably mention -- as I am doing now, once again -- that
they are accessible using anonymous ftp from lcs.mit.edu. Once on line
at lcs.mit.edu, you must 'cd telecom-archives'. You may wish to pull
the index files on your first visit there.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 00:38:29 -0700
From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: An Email FTP Server is Needed For Telecom


Hello Pat --

The ftp server "[e-mail]" no longer serves
non-BITNET/non-EARN sites.

Are you aware of another server that will allow access to the telecom
archives for non-internet sites like mine?  If so, the answer may
merit posting or it may not, if the Princeton site was a victim of its
own success.

Regards,


Bob Yazz, San Diego ==


[Moderator's Note: And just as I frequently mention anonymous ftp from
lcs.mit.edu, I quite frequently mention an archives/ftp mail server
which was established especially for readers of TELECOM Digest. Once
again, I am printing the introductory help file here, in the event you
have not see it before.  Please note this service is *only* (I think)
for the Telecom Archives at lcs.mit.edu.

Here is the information you will need, as it originally appeared here
on May 29:

  From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
  Subject: New Telecom Archives Server on Line
  Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 00:00:00 GMT


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Command: send index

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

Mailing addresses:

  [e-mail]:      The mail server itself

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

  [e-mail]:                         My address.


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

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


doug
(Mon May 27 1991)

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

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

Update, 8/10/91: I imagine by now the index is much more complete than
it was in May when this new service first came on line.  Get current
details from the address shown.    PAT]

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

From: Joe McGuckin <oilean![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud
Organization: Island Software
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 08:53:47 GMT


Someone writes:

> There is a difference.  You *knew* you had a genuine employee because
> you called the number on the billing statement.  However, they have

But do you really know who you're talking to? In 'Cyberpunks' by Katie
Hafner/John Markoff, it's mentioned that one of Kevin Mitnick's
favorite diversions was to intercept the 800 ATT number for lost
lost/stolen phone cards. Acting as a telco representative, Kevin would
take down their card number and passwords for future use.


Joe McGuckin      oilean![e-mail]
Island Software   [phone]

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

From: Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Credit
Date: 8 Aug 91 17:41:37 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, San Diego


[e-mail] (Dennis G. Rears) writes:

> As I just got done dialing my umpteenth wrong number last night, I had
> the thought "Is it worth it to call the LD operator to request a
> credit?".  The call will typically cost 6-10 cents.  I find that I
> normally don't request the credit because it is not worth my time.
> BTW, my LD bill is typically $100-> 150.  How many of the TELECOM
> readers think it is worth it to request a refund?

    If you had ever tried calling India, you wouldn't ask this
question.  The first minute of such a call during the economy rate
period costs $2.92 and there is an even chance that you'll get a wrong
number every time you try.  Some times calls show up on your bill even
though you didn't notice that the call had completed at the other end.
On my average monthly international long distance bill of about $200,
I usually have five or six misdialled calls (adding up to about $20).
So, I don't have much of a choice about asking for credit, do I?

    I have noticed one thing though.  Whenever I call the AT&T
long-distance operator (00) to request credit, though they say I have
been credited, the call always shows up on the bill.  I find it easier
to just call them after I get the bill.

    By the way, in the four years I have been in this country, I
have NEVER had a wrong number within the United States.  My long
distance carrier has always been AT&T.  What carrier do you use?


Ravinder Bhumbla    [e-mail]    U. of California, San Diego


[Moderator's Note: Since coming to the USA you have *never* misdialed
a call? AT&T gives credit for misdialed calls as well as incorrect
connections due to equipment problems.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 13:51:11 -0400
From: Jerry Gitomer <localhost![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes?


In comp.dcom.telecom Marcel Mongeon writes:

> I live in that part of 416 which will soon be 905.  I certainly don't
> need any explanation why a new area code is needed. However, isn't
> there an easier way to accomplish the splits?  I propose the
> following:

> On an appropriate cutover date just add the number 0 to the end of
> every area code in the North American Numbering plan system.  212
> would become 2120, 312 to 3120 and so on.  Everyone would be equally
> inconvenienced to begin with!

> Maybe the experts could tell us if a lot of CO reprogramming would be
> required?

Unfortunately this would mean more than a little inconvenience to just
about every Fortune 500 financial and industrial corporation as well
as most federal and state government agencies.  The problem is that
they use mainframe databases which must be redefined and rebuilt in
their entirety if any fields are changed.  This is why the postal
service had to back down on Zip + 4.

'Jerry Gitomer at National Political Resources Inc, Alexandria, VA USA
I am apolitical, have no resources, and speak only for myself.
1-703/683-9090     [e-mail]      ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!jerry

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 9:50:00 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes?


The North American Numbering Plan is n{1|0}x-nxx-xxxx with most areas
still restricting the prefix to "nnx" where "nxx" is displayed above.
When area codes of n{1|0}x form are used up, the North American
Numbering Plan will have to generalize to nxx-nxx-xxxx with most areas
still restricting the prefix to "nnx" where "nxx" is displayed above.

Areas not having 1+ dialing are:

Area 516 on Long Island, NY;

Part of area 914 in New York (at least the part next door to NYC);

At least the northern part of 408 in California.

Despite my recent trip to California, I am not sure what the dialing
requirements are in 714 and 619; 714 was split back in 1982, WITHOUT
using N0X/N1X prefixes, to form area 619, and 714 STILL does not have
N0X/N1X that I know of, although it has that new split (to form area
909) coming up.  Let me know of any clarifications/changes/additions.

Disregarding unavailable codes like 911 (emergency service) etc.:
There are 160 codes of N0X/N1X form. There are 800 codes of NXX form.

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

From: Clive Feather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: City Code 91 in England
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 16:42:00 BST


In Telecom 11.603 Martin Harriss writes:

>> I recently received an address in Durham (postal code starting with
>> DH1) in England with a phone number 091+7D.  How recent is this city
>> code 91?  (When called from outside the UK, omit leading zero from
>> city code.)

> This has been around for about two or three years.  The code is for
> Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the surrounding area, what used to be STD code
> 0632.

It's not just Newcastle. It consists of three old area codes: Durham,
Washington, and Newcastle-on-Tyne (I don't have the old STD codes for
the first two). Although all are now 091, they are different charging
areas (with different rates to the some places). They can be
distinguished by the first digit of the actual number:

    2 - Tyneside charging area (north of Tyne)
    3 - Durham charging area
    4 - Tyneside charging area (south of Tyne)
    5 - Washington charging area

As a rule, numbers were converted by adding the appropriate digit to
the previous six digit number. For the first few years, it was necessary
to dial "90" in front of a number when dialing between charging areas --
this has now been fixed.


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom

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

Date: Thu, 08 Aug 91 21:14:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table


One note about the numbers assigned to LATA's is that the first digit
indicates the region (RBOC) or type of region:

1xx - NYNEX (northeast US)
2xx - Bell Atlantic
3xx - Ameritech (Illinois, Michigan, etc)
4xx - BellSouth (Georgia, Florida, etc)
5xx - Southwestern Bell
6xx - US WEST
7xx - Pacific Telesis (California, Nevada)
8xx - Offshore/International (such as Alaska, Puerto Rico)
9xx - Independent companies (GTE, etc.)


replies: [e-mail]--
Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:3609/1
UUCP: !djcl  INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table
Date: 9 Aug 91 17:12:50 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <zach![e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I just thought that some out there might like the list. I asked PAT to
put it in the archives and announce it. Instead he posted it ...
Anyway as far as use goes ... the is a case where I was trying to
determine if a exchange was in my LATA (Orlando). Southern Bell said
it wasn't, it was in the Daytona LATA, but AT&T said it was. Anyway
there are list of exchanges in the LATA now published in the local
phone book.

I didn't think there would be so many complaints about it otherwise I
wouldn't have sent it. If you can't use it or don't want to read it
ignore it.


Bill

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPRINT PLUS is Now Their Basic Service
Date: 9 Aug 91 19:02:51 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


Now that I've been assured by other readers that AT&T has gone 100%
digital, I think I'll take them up on it next time they offer to
switch me for free.

(All you folks at att.com are hereby invited to take this as a broad
hint.  In fact, I'm not sure I'd mind being slammed, as long as it
doesn't cost me anything.)


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1991 08:18 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service


In TELECOM Digest #616, Doctor Math <[e-mail]> writes:

> [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre) writes:

>> Cincinnati Bell has been offerring a service called 'the Talking
>> Yellow Pages' for a few years now.  You dial the number [phone]
>> and enter some four-digit codes to get weather reports, movie
>> listings, and such.

> Indiana Bell offers something similar, called "Touch Four". [...]

Speculation aside on the motive behind the services, few people seem
to realize that they can save roughly 75% from the cost of similar
1-900 services (from the NY Times, the Weather Channel, etc.) by
making the call to one of these talking yellow pages for 11c per
minute.  I wonder what the legality would be of setting up a cut-rate
1-900 line that simply forwards calls to one of these numbers.


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


[Moderator's Note: It would be illegal simply because the compilation
of information you'd be dispensing is not yours to dispense.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #618
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29155;
          10 Aug 91 4:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14927;
          10 Aug 91 3:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae30581;
          10 Aug 91 2:04 CDT
Date:     Sat, 10 Aug 91 1:22:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #619
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 10 Aug 91 01:21:53 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 619

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ATT Universal Card Warning [Jack Dominey]
    Re: Another Proposed Tax [Richard D. McCombs]
    Re: Message Light on Voice Mail System Phones [Roy Stehle]
    Re: What RBOC Information Services? [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Brett G. Person]
    Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Carl Moore]
    HELP!!! Wanted: Just an Address! [Brian Crawford]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Aug  9 10:30:40 EDT 1991
Subject: Re: ATT Universal Card Warning


In V11 #615, Mike Newton <[e-mail]> complains about
the annual fee policy for the AT&T Universal Card:

> Be careful if you want to sign up for the ATT [sic] Universal Card
> ... what you do/don't tell the telesleaze at the other end could
> cost you a lot over the years.

Why this characterization of the sales rep as "telesleaze"?  In the
normally polite company of this forum, we reserve that title for
purveyors of 900 "services", ripoff COCOT and operator service
organizations, and people who interrupt your dinner to offer
"investments" in condos or precious metals, i.e. people who use the
phone to try to rip us off.

> I'd been meaning to sign up for while -- due to its advertised
> (for a while) free cost -- but finally got around to trying it a few
> days ago.

Mr. Newton virtually admits to knowing that the initial free-for-life
offer was limited to those who applied during the first year. Whose
fault is it that he waited until after time ran out?

> I was told about that it was $20/year (wonder how fast that goes
> up!) to which I said that I had heard it was free from annual charges
> for a lifetime.  Telesleaze goes: "Oh, what's the number on your
> mailing?" ... me: "what mailing?"  her: "the one advertizing [sic] the free
> lifetime renewal" ...

There's that word again.  I haven't noticed anything in this exchange
that implies the rep did or said anything illegal, immoral, unethical
or sleazy.

> After some questioning, it seems that ATT [sic] is 'randomly' sending out
> offers for the same deal that had expired earlier, namely free
> lifetime renewals.

Here I doubt Mr. Newton's interpretation.  No business sends out
offers at random.  Far more likely the Universal Card people have
selected specific target markets that they decided would be worth
making the no-annual-fee offer to.  The nub of Mr. Newton's problem
seems to be that he is not part of any of those target markets -- so he
didn't get the offer.

> When I said that I did not have the magic number
> to give, she started in on an _obviously_ "prerecorded" spiel on how
> great a bargain it was at $20 a year ... she just didn't seem to
> understand that I knew it was possible to get it for free and that I
> didn't want to spend $20 (and going up) a year.

Sales reps work from scripts.  It's terrible that so few of them can
keep their spiel from sounding canned, but please cut this person some
slack for doing her job!

And yes, it is (apparently) possible to get the Universal Card for
free.  I would suggest asking the rep's supervisor what the
qualifications are (beyond having the correct mailing in hand).  If
you find out that the offer went to say, existing Citibank VISA
holders with $5000 credit limits, and you can show that you fit that
category, you may be in luck.

There's no point in whining about the limited offer.  I don't hear
people complaining that their bank offers lower interest rates to
bigger customers, which strikes me as an equivalent case.

> Maybe you know the magic number?  Zzyzx?  I'd like to know it!

Now would lying about receiving a particular mail offer be sleazy?
Naahhh, couldn't be.


Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA
404-496-6925 or AT&TMail: !dominey
NOT affiliated with AT&T Universal Card service - I sell WATS and 800.

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

Subject: Re: Another Proposed Tax
From: "Richard D. McCombs" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 91 22:45:54 CDT
Organization: The Red Headed League


[e-mail] (76012,300 Brad Hicks) writes:

> 1) No matter how you slice it, whenever you (or any other merchant)
> collect a phone number or any other personal information from a
> cardholder as a condition of a sale, or imply to the cardholder that
> you are doing so, then you are in direct violation of your merchant
> agreement, whether your bank holds you to it or not.

Well I work at a motel and the sale slips we get from the bank for
Visa and Master Card have a blank that's labeled "FOLIO/CHECK NO.-LIC.
NO. STATE" which is where I usually write their Social Security number
or Driver's License number. If I'm not supposed to get it, what is that
blank for?

By the way, as a rule we require identification even if they pay cash.


Rick

Internet   [e-mail]  (Richard McCombs)
UUCP uunet!cs.utexas.edu!utacfd!letni!rwsys!lawton!ricksys!rick


[Moderator's Note: The catch is though, you do not single out Visa/MC
customers with requirements for ID. It is a standard practice in your
industry to get ID from *all* customers.  Big difference.   PAT]

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

From: Roy Stehle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Message Light on Voice Mail System Phones
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 16:55:50 GMT


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

> Does anyone know of a way to add a message ready light to a third
> party phone?

I, too, was looking for such a box and was unable to find one.  I gave
the task to a fellow engineer, who developed a circuit that is
basically a ring-detector with storage.  When the phone rings, an LED
goes into a flashing mode.  When the phone goes off hook, the LED
flasher circuit is reset.  Power is provided by two AA batteries; an
AC-DC battery eliminator transformer can be substituted if there is a
concern for users having to replace the batteries.  Battery lifetime
has been estimated to be about one year.  We could not devise an
inexpensive way to draw power from the line (to possibly recharge a
Ni-Cad battery) without violating the loading restrictions.

The circuit works well.  We've had a few hand-built units in our
department.  The only problem, with voicemail usage, is that messages
can be left through electronic transfers not requiring the ringing of
the recipient's phone.  The recipient only knows of these voicemail
message when he/she picks up the phone to get the interrupted dial
tone.  We could have gotten voicemail indication with our system, but
it required an additional wire (more than two) and the cost for wiring
was not justified.

The circuit has been designed to meet the applicable interface
regulations, but it has not been certified.  We use it on our internal
Northern Telecom system, not the PSN.  We've built versions that
reside alongside of the telephone and use an RJ-11 jack and other
versions that are built inside of the standard telephone housing.  We
have not, yet, built a PC board.

Since the design was partially built on overhead funds, I cannot, at
this point, offer it freely.  I am concerned about the use of the
circuit on public networks without certification.  If there is
interest, we can consider an approach.


Roy Stehle - [e-mail]

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What RBOC Information Services?
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 19:55:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> on 29 July 1991 jem@hpcupna.
cup.hp.com (Jim McCauley of Hewlett-Packard) writes:

> So the RBOCs are going into the information services business ...  What
> information services ... would attract residential customers? How about:
> * vanilla Unix (or whatever) system accounts?

Ideally, the RBOCs should be providing circuits, leaving their
customers to provide services. There ARE some services that the RBOCs
could legitimately provide, because they depend on records that the
phone company needs to keep anyway:

    - Online Directory Information
    - CNA (Customer Name and Address) database lookups
      (i.e. reverse directory information)

Regular old time-sharing computer access is exactly the kind of
service the RBOCs should never be doing, because they would be
competing with their customers. With high-volume circuits being
available on IDSN, and with multi-user systems finding their way into
homes, I bet you will find many hobbyists offering friends the use of
spare cycles on their unix boxes, either for free or for very modest
fees. If the RBOCs start selling computer service, they will look at
this as competition and will find ways to strangle it.

> * universal e-mail?

CCITT sort of believes that email should be provided as a PTT service;
the Internet world thinks that if we have ubiquitous connectivity
between consenting adults, we don't need a central interchange point.
In either case, the RBOCs is probably the wrong point. The IECs have
already set themselves up, although they are a little slow to
interconnect with each other.  Sometimes I think that email-to-FAX
gateway is a reasonable thing for the RBOC to get into, but mostly I
think that the email carrier should be doing this.

> * 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?

The RBOC should provide the circuit; with the circuits in place, it
will be easy to provide the services, and I think we will see a whole
spectrum of providers making all of these accessible.

The real issue is pricing. Will the Basic Rate Interface (BRI = 2B+D)
be priced like a phone line or like a "switched-56" service ?

If it is priced like 1.5 times a regular voice line, we will see an
explosive growth of services.

In <[e-mail]> on 6 Aug 91 [e-mail]
(Michael Gersten) responds:

> Hmm ... you seem to be stuck on 64kbit/sec, or 128kbit/sec. Few
> computers can work at 64kbit/sec. Why pay for what you can't use?

We will soon start thinking that it was ridiculous to standardize an
interface that was ONLY 64kbps. Our computers happily work with disk
drives that pump much faster than 64kbps; every MAC runs appletalk at
around 256kbps.

> What I'd like to see is ATM ISDN at the home, i.e., true packet
> switched ATM at the home. None of this 2B + D nonsense.

The BRI is a reasonable definition for what can be costeffectively
delivered today.

> [ATM in the local loop] would have plenty of benefits:
> #1. You could charge by the use. The prices I've seen so far for STM
> ISDN were 120% of normal for 1B + D, and 220% of normal for 2B + D. In
> other words, you'd get no discount, and you'd have to pay for the D
> channel even though it is only used for dialing and such.

The pricing is almost entirely separate from the technology and even
from the cost of services. The price will be set at what the market
will bear. My only concern is that the RBOCs will be too greedy and
will use the new technology to establish an overpriced "premium"
service rather than use it to expand the capabilities of the mass
market. Indeed, competition in the local market may be needed to make
this happen.

> #3. STM seems to stand for straight-jacket. The 64K/sec fixed rate is
> outdated (voice can be compressed smaller than that), unflexible (you
> could conceivable use priorities on ATM to get lower quality voice at
MG> a lower price), etc.

The amount of processing INSIDE THE NETWORK that would be required to
allow flexible negotiation of acceptable compression losses without
giving up total conenctivity makes it impractical.


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

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service
Date: 9 Aug 91 19:33:05 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre) writes:

>> Cincinnati Bell has been offerring a service called 'the Talking
>> Yellow Pages' for a few years now.  You dial the number [phone]
>> and enter some four-digit codes to get weather reports, movie
>> listings, and such.

> Indiana Bell offers something similar, called "Touch Four". It's
> loaded with advertising, of course. It's also got me quite curious:
> What is it FOR?  It's not like the phone companies to offer a free
> service such as this just out of the goodness of their hearts. Two of
> the ideas I've come up with so far are:

    I'm sure Judge Greene would have long ago been in high dudgeon
if these were actually Baby-Bell-provided services.

    Here the {Seattle Times} provides such a free service, which is
heavily advertised both in the phone book and in (their) newspaper. It
is made abundantly clear, however, that this is *not* a service of
USWest, but rather a service provided by the Times (though I'm not
sure they don't use telco equipment to do it).

    It may be that Ameritech asserts that the service is actually
provided by the advertisers, not their telcos.


Jeff Carroll    [e-mail]

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

From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service
Organization: Consultants Connection
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 11:31:25 GMT


[e-mail] (Doctor Math) writes:

> Indiana Bell offers something similar, called "Touch Four". It's

I believe all Touch Four was was a response to the Talking Directories
people. They were selling lots of advertising space in their
alternative directory by showing how many people use their information
service. Since those numbers are only advertised in their directory,
people must be using it.

The RBOCs quickly followed up with an equivilent program.


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

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

From: Brett G Person  <plains![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone?
Date: 9 Aug 91 21:46:09 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND


My IBM Screen Reader control keypad has these extra keys on it.  When
I described it to a professor here at school, he said.: 'Oh yeah, like
the phones they use at AT&T.'

  He mentioned that the keys perform some extra internal functions.  I
assume maybe for connecting to an office intercom system, or something.


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

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

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 23:02:39 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice


  They also seem to have the phone speakers (43-278? ) on special.
Are these any good for limited use and not too noisy environment (i.e.
mainly hands-off use rather than group discussions)?

Thanks.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 15:17:40 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice


I have now called the demo line.  The "other" voices have a little
background noise -- enough to make someone knowledgeable get
suspicious?  If you already have a little girl's voice or the voice of
a deep bass of an adult man, how good does this voice disguising work?

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

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 20:15:59 -0700
From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: HELP!!!  Wanted: Just an Address!


This is not the first time I've posted this question, and please
excuse my redundancy.  However, there have been no replies, and the
address is quite needed.

Would someone please send me the address of PC Dialog, the makers of
PC based VOX mail cards?

Thank you.

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 #619
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00823;
          10 Aug 91 17:26 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13856;
          10 Aug 91 16:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31369;
          10 Aug 91 14:48 CDT
Date:     Sat, 10 Aug 91 14:02:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #620
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 10 Aug 91 14:02:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 620

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [John Higdon]
    Re: What RBOC Information Services? [John Higdon]
    Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? [Mike Morris]
    Re: Illinois Bell, Chicago Pay Phones, and Drug Dealers [Mike Morris]
    Re: Poor Abused Phreakers [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Long-Distance Across a Road [John Higdon]
    Re: Source For British Telecom Phone Boxes [Peter Thurston]
    Re: Telephony Subscription [Wayne D. Correia]
    Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service [Kenn Booth II]
    Talking Yellow Pages and General RBOC Ineptness [John R. Levine]
    Ringing Current For Old WE 300 Desk Set [Dave Dintenfass]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 01:53 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes?


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

> Despite my recent trip to California, I am not sure what the dialing
> requirements are in 714 and 619; 714 was split back in 1982, WITHOUT
> using N0X/N1X prefixes, to form area 619, and 714 STILL does not have
> N0X/N1X that I know of, although it has that new split (to form area
> 909) coming up.  Let me know of any clarifications/changes/additions.

The access code '1' is required everywhere in California with the sole
exception of the greater San Jose area within 408. 415 is the latest
area to adopt the "informal" prefixes and the necessity of dialing a
'1'. Since 408 is anything but overrun with telephone prefixes, it
will probably be some time before the '1' is required here. That is,
of course, unless the whole North American numbering plan changes.


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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 02:42 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: What RBOC Information Services?


Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]> writes:

> With high-volume circuits being
> available on IDSN, and with multi-user systems finding their way into
> homes, I bet you will find many hobbyists offering friends the use of
> spare cycles on their unix boxes, either for free or for very modest
> fees. If the RBOCs start selling computer service, they will look at
> this as competition and will find ways to strangle it.

This is a concern of mine on two fronts. (OK, you people who were
wondering just exactly what I do with sixteen lines -- here it is!) I
use my home computer in a sideline development of computer-based
devices (not related to my primary occupation). Since the system is
well-connected to the outside world, a number of my friends use it as
a source of news and mail. There is, of course, no charge to anyone
with an account on the machine.

The other machine (the test jig for the development) is a "party-line"
style system that is similar to various 900 services. Again, people
may call this system at no charge.

Now how do you suppose people at Pac*Bell would feel about all of this
if and when the company starts offering these very services? The first
attack would probably be on the pricing structure of the phone lines
feeding both computers. Others, who would try similar activities,
might find that there are new policies about the installation of
multiple lines in residences. Or that facilities in the neighborhood
are "inadequate" for the purpose of installing additional lines.


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

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep?
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1991 06:55:33 GMT


TELECOM Moderater noted:

> Whoever programmed the phone *forgot about 976*, although they did
> lock out 900. This is an AT&T COCOT, and after dialing 976-anything,
> the phone cuts through and rings the desired number ... without asking
> for any money at all!  I asked the lady who runs the laundry who
> should I contact about the phone (of course there was no ID of any
> sort on the phone itself). But she hates the customers, hates her job,
> hates the world and hates herself ... "I dunno nuttin about it", was
> her reply; and that's fine with me. :)   PAT]

I would have dialed the most expensive 976 there is about 20 times....
then left a note under the phone making comments about 10288, et al...


Mike Morris   WA6ILQ   | This space intentionally left blank.
PO Box 1130            |
Arcadia, CA. 91077     | All opinions must be my own since nobody pays
818-447-7052 evenings  | me enough to be their mouthpiece...

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell, Chicago Pay Phones, and Drug Dealers
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1991 06:46:41 GMT


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

> I also wonder whether the drug dealers are going to start using stolen
> lineman's test sets to use other people's phone lines without their
> permission or knowledge.

Why bother stealing them? New ones cost under $300, or you can build
them out of a trimline handset.  I did.


Mike Morris   WA6ILQ   | This space intentionally left blank.
PO Box 1130            |
Arcadia, CA. 91077     | All opinions must be my own since nobody pays
818-447-7052 evenings  | me enough to be their mouthpiece...

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Poor Abused Phreakers
Date: 10 Aug 91 15:15:39 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> [e-mail] wrote:

>> Have any of you with CID found that you can use it to determine
>> reliably when a telemarketer is calling?

At home, I have both Call*ID and Call*Block service.  It's certainly
true that a large number of telemarketers call from OUT OF AREA as
displayed.  But a surprising number of local businesses all contract
with the same outfit in Bound Brook, NJ to place those outbound calls
which feature a recording that tries to sell you something.  That
place seems to have two lines from which they place these calls.  I
have now added both of these numbers to the Call*Block list -- and I
get almost none of the local recorded pitch calls now.

I don't know when the inter-LATA calls will arrive with IDs but it's
probably not too many years away!


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: Thu, 8 Aug 91 11:12 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Long-Distance Across a Road


Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]> writes:

>     When annexation finally adjoins Redmond and Issaquah, or when
> a new city is formed in this location, city limits will almost surely
> not coincide with the telephone exchange boundaries, nor with the
> school district boundaries (which are controlled by the state and
> completely independent of local municipalities). There are already
> many phones within the city of Bellevue connected to Redmond
> exchanges, and some phones within Redmond connected to Bellevue USWest
> exchanges (the area I'm talking about is just west of Microsoft HQ).

The issue of city vs telephone exchange bondaries and the attendant
discrepancies has been a fact of life in many areas for some time. I
am sure that there are many in southern California that can top any
situation, but even here in relatively quiet Bay Area you can find
cases where it is a toll call within city limits (or at least was in
the recent past).

San Jose is divided into three separate local areas. Calls across area
boundaries are considered "local", but due to the complex boundary
shapes there are some interesting local/toll anomalies. Campbell, an
incorporated city almost completely surrounded by San Jose has its own
telephone exchange district. Before the "zone 2 reclassification", it
was a toll call from Campbell to the San Jose east side (San Jose 1).
However, it was local from San Jose 2 (central/west) to San Jose 1.
This meant that people ten miles farther west than Campbell people
could place a local call rather than a toll call.

Also, since there are many Campbell prefixes in San Jose (and
visaversa), it was actually a toll call for some in San Jose to call
the edge of town. Because of the weird shapes of the districts, there
are plenty of inequities. A caller in the Cupertino hills on the west
side of the valley can make a local call to the Lick Observatory on
Mt.  Hamilton (on the east side of the valley), but a caller in Willow
Glen (just south of central San Jose) pays a hefty toll to call
Sunnyvale, which touches San Jose to the north; or Morgan Hill which
touches San Jose to the south. In other words, a twenty-mile call can
be local, while an eight-mile call can carry a significant per/minute
charge.


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


[Moderator's Note: That's what makes the Illinois Bell scheme for
northern Illinois so great. All city boundary lines and area code
boundaries are ignored. Everyone gets about eight miles in every
direction as their 'local' area. We get everything in our own CO, and
the COs which directly connect with our own. Those calls are untimed.
The next level out is the 'B' zone, then 'C' and 'D' zones follow.
Everyone's level of zones begins with themselves at the center or
starting point. Couldn't be fairer!  PAT]

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

From: Peter Thurston <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 11:36:29 +0100
Subject: Re: Source For British Telecom Phone Boxes


Brian ([e-mail]) writes:

> BT are set to put up their charges by an average of 5%, although some
> international calls are supposed to drop by 20%.  Bet it's not calls
> to the US !!

I understand that calls to the USA (and Australia/Japan/New Zealand I
think) will be lowered by about 17%. There will be discounts on bills
over 100 pounds (not sure if this is before or after rental), and a
new discount plan will be announced later -- basically giving a lower
call charge in return for a higher rental.


Peter Thurston

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

From: "Wayne D. Correia" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephony Subscription
Date: 10 Aug 91 07:54:15 GMT
Organization: Wayne's World!


Telephony is not worth bothering with. It is a content-free management
journal that provides me of little or no value.

I subscribed, but not again.

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

From: Kenn Booth II <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service
Organization: Micro-Data Consultants
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 16:59:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken
Jongsma) writes:

> The RBOCs quickly followed up with an equivilent program.

As far as I know, Ameritech had a Touch Four(tm?) service in the Grand
Rapids books here about a year before I ever even heard of the Talking
Directory.

I may be wrong, but I work part time in an Answering Service, in the
Ameritech Paging Services building, and we usually get about 30-40
copies of each book, as we tend to go through them rather quickly.

Can't speak for other areas though ... >shrug<


                Kenn "Jazz" Booth II --- Micro-Data Consultants
                [[e-mail]]       [[e-mail]]
                [...!uunet!mailrus!sharkey!{wybbs|entropy}!...]


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

Subject: Talking Yellow Pages and General RBOC Ineptness
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 9 Aug 91 14:59:12 EDT (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> Indiana Bell offers something similar, called "Touch Four". It's
> loaded with advertising, of course. It's also got me quite curious:
> What is it FOR?

There was such a setup in Boston a few years ago, but not from the
phone company.  An independent outfit sent out a competing "talking
yellow pages" book in which most ads had a four digit code you could
dial to their computer.  It sank without a trace.  Clearly the plan
was that the announcement you got would tell you about special offers
and such, but for nearly all of them the announcement never changed
and told you nothing of interest beyond what was already in the phone
book.  At least it wasn't done by New England Tel, so they're not
going to try to raise phone rates to cover its losses.

As to what the phone company has in mind, I offer the following items
mentioned in a recent {Wall Street Journal} article:

 -- NYNEX bought a chain of computer stores, managed them poorly, and
ended up selling them to a competitor at a large loss.

 -- Southwestern Bell tried publishing yellow pages around the
country, never made any headway against the local phone companies,
lost a lot of money and gave up.

 -- US West got into the real estate development business, lost a lot
of money, and is in the process of trying to leave it.

There are lots more such stories, e.g. New England Tel tried a gateway
in Massachusetts for various computer services which failed miserably.
They claim that it's because they weren't allowed to provide content.
Some of us observe that over half of the population of the state live
in places where it can be a free call to Boston, and that any service
such as NYNEX's which has a per-minute charge is never going to fly
when all of the providers have POTS numbers in Boston.

It appears that voice response yellow pages is another such
boondoggle, offering a service which nobody really wants, wasn't well
researched, and will eventually die after losing a lot of money.

This to me says why it is a particularly bad idea to allow the RBOCs
to offer enhanced services related to the phone network.  They will
force all of the competitors out of business, either by underpricing
them or more likely by making the hooks to the phone network work in
ways that nobody but the telco themselves can use.  (We are already
seeing the latter as third-party voice mail services try and get the
hooks they need for forward on no answer and stutter dial tone.)  Then
the RBOCs will botch it, leave the business, and we subscribers will
be left with nothing.


Regards,

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

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

From: Dave Dintenfass <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ringing Current For Old WE 300 Desk Set
Date: 7 Aug 91 23:41:25 GMT
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA


Among other assorted hobbies, one of my interests is restoring old
telephones -- specifically, Western Electric 500 and 300 desk sets.
Several years ago, I cleaned up a plastic 300 desk set and gave it to
a friend of my wife's.  Although the phone worked just fine at my
house (where I tested it beforehand), it would never ring when I
installed it at the friend's house.  As it was her only phone, she
missed a number of phone calls (!).

I went over to investigate but could find nothing wrong.  I could call
out on the phone just fine.  Finally, we hooked up an extension phone
(a 500 set, I think it was) so she would have at least one phone that
rang.

I have installed 300 desk sets in a number of other places and have
never had this problem elsewhere.  I suspect the model 300 ringer
requires more current than the model 500, and that her central office
could not supply the required amount of ringer current.

Anyone had this problem?


Dave (and what a fine telephone the Western Electric 300 is!)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #620
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03991;
          10 Aug 91 18:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04575;
          10 Aug 91 17:11 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13856;
          10 Aug 91 16:01 CDT
Date:     Sat, 10 Aug 91 14:50:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #621
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 10 Aug 91 14:50:13 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 621

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Columnist Berates Telecom Miniaturization [Wash. Post via Bill Berbenich]
    Tracing the Old Fashioned Way [John Boteler]
    USOC Standards [was Re: ISO Standards] [Joe Stein]
    Third Party Providers Thrown Out [Dave Niebuhr]
    Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Dave Niebuhr]
    1-800 Call First Line of Defense [Globe and Mail via Nigel Allen]
    Cellular Phone System Manufacturing [Thang Do]
    Survey Wanted on Local Exchange Systems [Thang Do]
    Mitel Posts Loss [David Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Columnist Berates Telecom Miniaturization
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 17:40:47 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Get a load of this recent {Washington Post} story.  I'll save my
comments for the end of the posting.

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

Motorola Proves That Smaller Isn't Necessarily Better
By MICHAEL SCHRAGE

    As a feat of American engineering prowess, Motorola Inc.'s new
7.7-ounce MicroTAC telephone - the smallest cellular phone ever - is
worth calling home about. Alas, as a symbol of hand-held haute media
couture, it's a disconnect.

    Although engineers may take great pride in their abilities to
miniaturize, portabilize and personalize electronic media, simply
shrinking circuitry is a lazy, style-empty approach to creating
innovation. Motorola's engineers may be brilliant, but its designers
aren't.

    Beyond a certain point, personal media such as telephones,
computers and planners aren't just functional objects anymore --
they're fashionable accessories. You don't just use them -- you wear
them as part of your daily media wardrobe. Our media should fit us as
comfortably and stylishly as a custom-made suit or a favorite tie.

    Have you ever tried to talk into one of these hand-helds? Folks
who use these palm-sized cellular phones generally look like twits
talking up their sleeves. The traditional notion of a "phone" as
something you hold in your hand and speak into becomes silly.

    How much more elegant for the executive woman on the move to have
a tiara-style headset that frees the hands for note taking or a cup of
coffee? Men wear "power" ties; which style and color are tomorrow's
"power headsets"? If Sony Corp. were designing cellular phone
fashions, you could be sure the phones could be worn ala the
Walkman, not just something you carried around in your pocket. The
challenge here isn't just clever engineering; it's captivating design.
It's figuring out what the best design metaphor should be.

    Computers by Cardin? Interfaces by Armani? Ralph Lauren's Casual
Multimedia Look for Men? Why not? Clothes blend functionality with
fashion. So do those state-of-the-art digital watches. We should be
able to wear our computers and television sets as comfortably and
casually as we wear our watches.

    Maybe high-bandwidth antennae will be woven into our jackets and
touch-sensitive panels could be stitched into our sleeves as we choose
to make our media fit us instead of the other way around. The goal is
not to recreate Maxwell Smart's shoe phone -- it's to offer a media
wardrobe that's tailored to our media style. People already pay a
premium for Waterman and Mark Cross pens -- ink-based media that offer
far more fashion than function. So why wouldn't they pay a premium for
a wardrobe that delivered far more bang for the buck?

    Look at the athletic shoe business. Nike Inc. and Reebok
International Ltd.  have succeeded precisely because they've figured
out how to meld the lust of fashion with the need for performance.
Their shoes are loaded with "innovative technologies" like pumps and
gels. These companies don't make shoes; they create lifestyle
technologies. Why shouldn't a telephone or a computer be designed with
that idea in mind? Maybe Motorola and Sony have a lot more in common
with Nike and the high-tech shoe companies than they now realize.

    Today, nobody thinks twice when they see an executive in a $3,000
suit wearing a Sony Walkman or screaming into his BMW's car phone.
Perhaps it will seem just as natural for someone to sketch a digital
diagram on his or her IBM/Apple software sleeve to have it uploaded
into an office file by cellular modem. Perhaps power Ray Bans will be
equipped with the projection device made by Reflection Technologies
that gives the eye the illusion that a computer screen is hovering but
a foot away. Maybe Nintendo will offer a jacket-with-a-joystick that
lets you play games if you slip a cartridge in your sleeve. My gosh,
if we can have Coca-Cola Co. clothes, why not have a line of digitized
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. mensware that lets you resonate
with the frequency spectrum or catch "Casablanca" as you're standing
in line?

    The reality is that people already have personal media woven into
the fabric of their lives. How much of a leap is it to weave that
technology into the fabric of their clothes?

    Indeed, why shouldn't the well-tailored media wardrobe --
permitting easy computational management of integrated sound, text and
imagery -- become just as common as today's double-breasted suit? The
folks of the future who don't wear a phone or a computer in public may
seem as vulgar or poorly dressed as people who don't wear ties or
whose favorite textile is polyester. Instead of "All dressed up and no
place to go," tomorrow's lament will be "All dressed up and no data to
process."

    It's far too early to anticipate the differences between haute
media couture and the off-the-rack ready-to-wear media wardrobes that
will be selling at Kmart. On the other hand, it's not at all early for
the Motorolas and Sonys to start chatting with the Givenchys and Ralph
Laurens.

    Sure, people are interested in tools and functionality. But our
media are as much a reflection of our desired lifestyles as anything
else. Relentlessly smaller phones miss the point. So do smaller
computers and electronic planners.

    Is Motorola in the "portable telephone" business? Or is it really
in the business of creating new fashions for personal communications?
Will the Motorolas, Sonys and Matsushitas make devices we use to
communicate and calculate? Or will they also design the media
wardrobes we wear? My bet is that the media wardrobe companies will be
those that make a real killing in the business of pop culture.

 * Michael Schrage is a columnist for the {Los Angeles Times}. *

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

Obviously, Mr. Schrage has never seen the need to carry a portable
phone on a regular basis.  These smaller, lighter phones are just
perfect for stuffing into a jacket pocket on a business suit.  If they
are too big or weigh a lot then it makes a real noticeable sag.  I
think Schrage is barking up the wrong tree on this.  If it sells, sell
it!


Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab   |  Telephone:   [phone]
Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332    |
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill |  Group 3 fax: [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]         |           or: [phone]

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

Subject: Tracing the Old Fashioned Way
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 19:25:38 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


I heard a good one on the police monitor the other night.

A woman whose wallet was stolen received a telephone call supposedly
from the thief himself! In fact, she received repeated calls, enough
to motivate her to call the police.

The police units who arrived on the scene maintained an ongoing dialog
with the dispatcher, who had "telephone security" on the phone.
Security's instructions to the wallet-less woman were to "hang up the
phone and immediately pick it up and dial Star, then five-seven".

I thought to myself that this was a pretty forward-thinking telephone
security person on the phone (most places have no idea of how to
handle Call*Trace).

After several attempts at it, the police unit called the dispatcher to
report that the expected message was not heard, and instead they heard
a busy tone. CLASS had not been installed on her switch yet.

After even more delays and questions and answers, another inventive
police unit piped up on the air and told the woman to listen for the
sound of his siren on the phone when the next call came in -- he was
parked very near a coin station from which the suspect was placing the
calls. He would wait until he saw him place the next call, then hit
the button.

The phone rang, the siren was heard, and the rest is now recorded in
the annals of justice.


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

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

From: Joe Stein <sequent!techbook.com![e-mail]>
Subject: USOC Standards [was ISO Standards]
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 00:21:51 GMT


In a recent article (noted above), there was a question about ISO
standards.

One of the questions I have had for a long time is what is 'USOC' and
are any references available?


Joseph W. Stein - [e-mail]  -or-
[phone]   [e-mail] -or- [e-mail]
(voice)


[Moderator's Note: USOC = 'Universal Service Order Codes'. These were
the official names or titles for every possible type of service and/or
configuration you could get from the telco. When you asked for a
certain obscure feature or type of service, the Bell rep would
sometimes have to look in the USOC book to find the correct way to
write up the order.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1991 7:48:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Third Party Providers Thrown Out


Right after the breakup of Ma Bell and the arrival of the COCOTs my
local school district thought it would be a good idea to switch to one
of the 'others' and use the 'kick-back' to help lower the tab
collected via taxes.

That idea backfired royally when kids would call home either collect
or via credit card (no quarter) and mom and pop would get a nice big
service charge on their next bill.  I know since this hapenned to me
more than once.

Well, to make a long story short, the residents of said district hit
the ceiling at a school board meeting and forced them to switch back
to good-ole basic service with NYTel and AT&T.

So as I've found out, if enough people complain long and loudly enough
the powers that be will listen and do what the residents (taxpayers)
want.

By the way: each kid now has a minimum of one quarter on him/her at
all times to be used for the sole purpose of calling home.

As a side note as to how much this amounted to: about 10,000 kids in
the district with 5500 of them in 7th - 12 grades.


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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1991 8:08:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers


I was in my local Radio Shack the other day and when I went to pay for
the small item that I'd selected, the salesperson asked for the last
four digits of my phone number.  I refused and this person just keyed
in four digits.

Low and behold (and as if I didn't know what was coming next) a
screenful of names and address appeared based on these numbers.  The
salesperson then picked a number and a receipt was issued to a person
I don't even know.

At this point I complained that, if not illegal, it was unethical to
give out the name and address of anyone who appears in their ragsheet
flyer.  He said that maybe the person wanted the flyer but I told him
that maybe the person didn't know what R.S. was doing.

My feeling is that names and phone numbers SHOULD NOT EVER be given
out by merchants for any reason at all.


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


[Moderator's Note: Really I think your complaint is petty. The clerk
did not *give out phone numbers* as you contend. You really had no
business looking over at the terminal display since none of what was
on the screen concerned you anyway. Some RS dealers get around the
problem of recalcitrant customers who refuse to give their name by
keeping an account on the machine under 9999 for a 'customer' named
Cash Sale, whose address is that of the store. Obviously the clerk who
waited on you did not record the transaction correctly, but its hardly
the big deal you make it.   PAT]

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Aug 91 (17:00)
Subject: 1-800 Call First Line of Defense


 From a story in {The Globe and Mail}, Toronto (August 7, 1991, p. 1,
"1-800 Call First Line of Defense") about the Canadian Rangers, the
Inuit and Inuvialuit hunters who patrol the North on snowmolbiles for
the Canadian military:

by Miro Cernetig, The Globe and Mail

Sachs Harbour, N.W.T. -- If the tower of a foreign nuclear-powered
submarine breaks through the ice covering the Beaufort Sea, Earl Esau
knows what to do to protect Canada's sovereignity over the Arctic
archipelago.

Without firing a shot, he will sling his vintage Lee Enfield rifle
over his shoulder, head to the nearest telephone -- not always an easy
task on the tundra -- and dial a 1-800 number to his military
commanders to the south.

"They told us not to shoot," says Mr. Esau, a 31-year-old hunter from
Sachs Harbour, the most northern hamlet in the Western Arctic.

"They've got bigger guns than we do, eh," Paul Reddi says, sipping a
coffee in the local co-operative, the general store that feeds the
approximately 200 people who eke out a living on this rocky shore of
Banks Island, where musk ox and polar bear far outnumber the human
inhabitants.

[Discussion of Canadian sovereignity allegedly being violated by the
U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Sea six years ago, and cancellation
of plans to build a large Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker.]

Despite the incongruous image of Inuit stomping the ice pack for
submarines and armed with a rifle, 200 cartridges, and a 1-800 number,
the Canadian military makes no apology for the program, established in
1947 as a means of defending Canada's vast coastline.

"The program works like a bomb, says Brigadier-General Joseph Gollner,
commander of [Canadian Armed Forces] Northern Region Headquarters.
"Anywhere you want to go in the Arctic, put in your quarter, dial the
1-800 number and you'll get your quarter back."


Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario   NorthAmeriNet Host

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

From: [e-mail] (Thang Do)
Subject: Cellular Phone System Manufacturing
Organization: Vitalink Communications, Fremont, California
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1991 14:59:29 GMT


I was asked how many companies manufacture cellular phone systems. I
guess only about four companies in the world. But I'm not sure, can
anyone help me on this question?

Thanks.

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

From: [e-mail] (Thang Do)
Subject: Survey Wanted on Local Exchange Systems
Organization: Vitalink Communications, Fremont, California
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 16:25:46 GMT


I am looking for a study of all the local exchanges (central offices).
I hope there exists such a document in a magazine, Bell Tech journal,
etc.

I'd be very appreciative if anyone can point me to the source.

Thanks in advance.

My E-mail: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Mitel Posts Loss
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 91 17:12:00 EDT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton


Mitel reportedly lost $5.4 million (1st quarter ending 28th June)
compared to a loss of $3.1 million same quarter last year, on a
decline in revenues from $100.2 million to $87.9 million. Mitel
earlier announced the closure of its Boca Raton, FL office and moving
it to Reston, VA cutting 195 jobs in the process. (Courtesy of
{Sun-Sentinel})

replies: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #621
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17247;
          11 Aug 91 0:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29746;
          10 Aug 91 22:32 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13698;
          10 Aug 91 21:19 CDT
Date:     Sat, 10 Aug 91 20:37:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #622
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 10 Aug 91 20:37:06 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 622

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Wildcat! BBS Software Does *NOT* Have Back Doors [Ken Sprouse]
    Prodigy Offers New Software [Steve M. Kile]
    Cancelled Checks (was: SPRINT PLUS is Basic Service) [Lars Poulsen]
    Caller*ID Draws Opposition in NY [UPI, via Bill Berbenich]
    When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Paul McGinnis]
    Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires [Roger Haaheim]
    Re: Columnist Berates Telecom Miniaturization [Nick Sayer]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Mike Beede]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Greg Kemnitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Wildcat! BBS Software Does *NOT* Have Back Doors
Date: 9 Aug 91 08:27:25 EDT (Fri)
From: Ken Sprouse <[e-mail]>


Pat,

I read an article in the telecom group on Usenet and it caused me some
concern.  It claimed that the Wildcat!  bulletin board software had a
"back door" built into it that would allow the author to gain SYSOP
level access at his discretion.  I use the Wildcat! software at work
for one of our customer user groups and have to deal with some
management types that are paranoid about security.  Needless to say I
was not happy at the prospect of being asked about this (first I've
heard of it) and not having an answer.  So I dialed up the Wildcat
Sysop BBS and left a message including a copy of the article.  A few
hours latter I got a phone call from Jim Harrer the author of Wildcat!
telling me that he had gotten my message and had left a reply for me
on his system.  As you can see from his reply below he says there is
no truth in the story that there is a "back door" into his software.

I asked him why he thought such a story would be floating around and
he told me that several months ago the FBI had run a sting operation
to catch pirate BBSs that were used for exchanging commercial software
products whose copyright prohibited their distribution.  He said that
Mustang Software (the makers of Wildcat!) had donated several
registered copies of the Wildcat!  BBS program for use in the
operation.  I'm not quite sure if they were to be used as bulletin
boards or as uploads of a registered product.  Jim said that Novel had
also contributed several copies of NetWare 386 free of charge for the
same purpose.  He told me that the there had been a story in PC Week
about the operation but I had not seen it.  Has anyone else?  He feels
that some people were upset with Mustang Software's cooperation with
the FBI in this matter and that is why the rumors have been spread
about Wildcat! having a "back door".  Jim is making a monetary offer
to anyone who can break his software (again, see below) so he must
feel confident about it.

I told Jim on the phone that I would mail you a copy of his reply to
me and ask that it be published in the Digest, so here it is.

   From   : JIM HARRER (President)      Number    : 2937 of 2939
   To     : KEN SPROUSE                 Date      : 07/24/91 9:23a
  Subject : Comment 07/24/91            Reference : 2936
   Read   : 07/24/91 10:04a

X-Telecom-Digest: Vol 11, Issue 535, Message 5 of 11

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

->> "Wildcat is one of the few bulletin board systems commercially
->> available.  There's a lot of bulletin board software in the public
->> domain, Hutchins says, but most isn't `trustworthy.'  `When I made
->> proposal, the first thing that everybody asked was what about
->> hackers?" he recalls. But Hutchins and users such as the Internal
->> Revenue Service appear to trust the extensive safeguards in Wildcat ..

Michael P. Deignan replied:

-> Apparently, Mr. Hutchins isn't aware
-> of the "back door" the authors'of Wildcat! BBS put into their
-> software, which allows the authors to obtain complete Sysop privledge
-> on any Wildcat! system at their mere whim.  This "back door" has
-> purported to have been used to turn in several pirate BBS systems
-> operating the Wildcat! software, where the author slogged in and
-> discovered copyrighted software on the BBS.  Several BBS's in the Rhode
-> Island area which also run the Wildcat!  software have been "examined"
-> in this manner, although none of them were closed down since they were
-> all above-board operations.

-> Michael P. Deignan
-> Domain: [e-mail] UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd
-> Telebit: [phone]

Mr. Deignan doesn't know what he is talking about.  WILDCAT! has NEVER
had a Back Door and NEVER will.  I don't believe in Back Doors for any
purpose. We have worked hard to build a premium BBS and would not
jeopardize this five year effort by placing a BACK DOOR in our
product.

Our product has been approved for use by the IRS and other Fortune 100
companies and government organizations, what would we gain by adding a
BACK DOOR?  As for calling other BBS to examine if they're "above
board", do you honestly think we have time to call any of the 8000+
WILDCAT! BBS's throughout the World?  Give me a break!  I barely have
enought time to read the several hundred messages daily on our system
and WILDCAT! Echo's each day and still find time to code and run a
growing company.

Mr. Deignan owes us an apology.  I don't know where he came up with
this idea, but it's clearly irresponsible to make these kinds of
acquisitions without proof.

If anyone would like to talk about this subject, I can always be
reached at 805/395-0223.


MUSTANG SOFTWARE, INC.

Jim Harrer
President/CEO

P.S.  Please post this reply freely.

                     ---------

Well, there you have it.  I would be interested in any comments the
readers have on this matter.  Thanks for your time.


Ken Sprouse

[e-mail]   Ham radio N3IGW   GEnie mail ksprouse


[Moderator's Note: And *thank you* for taking the time to hunt down
the facts in the case and forward them to us.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Prodigy Offers New Software
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 12:08:37 PDT


LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A., 1991 AUG 9 (NB) -- The Prodigy
Interactive Personal Service, an electronic, interactive computer
service, is offering a free software disk to fix member concerns more
than anything else.

Prodigy is offering the disk to "...alay concerns that it was invading
the privacy of people who use its electronic information and shopping
service," reported the {Wall Street Journal}.

Prodigy users had discovered files created and accessed by Prodigy,
specifically STAGE.DAT and CACHE.DAT on their hard disks contained
information they had never offered Prodigy. Though the information was
in pieces, users became alarmed.

The {Wall Street Journal} reported these "snippets" of information
could theoretically be peered at by Prodigy.

Prodigy says the problem is an unintentional one, and occurred because
of a fluke in the operating system IBM and compatible computers use,
and was not anything Prodigy had caused. The company vehemently denies
it did or ever had any intention of invading the privacy of users.

The free software disk is a program to erase any old personal
information that might be in Prodigy files and to prevent new
information from accumulating there, the company said.

The {Wall Street Journal} reported Prodigy as saying the accounting
firm of Coopers and Lybrand had audited the service, confirmed its
privacy safeguards and has provided a letter to that effect.

Prodigy said members can get information by calling Prodigy Membership
Services at [phone], or while on Prodigy, jump to TECHTALK.

Prodigy is a joint partnership between Sears and International
Business Machines (IBM), and reportedly has over one million members.

(Linda Rohrbough / 19910809 / Press Contact: Prodigy Customer
Service, Tel: [phone])

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cancelled Checks (was: SPRINT PLUS is Now Their Basic Service)
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 20:09:49 GMT


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

> [My bank years ago] told all the old customers that "to reduce the
> inconvenience and storage space required for cancelled checks" they
> were going to stop sending you cancelled checks unless you wrote them
> a letter immediately.  Years later, I'm still getting my cancelled
> checks, but I'm locked into my current bank.  If I ever switch to
> another bank, I'll never see another cancelled check.

In the interest of dispelling rumors, even unrelated to TELECOM:

Actually, this is not true. The only "bank" that I do business with,
that does not return cancelled checks is the AEA credit union. Home
Savings of America merrily sends me a couple hundred cancelled checks
every month.

In my native Denmark, on the other hand, I have never seen a cancelled
check returned. If they ever did return them, it was over 30 years
ago.

Followups to misc.consumers only, please.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Caller*ID Draws Opposition in NY
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 17:34:57 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


The following article appeared on the UPI wire recently.

By CINDY CHIN

   ALBANY, N.Y. (UPI) -- A state consumer agency Tuesday said Caller
Identification, which allows telephone customers to see the number of
the person calling them before they answer, may be violating the
state's electronic eavesdropping law.

   Caller I-D customers can use special devices to see where the calls
originate without the caller's prior consent.

   Consumer Protection Board Executive Director Richard Kessel said
the Public Service Commission should bar New York Telephone from
offering Caller ID without adequate safeguards.

   "The Caller ID proposal would violate the state privacy law which
guarantees callers the right to control who receives their number,"
Kessel said.

   New York Telephone has proposed a plan whereby callers can dial a
prefix number to block the Caller ID. But Kessel said callers should
be allowed to have all their calls blocked from the service, without
having to dial a special number.

   However, New York Telephone officials said Caller ID would not be
violating state law.

   "The blocking prefix meets everybody's privacy concerns and with
the free per-call blocking service the caller can control the
situation," said Peter Muller, a spokesman for New York Telephone.

   "Caller ID can enhance privacy because customers can protect
themselves from obscene or prank phone calls," Muller said.

   According to Muller, if Caller ID is approved by the PSC, it would
immediately be available in the Hudson Valley area including Newburgh,
Kingston, and Poughkeepsie.

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

Same play, different players.


Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab   |  Telephone:   [phone]
Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332    |
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill |  Group 3 fax: [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]         |           or: [phone]

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: When is 310 Area Code Going Online?
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 13:26:48 PDT


Sometime ago, a friend at PacTel told me that the Westside area of Los
Angeles (west of La Cienega apparently) and Santa Monica were going to
be given a new area code -- 310. Anyone know when this is supposed to
happen? I was told last year it would take effect February '91, but
it's August '91 now and it still hasn't happened.

This source also told me that there were two main causes for the new
area code: too many people with cellular phones and too many companies
having direct dial to PBX extensions (i.e. instead of calling
something like xxx-7000 and asking to speak to x1321 you can now
direct dial the extension at xxx-1321).


Paul McGinnis / [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 12:55:25 pdt
From: Roger Haaheim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires


I have an old pulse dial phone I'd like to convert to the modular type
connector but I haven't the foggiest idea what to do with the extra
wire.  Seems I've seen a submission or two some time ago that
described how to do it.

Is there a FAQ list available?


[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly there is no FAQ file for telecom.
Maybe sometime someone will volunteer to write one up. Old issues of
the Digest are ftp'able from lcs.mit.edu.    PAT]

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

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Columnist Berates Telecom Miniaturization
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA
Date: 10 Aug 1991 22:26:30 UTC


[e-mail] sent along an article from the papers.

At this point, I reminised on a common joke from "Night Court."  Dan
Fielding has just made a sleazy come on to Christine, and she replies,
"You slimey so-and-so, you have no morals and no pride, do you?" Dan
replies, "So what's your point?"

And my reply to Mr. Schrage is the same - "What's your point?"  Is he
saying that those remarkable ideas he has had are bad or something?
Why? These questions are rhetorical, of course.  The answer is that
they aren't bad. Sony ought to hire Mr. Schrage and try to implement
some of those ideas.

My mother hides the TV whenever company comes over, and has the stereo
in a closet. I have a Sun 3/160 on proud display in my living room.
During Christmas parties, I run a little graphics program that makes a
blinking Christmas tree on the console. It almost seems like the
gender gap has come down to embracing new technology or putting up
with it.


Nick Sayer   [e-mail]
N6QQQ        209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

From: Mike Beede <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Organization: SCTC
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1991 00:01:52 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes:

[Article about Radio Shack revealing a screenful of customer
information deleted].

> [Moderator's Note: Really I think your complaint is petty. The clerk
> did not *give out phone numbers* as you contend. You really had no
> business looking over at the terminal display since none of what was
> on the screen concerned you anyway....]

Ignoring all other issues raised here, I think depending on the
politeness of all Radio Shack customers provides fairly weak security
for the aforementioned customer information.  The issue is not whether
Dave Niebuhr sees it, the issue is whether someone else, let's call
him Jim Rockford (;-)) sees it.  And yes, they didn't give out a phone
number -- in fact, that was what was provided ...


Mike Beede  SCTC   [e-mail]
1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100   Arden Hills, MN  55112  [phone]

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

From: Greg Kemnitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1991 17:25:27 -0500
Organization: K and K Systems, Minneapolis MN


> [Moderator's Note: Really I think your complaint is petty. The clerk
> did not *give out phone numbers* as you contend. You really had no
> business looking over at the terminal display since none of what was
> on the screen concerned you anyway.

> Obviously the clerk who waited on you did not record the transaction
> correctly, but its hardly the big deal you make it.   PAT]

Actually, the poster did not complain about giving out phone numbers,
as YOU contend.  He was clearly stating in more than one instance that
it was the giving out of the name and address that he objected to.  As
to the terminal screen, he would not have needed to look at the screen
at all for his complaint to be accurate and valid -- they print the
name and address on the receipt that they give to the customer!

This is hardly a petty complaint, and your remarks to the poster were
inappropriate -- especially in that they were broadcast to thousands,
rather than being submitted privately.

Perhaps an apology from you, in the same forum, would be appropriate?


Greg Kemnitz / K and K Systems / PO Box 47804 / Plymouth, MN 55447-0804
INET: [e-mail] / Voice:  [phone] / Fax:  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Perhaps an explanation from you as to why --
despite the circumstances being as you claim -- this is still not a
petty matter would be of more interest than an apology from me.   PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #622
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21731;
          12 Aug 91 3:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28591;
          12 Aug 91 2:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30680;
          12 Aug 91 0:59 CDT
Date:     Mon, 12 Aug 91 0:58:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #623
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 12 Aug 91 00:58:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 623

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Michael VanNorman]
    Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [John Higdon]
    Re: Talking Yellow Pages and General RBOC Ineptness [Sean Williams]
    Re: Tolled and Toll Free Services Around the World [Warren Burstein]
    Re: Email From Space [Robert Savery]
    Re: Another Proposed Tax [Michael Gersten]
    Information Wanted on Dutch Phone [Guy Hillyer]
    How Time Flies (was Radio Shack Phone Number Policy) [Bob Izenberg]
    What Number CLID Transmits [John Boteler]
    Phone Line Surge [Robert M. Hamer]
    Surveyors With Long Memories [Bob Izenberg]
    Where Can I Find Technical Information on Caller ID? [John Loram]
    International 800 Access [Bob Frankston]
    Help Requested - Panasonic KSU System [Rick Jaffe]
    U.S.-Canada Calling Cards [David Ash]
    Monitoring Soviet Transmissions [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards [Doctor Math]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael VanNorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1991 06:42:09 GMT


portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail] writes:

> Sometime ago, a friend at PacTel told me that the Westside area of Los
> Angeles (west of La Cienega apparently) and Santa Monica were going to
> be given a new area code -- 310. Anyone know when this is supposed to
> happen? I was told last year it would take effect February '91, but
> it's August '91 now and it still hasn't happened.

It goes in to effect November 2, 1991.  I believe that there will be a
six month period during which both 213 and 310 will work.


Mike

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

Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 01:15 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online?


portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail] writes:

> This [Pac*Bell] source also told me that there
> were two main causes for the new
> area code: too many people with cellular phones and too many companies
> having direct dial to PBX extensions (i.e. instead of calling
> something like xxx-7000 and asking to speak to x1321 you can now
> direct dial the extension at xxx-1321).

Your source at Pac*Bell conveniently omitted another large consumer of
telephone numbers: Centrex. It is really amusing to listen to Pac*Bell
people going on and on about pagers, cellular phones, and as you
mentioned above, DID while remaining silent about Centrex.

Also, while DID and Centrex both allow direct calling to individual
telephones at business locations, DID is much more efficient. Centrex
requires one pair (or its equivalent) for each and every telephone
station at the customer's premesis. DID, on the other hand, only
requires a limited number of trunks over which the calls are
concentrated.

So Pac*Bell's pride and joy, Centrex, not only uses up precious phone
numbers just like DID, it also uses up cable pairs. Funny your contact
did not mention this.


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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 17:12 GMT
From: Sean Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Talking Yellow Pages and General RBOC Ineptness


John R. Levine <[e-mail]> writes:

>> It appears that voice response yellow pages is another such boondoggle,
>> offering a service which nobody really wants, wasn't well researched, and
>> will eventually die after losing a lot of money.

In my area, voice response yellow pages is anything but a
"boondoggle".  We have two such services in competition here, and they
are prospering.  The first system was started in Harrisburg by WHP
Radio/TV in collaboration with the Donnelley Directory people.  The
second system, Talking Fingers, is run by United Telephone.  Both are
toll cals from my exchange, but I still call them frequently.

WHP's system is laced with commercials for local businesses and a
bunch of "900" numbers.  United's system has little (and sometimes no)
advertising.  Both companies do, however, let yellow pages advertisers
rent out numbers to be used in conjunction with yellow pages ads and
local TV and radio advertising.


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

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

Subject: Re: Tolled and Toll Free Services Around the World
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 13:32:36 IDT
From: Warren Burstein <[e-mail]>


I tried sending to the guy who put out the request for info, it
bounced.

In Israel, toll-free numbers are:  177-xxx-xxxx


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 16:27:26 cst
From: Robert Savery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs![e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a message of <26 Jul 91 12:42:22>, Scott Dorsey writes:

>  (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.

ROTFL!!

Perhaps they could use them as raw material for the space station!

Seriously, is there anyone here connected with the project? If so, I'm
curious as to why such a convoluted routing was used. It would seem
that there are dozens of easier, cheaper methods available.

See Ya!


Bob

msged 1.99S ZTC   [200:5010/666.5@Metronet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne.

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

From: Michael Gersten <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Proposed Tax
Organization: The Serial Tree BBS, [phone]
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 01:48:23 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
com (Jordan M Kossack) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 611, Message 3 of 8

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

>> I think that both should be unconstitutional under the First
>> Amendment because essentially a tax is an abridgement of free speech.

> Books are taxed.  Does this also violate free speech?

Books taxed? Where. Show me.

Oh, are you refering to the sales tax on books? That's different.
Thats not a tax on books, but a tax on purchasing things. Nothing
discriminitory about that. Now, if they were to say "books have a
sales tax of 20%, others are 7%" then that would be discriminitory,
and unconstitutional.

The big problem is that we actually have this now. In LA, we now have
a sales tax on newspapers. But free newspapers are taxed based on the
costs of producing them.

So, if you want to run off 100 copies of something on your laser
printer and distribute it, boy, pay the government its fee even if you
wanted to give it away free.

Now the government can lock up anyone who makes a "newspaper" and
distributes it for free.

<SIGH>

Michael    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 22:16:44 EDT
From: Guy Hillyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on Dutch Phone


I have an old black bakelite dial phone with the legend "Made in
Holland" on the bottom.  It also has metal badges on either side of
the case.  One of them has the letters "PTT" in a circle, while the
other is a bell with the word "STANDARD" underneath.

Inside, a schematic diagram appears on a paper label along with the
words:

    TAFELTOESTEL STANDARD MET AARDTOETS TYPE 1954 Htf 2211 BPZ

There is a small white button directly below the dial on the front of
the case.  Does anyone recognize this phone?  I'd be interested to
know its vintage (1954?) and of course I'm curious about the intended
function of the little white button, which does nothing anymore as far
as I can tell.


Thanks.


Guy Hillyer    [e-mail]

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

From: Bob Izenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Time Flies (Radio Shack phone number policy)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 22:02:16 CDT


In TELECOM Digest V11 #621, Dave Niebuhr wrote:

> I was in my local Radio Shack the other day and when I went to pay for
> the small item that I'd selected, the salesperson asked for the last
> four digits of my phone number.  I refused and this person just keyed
> in four digits.

Times (seem to have) changed since I worked at Radio Shack way back
when.  We were paid $3 each time we got somebody's address on a
receipt.  I don't know if it was official Tandy policy back then, but
all the stores in our district did it.


Bob

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

Subject: What Number CLID Transmits
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 19:45:19 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


The number transmitted via CLASS to your Calling Line ID display is
programmable.

A client of mine using CENTREX used to display station numbers; since
he changed some features and added some lines only the pilot number of
the CENTREX group is displayed.

Good and bad, depending.


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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 13:03 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Line Surge


Recently in the Digest, there was some discussion about power surges
that enter via phone lines rather than via power lines.  I had such a
surge recently which fried my modem, and looks like it also fried my
serial port.  (I got a new modem, which works on a different computer,
but not on my usual computer.  Same cord, too.)

I suppose this is only loosely telecom related, but considering that
the parallel port on the same card still works, does it sound like the
serial part of the card also got fried?  Mail-order houses sell I/O
cards at prices ranging from $65 or $15 for two serial / one parallel
port cards.  Does anyone have any idea if I need to buy the $65 card
or will the $15 card do.  (Of course the mail order houses claim that
their own cards will work great.)  Also, someone mentioned possible
surge protectors for phone lines.  Any suggestions for sources?

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

From: Bob Izenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Surveyors With Long Memories
Organization: Teenage Binge and Purgin' Turtles
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1991 18:36:24 GMT


I just got a call from a professional survey taker wanting to ask me
about how much sports I watch on TV.  He should have just asked for my
couch potato union card.  Having done this job in school and college,
I may answer their questions more readily than more worldly Digest
readers would think wise.  After telling him my discouraging truth,
that I watch college baskbetball live and treat golf telecasts like
relaxation tapes while I'm reading, he then saw something on his
screen.  "Oh, you're the Heineken drinker."  Sometime at least one
year ago (he thought that it might have been two) the same company
(and perhaps the same guy?) did a beer survey, which I also apparently
bellied up to.  He had the information right in front of him!  Never
mind that I've given up the slavish brand loyalty that ruled my East
Coast existence: I'll have a Shiner Bock these days, thank you very
much.  The next time they call, I'll be the Heineken drinker who
doesn't watch sports.


Bob Izenberg [ ] [e-mail]

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

From: John Loram <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Where Can I Find Technical Information About Caller ID?
Date: 11 Aug 91 22:48:10 GMT


Can anyone point me in the right direction? I would like to get hold
of the technical specification on Caller-ID, also know as Calling
number identification or CNI.

Thanks.


john

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

From: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: International 800 Access
Date: 10 Aug 1991 20:36 -0400


I have not tried this, but in "The Airline Passenger's Handbook" it
says that Credit Card Calling Systems, Inc provides credit-card access
to US 800 numbers.  Their US number is 1-213-323-8030 and can provide
local access numbers internationally.

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

From: Rick Jaffe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Requested - Panasonic KSU System
Organization: OTA Limited Partnership
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1991 15:55:15 GMT


We have a discontinued Panasonic VA-614 Key Telephone System and a few
extra phones from the smaller VA-412.

Can anyone tell me where to find extra telephones for either of these
systems?

Our vendor is no longer a dealer for Panasonic.  Those Panasonic
offices we've been able to reach have either refused to talk to us
because we aren't a dealer, or have told us we're out of luck.


Rick Jaffe

USMail:   OTA Limited Partnership, 101 N. Main, Suite 410, Ann Arbor, MI  48104
Phone:      [phone]    FAX:    [phone]
UUCP:      <backbone>!mailrus!leebai!rsj   Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: David Ash <[e-mail]>
Subject: U.S.-Canada Calling Cards
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 02:40:33 GMT


A couple of related questions:

1. Does anyone know of a long-distance U.S. calling card available to
people without a home phone which can be used for *domestic* calls
within Canada (where I travel frequently)?  My PacBell card used to
allow this, but since Stanford took over my on-campus phone service,
I've lost my PacBell card.  Neither my MCI nor Sprint cards work for
domestic calls within Canada, although they will allow U.S. - Canada
calls in either direction.

2. Is there a U.S. regular (non-800, non-950) number which will
connect a caller to the MCI network like 800-950-1022 or 950-1022?  My
theory is that I could then connect to this number from Canada, and
then through recursive use of the MCI calling card, call back to
Canada.  Of course, I'd be paying double, and have to dial a *lot* of
digits, but it might be worth it for short calls where calling collect
isn't appropriate.


David W. Ash   [e-mail]
HOME: [phone]  WORK: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Prior to the use of 950 and 800 numbers as
gateways, there were lots of regular numbers throughout the USA used
for access. Here in Chicago, Sprint had 312-876-0001 and MCI had
440-xxxx. Even after 950 started, the old numbers hung around and were
not turned off for a long time; but I tried the ones I remembered from
those days and they are all disconnected now.  Any still running?  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 20:52:59 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Monitoring Soviet Transmissions


Another new file in the Telecom Archives for your consideration is
devoted to the topic of monitoring Soviet radio transmissions. This
file tells where to listen, and how to do it from here in the USA.

See what you think, and send a note to the author with your comments
and questions, if any.  And as before, all files in the Telecom
Archives are anonymously ftp'able from lcs.mit.edu, or you may use the
mail/ftp server described here a few days ago.

The file name is 'monitoring.soviet.xmissions'.


PAT

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

Subject: Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards
From: Doctor Math <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 03:26:08 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department


> [Moderator's Note: Sometime please remind me to tell you of the time
> when Alfred Bloomingdale (former chairman of Diner's Club) had his
> wallet -- and personal Diner's Club card -- lifted by a prostitute ...
> I pulled it! <wink!> ... a good story if anyone wants to hear it.   PAT]

Cast my vote for "hearing" it.


[Moderator's Note: Well okay, but not here and now. I just finished
writing up my reminisences of twenty-plus years ago at Diners Club and
Amoco's credit card office. It turned out to be 19 K bytes! A bit long
even for an inveterate note-appender like myself ... and with very
little telecom relevance. I think I will post it in misc.misc under
the title "Alfred Bloomingdale's Diners Club" for anyone interested in
going over there to read it.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #623
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15346;
          13 Aug 91 5:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30132;
          13 Aug 91 3:32 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26559;
          13 Aug 91 2:17 CDT
Date:     Tue, 13 Aug 91 1:25:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #624
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 13 Aug 91 01:24:52 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 624

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Midtown Atlanta Hit by Mysterious Phone Outage [Bill Berbenich]
    Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle! [David Lemson]
    New Numbering Plan for France, 1995 [Nigel Allen]
    Telecom Experts Sought in Ohio Area [Bruce Klopfenstein]
    v25bis Specifications, Anyone? [Dave Williams]
    CLID/ANI to RS232 Interface [David L. Wilson]
    GTE Airphone and Data Calls [Tom Lowe]
    Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin [John Higdon]
    Tax on Books Unconstitutional? [Charlie Mingo]
    10BaseT Specs Wanted [David Weissman]
    Digitized Sound File Formats [Stephen Knight]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Midtown Atlanta Hit by Mysterious Phone Outage
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 17:14:33 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Starting at about 2:00 P.M. local time, from what I hear, much of
Midtown Atlanta (North of downtown / five-points area) phone service
was isolated from everywhere else.  I tried to call a few places
off-campus and always ended up with a reorder (fast busy).  My trusty
cellular could call everywhere I tried except Midtown, which would
give a "all circuits are busy" recording.  It did take my cellular a
few tries before it could get an open channel, though, so others were
doing the same as me.

No word yet on what caused the isolation.  The phones are working
better now, but I don't know if that's because they are running off a
backup or if the root problem was resolved.  I get occasional reorders
now.  I wish I didn't have to make so many calls today.


Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab   |  Telephone:   [phone]
Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332    |
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill |  Group 3 fax: [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]         |           or: [phone]

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 21:40:22 GMT


I read this on sci.space.shuttle:

[e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:

 From {Information Week}, August 12 (who got it from {Newsday},
August 6, p.5):

SPACE HACKERS

A test of electronic-mail between earth and laptops aboard the space shuttle
Atlantis was intended to lay the groundwork for use of E-mail on space
station Freedom.  But the test is in jeopardy after 80 E-mail messages
were received by the Atlantis crew from unauthorized users.  The leak
behind the E-mail address remains a mystery.

*Junk Mail In Outer Space*,

Joshua Quittner.

>> Peter J. Scott, Member of Technical Staff    |   [e-mail]
>> Jet Propulsion Laboratory,  NASA/Caltech     |   SPAN:  GROUCH::PJS

Now, who was it that leaked that??? Could it be???  USENET??? :-) The
power of Usenet, for you.  (Now I *have* to try to find that original
article where someone posted "Hey, everyone, try this e-mail
address!")


David Lemson   University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant
Internet : [e-mail]         UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson
NeXTMail : [e-mail]      BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD


[Moderator's Note: I humbly suggest it was an article which originated
here in TELECOM Digest which led to a longer article written by Joe
Abernathy in the {Houston Chronicle} (which was then re-printed here
in the Digest) which started the activity. Of course, I could be
wrong; my Socially Responsible readers over in eff.talk say I usually
am.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 18:04:47 PDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Numbering Plan For France, 1995
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto


France Telecom's employee magazine says that France's telephone
numbering system will be changed in 1995. No change for Paris, but
other parts of France will be divided into three or four zones. New
services, such as digital cellular, are using up the prefixes
available under the current numbering plan.

In other news, the Paris yellow pages will be split into a consumer
edition, {Vie pratique}, and a business/industrial edition. France
Telecom says the change was requested by 80% of the subscribers it
polled.

(By the way, Bell Canada's Toronto Yellow Pages has been split between
consumer and business/industrial editions for several years, but most
other Bell Canada Yellow Pages come in a single edition for a
particular geographic area. Actually, they aren't exactly Bell Canada
Yellow Pages; they're published by Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc., an
unregulated, wholly-owned subsidiary of Bell Canada.)

If you would like to receive a free subcription to {Messages}, the
employee house organ from which the French information came, write to:

     Messages
     Service abonnements
     20 avenue de Segur
     75700 Paris
     France

The magazine is published in French only, of course. It also serves
France's postal employes, and has run some interesting articles on
postal service in other countries.


Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Experts Sought in Ohio Area
Date: 12 Aug 91 14:30:42 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


I teach a senior/graduate student course at Bowling Green State
University called "Introduction to New Electronic Media."  The course
meets Monday nights from 6-9 PM starting September 9.  The purpose of
the course is to introduce the student to the telecommunications
technologies and services beyond traditional broadcasting and
newspaper technologies.  This includes fiber optics, satellite
transmission, digital audio broadcasting, high definition television,
personal communications networks, etc.

I would like to invite telecommunications professionals to present
technological topics of interest to the class.  There will be 15-20
students, generally without technical backgrounds.  I would be pleased
to discuss the class further with anyone who is interested in either
coming to campus or even setting up a teleconference.  Please feel
free to email me or call.  I need to start planning the topic dates
this week.

I'd be interested in any referrals as well.  Thanks very much.


Bruce C. Klopfenstein          |  [e-mail]
Telecommunications Department  |  [e-mail]
322 West Hall                  |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green State University |  [phone]; 372-2224
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  fax [phone]

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

From: Dave Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: v25bis Specifications, Anyone?
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson, Tx
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 19:23:30 GMT


Thanks.

[e-mail] || [e-mail]  [phone]
David Williams    Ericsson Network Systems   Richardson, TX 75081
                These opinions are my own.

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

From: "David L. Wilson" <encore.com![e-mail]>
Subject: CLID/ANI to RS232 Interface
Date: 12 Aug 91 20:37:58 GMT
Reply-To: "David L. Wilson" <encore.com![e-mail]>
Organization: Encore Computer Corp, Marlboro, MA


I have seen a number of posts describing companies that make a
CLID/ANI interface to PC's, but I foolishly deleted them.  Could some
enlightened person e-mail me with information on one or more of these
companies?


Thanks,

Dave Wilson    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Aug 12 08:06:27 EDT 1991
Subject: GTE Airphone and Data Calls


I recently acquired my AT&T Safari Notebook Computer, complete with
built-in error correcting 2400 baud modem (MNP5).  In addition I
bought an acoustic coupler designed to work with regular modems.  It
plugs in where you would plug in a phone line.  Made by a company
called CP+, Inc (Computer Products Plus, Inc.) at 800-274-4277.

They claim you can use it from Pay Phones, Cellular Phones, Hotels,
etc.  Ideal for places that have phones you can't plug your modem into
directly.

Anyway, on a recent flight I was on, there happened to be a GTE
Airphone.  I couldn't resist the urge to see if this device would work
at 30,000 feet.  I made a regular voice call to see what the
connection was like and it was pretty bad.  The other party and I
could hardly hear each other.  Then I connected my coupler and dialed
an error correcting modem.  I dialed manually ... didn't try to see if
I could use the modem to send the touch tones.  The first call I was
too slow to type in the command line (it was long because I had to
turn on the MNP mode) so it didn't connect.  The second call
connected, but not in MNP mode ... lots of garbage on the line.  The
third try, I connected successfully and logged in.  I was on for about
two minutes when I lost carrier.  I could probably play with some
parameters on the modem to prevent that, but I was happy just logging
in.  I can't wait till I get the bill!  (Four dollars first minute,
two dollars each additional).

I only tried 1200 baud.  I didn't bother with 2400 baud.  I couldn't
get 2400 to work with my AT&T cordless phone at home, so I didn't
think I would have much luck with the Airphone.  I haven't tried it
from a Cellular phone yet, but I would guess it will work just fine,
at least at 1200 baud.


Tom Lowe    AT&T Bell Labs   Holmdel, NJ 908-949-0428    attmail!tlowe

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

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 20:40 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin


"Pacific Bell wants to be more than a telephone company," proclaims an
article in today's {San Jose Mercury}. (It is debatable whether it is
even a phone company, but that is a horse to be whipped elsewhere.)
Pac*Bell would like to be in the information business by the end of
next year.

The services? Here are the five main categories:

* Enhanced Voice Mail

* Enhanced Fax

* Transaction Processing

* Radio Location

* Electronic Yellow Pages

First, it should be pointed out that Pac*Bell is currently doing an
intensive marketing study to find out what would sell and how much can
be gouged for it. "... the company is surveying Message Center
customers to see what type of information they'd like to receive and
how much they'd be willing to pay." Somehow it seems a little
disconcerting when a monopoly prices services according to what the
market will bear.

Some of this article should make anyone's hair stand on end. For
instance, Pac*Bell would like to get into the automated ordering
business and sell the service to smaller businesses that cannot afford
systems themselves. "The Pac Bell computer would keep a record of each
customer's buying preferences. A customer who notifies the system of
an impending wedding, for example, might get mail or phone messages
offering special deals from caterers, photographers and tuxedo rental
shops." Just what we all need, no?

Pac*Bell built the "International Teletrac" system, which is similar
to the "lojack" stolen car retrieval system. "Pac Bell built
Teletrac's radio network but can't directly operate the Teletrac
service. If the restrictions on information services are lifted, Pac
Bell intends to exercise an option to buy International Teletrac."
Gee, that is all really wonderful, but the crossbar serving my
regulated monopoly-provided telephone still cannot even do Call
Waiting. How about thinking about us regulated ratepayers before
leaping off into that Brave New World, Pac*Bell?

"Numerous attempts in the last decade to sell information services to
a mass audience have failed. Knight-Ridder Inc., publisher of the {San
Jose Mercury News}, lost $50 million in the early '80s with a home
information service called Viewtron; Times-Mirror Co., publisher of
the {Los Angeles Times}, also mounted an expensive, unsuccessful
effort." It is comforting to know that if Pac*Bell loses millions in
its information services, the stockholders will be protected. The
money will just come from all of us ratepayers.

If anyone enjoys the prospect of having one huge company having direct
control over many aspects of people's daily lives, he should be
feeling really good right about now. It looks like Pac*Bell will be
taking good care of us in very short order. And with money we thought
was supposed to be used to provide us with basic phone service, at
that.


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

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Aug 91 13:51:21
Subject: Tax on Books Unconstitutional?


In the TELECOM Digest, [e-mail] writes:

> Books taxed? Where. Show me.

> Oh, are you refering to the sales tax on books? That's different.
> Thats not a tax on books, but a tax on purchasing things. Nothing
> discriminitory about that. Now, if they were to say "books have a
> sales tax of 20%, others are 7%" then that would be discriminitory,
> and unconstitutional.

   Oh really? How about the 3% federal tax on phone service (local and
long distance)?  There's no equivalent federal sales tax on any books,
newspapers, mail or most other goods.  Looks "discriminitory" to me.

   I can find no case where a tax has been found unconstitutional
simply because it was levied discriminatorily against books or other
media.  Generally, government regulation of the means of expression
will not violate the First Amendment if it is content-neutral and is
reasonably related to some substantial government interest.
(Metromedia v. San Diego, US S.Ct. 1981)

   Since raising revenue is recognized to be a substantial government
interest, and since the tax would not "eliminate [the medium] as an
effective form of communications," there is little doubt that moderate
taxes on books, cable TV or even free newspapers would pass
constitutional muster.

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

From: [e-mail] (WiseGuy)
Subject: 10BaseT Specs Wanted
Date: 12 Aug 91 16:58:28 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD, USA


Where can I find the specs for 10BaseT?  Do they exist in electronic
format anywhere?

Any help is appreciated.


Dave Weissman - Broadband and FDDI LAN Operations Group
Snail mail:                    NSI DECNET (SPAN) -  6153::DWEISSMAN
 Code 543.8                    NSI TCP/IP        -  dweissman@<128.183.112.2>
 Goddard Space Flight Center   SPRINTnet's X.400 -
 Greenbelt, Maryland 20771     (C:USA,A:TELEMAIL,P:GSFC,FN:DAVID,SN:WEISSMAN)

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

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 11:50:14 edt
From: Stephen Knight <[e-mail]>
Subject: Digitized Sound File Formats


Greetings,

    I would greatly appreciate it if anybody can provide information
on digitized sound file format standards.  My employer is considering
standardizing the sound file formats across several platforms (the
formats currently in use are proprietary and change from platform to
platform) and I'm trying to locate "industry standard" formats.

    Ideally, the format would (or be capable of modification to)
support:

    - multiple sample formats:  Mu-Law, A-Law and AD PCM samples are required
but it should not be limited to those (we might want to put Linear in, for
example).

    - text and non-text application specific information.

    - extendable non-sample information structure (ie; version 1
contains creator and date info, version 2 contains creator, date,
destination and comment.  A version 1 application encountering a
version 2 file should not break, obviously it would not be expected to
understand the extra info but should ignore it (skip, whatever).

    - platform independent, so that a byte level comparison would find
no differences regardless of the system storing it (ie; Mac vs. Unix
vs. IBM-PC).

    Email'ing replies would obviously be best.  Anybody who would like
to see the results of this query can send a request also, I'll be
happy to forward any information I receive.


steve knight    Computer Consoles Inc.
[e-mail]  716-482-5000 x2885

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #624
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15641;
          13 Aug 91 5:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30132;
          13 Aug 91 3:41 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26559;
          13 Aug 91 2:17 CDT
Date:     Tue, 13 Aug 91 2:00:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #625
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 13 Aug 91 02:00:23 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 625

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Email From Space [Byron Han]
    Re: Email From Space [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Carl Moore]
    Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Thomas Lapp]
    Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service [Douglas Martin]
    Re: Talking Yellow Pages and General RBOC Ineptness [David Hayes]
    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'Casters [M. Gersten]
    Re: Another Proposed Tax [Norman Yarvin]
    Re: USOC Standards [was ISO Standards] [Joe Stein]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Christopher Owens]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Byron Han <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Date: 12 Aug 91 06:27:32 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> ivgate!drbbs!robert.savery@
uunet.uu.net writes:

> In a message of <26 Jul 91 12:42:22>, Scott Dorsey writes:

>> (Lloyd W. Taylor) writes:
>> I think that NASA should take all the McIntoshes up into space.
>> And leave them there.

> ROTFL!!

What does ROTFL mean?

> Seriously, is there anyone here connected with the project?

Yes.  I wrote and designed most of the software on the Macintosh
Portable in orbit and on the ground involved with the establishment of
the data connection link

> If so, I'm curious as to why such a convoluted routing was used. It
> would seem that there are dozens of easier, cheaper methods
> available.

The nature of the A/G-2 link which was used required a half-duplex
connection.  Routing of A/G-2 via TDRSS to White Sands to Houston is
pretty much fixed.  Simple file transfer could simple be achieved by
having a Mac on the Orbiter talk to a Mac on the ground in Houston
Mission Control.  Extending the datapath out to AppleLink was done
simply to have a store and forward mail capability.  We just as easily
could have tied them into a UN*X mail system, but in the interests of
minimizing crew training time, a graphical front end to electronic
mail a la AppleLink was used.  Essentially, we went for minimum crew
training time and shortest development time.


Byron Han, Software Artisan      The Apple Culture (1977-1991) R.I.P.
Apple Computer, Inc.             ---------------------------------------------
20525 Mariani Ave, MS: 81NC      Internet: [e-mail]
Cupertino, CA 95014              AppleLink: HAN1  [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]            CompuServe: 72167,1664

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Date: 12 Aug 91 06:35:16 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Robert Savery) writes:

> Seriously, is there anyone here connected with the project? If so, I'm
> curious as to why such a convoluted routing was used. It would seem
> that there are dozens of easier, cheaper methods available.

Anyone at least peripherally familiar with the history and culture of
NASA will be quick to tell you that NASA is never interested in
easier, cheaper methods.  Complicated, expensive methods that justify
the existance (and budgets) of hordes of administrative personnel are
much preferred.  After all, if the US Government and people realized
that space travel could be much simpler and relatively cheap, then
most of them would be redundant.


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

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

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 9:31:50 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table


No, I wasn't COMPLAINING about it, but I did note that I don't see
them as a customer.  I had never heard of them before.

Yes, I have seen LATA lists in some Southern Bell call guides.  It's
not clear how the LATA codes became involved in this.

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

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 23:33:39 EST
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table


The table of LATA numbers made me think of a map that I have hanging
in my office which has the United States broken up by LATAs.  If
anyone else is interested in a copy of a map, I called the company who
made the one I have, and here's the scoop:

The map is available from CCMI (used to be part of McGraw-Hill, but
are no longer).  The map was updated in 1990.  They have two sizes of
the map available:

small: 8 1/2 x 11 -- $15.00 + 4.95 Shipping and Handling
large: 24 x 36 ----- $20.00 + 4.95 S&H

Address: Suite 1100
         11300 Rockville Pike
         Rockville, MD 20852-3030

Toll free telephone number is 800-487-4824, extension 250.  I spoke
with Karen VenDouern who said to request her if you are interested in
ordering.  (For those in Maryland, or outside the U.S., the other line
in is 301-816-8950.

Ob Disclaimer: I have no relationship to this company or its products
or services, and cannot speak to the service or satisfaction you may
or may not get from this company.


tom

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

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

From: Douglas Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 08:12:14 -0600


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

> In TELECOM Digest #616, Doctor Math <[e-mail]> writes:
> ...making the call to one of these talking yellow pages for 11c per
> minute.  I wonder what the legality would be of setting up a cut-rate

Interesting. Our (i.e. Edmonton's) "Talking Yellow Pages" are FREE,
since they're a local call (you dial 493-9000 and then enter a 4 digit
code when prompted). They have all sorts of touristy stuff, weather,
sports, horoscopes, etc., as well as codes to get info from any Y.P.
advertisers that choose to provide it. No idea what the advertisers
are charged, but the customers certainly aren't, and in comparing last
year's with this year's Y.P., it would appear to be popular -- lots
more codes this year.


[e-mail]     [e-mail]

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

From: David Hayes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Talking Yellow Pages and General RBOC Ineptness
Organization: sulaco
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 08:14:40 GMT


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

[ bunches deleted ]

> This to me says why it is a particularly bad idea to allow the RBOCs
> to offer enhanced services related to the phone network.  They will
> force all of the competitors out of business, either by underpricing
> them or more likely by making the hooks to the phone network work in
> ways that nobody but the telco themselves can use.  (We are already
> seeing the latter as third-party voice mail services try and get the
> hooks they need for forward on no answer and stutter dial tone.)  Then
> the RBOCs will botch it, leave the business, and we subscribers will
> be left with nothing.

Subscribers won't be left totally without. We'll be stuck with the
bill, in the form of increased local service rates. :-( Sure, the
regulations are supposed to keep regulated, monopoly business profits
from subsidizing unregulated lines of business, but the RBOCs are very
good at getting around such regulations.  After all, they have a
financial incentive to do so, while the regulators have none.


David Hayes    Professional Skeptic

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

From: Michael Gersten <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Organization: The Serial Tree BBS, [phone]
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 02:01:13 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Andrew Payne) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 617, Message 1 of 9

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

>> Why do we have so many essentially unregulated monopolies in this
>> country, such as local telephone and cable? There is a very simple way
>> to actually let the market regulate these monopolies. This also
>> applies to broadcast television, as there the number of stations is
>> fixed by nature, so the monopolistic effect still shows up.  Here's
>> how:

> Wait!  You cannot put telephone monopolies and cable
> monopolies in the same cart.  Telephone companies are far from
> "essentially unregulated" -- look at a tariff sometime.  In many cases,
> they have to file with the Public Utilities Commission just to wipe
> their nose.

Really? I disagree.

Over here there are a lot of extra features that Pacific Bell offers
that GTE either does not offer or charges a higher price for. Pac Bell
lists its bill with a section "PUC regulated charges" and "Unregulated
charges". THe presesnce of one unregulated charge in a monopoly is
enough to make it unregulated (my claim).

>> 3. If there is more than one such active application, then the current
>> company is not providing enough service for the buck, and would be required
>> to increase service or lose the contract.

>    How to you quantify "service for the buck"?  Regulators around
> the country would *love* the answer to that one.  Also, how do you
> switch from one cable company to another?  Does A move out and B move
> in? That takes a while.

I wouldn't define "service for the buck". I'd let the market decide.

Start with no restrictions. Get about 20 people clammering to offer
service. Require them to provide all local channels. Watch three drop
out (17 left). Require them to install or upgrade to a 65 channel
system.  Watch ten drop out (seven left). Require a maximum price of
$9.95 per month for basic. Watch five drop out. (two left). Require a
public access channel.  Watch the current provider say "no" while the
other one says "yes".  Kick out the current, and let the new one take
over.

Now, how does the current company change? Well, one way is to say that
whebn you put wires in, the government owns them, but the company must
maintain them. (i.e., the wires are a gift to the government for the
ability to broadcast). So when company A goes out, and B takes over, B
brings in the broadcast equipment (and A sells their old stuff, hmm,
they even have a ready market :-), and takes over. The wires don't
change.

Another way: Require the new company to pay an "assesed marked value"
for the old company -- the value of the wires, the equipment in the
office, etc, and then take over. Money would go to the shareholders of
the old company -- they are being bought out.

> The reason monoplies usually exist is because of some natural
> tendency, usually a huge investment.  In many areas like telephone,
> cable, sewage, etc, there's just not enough room for more than one.

Except that I don't belive this. Cable makes money. So much that there
are LOTS of people who try to get the cable contract. Are you telling
me that none of them would want to work in a two company town? Are you
telling me that none would be willing to buy out the existing one in a
one company town?

> One problem with unregulated monopolies is service
> availability.  When was the last time you ordered telephone service or
> electric service and were told: "we don't serve that area"?  Now, who
> has ordered cable and been told they were "outside the service area"?
> The phone company tariffs say they *must* provide service; cable
> companies often have no such requirement.  They provide service only
> where it is profitable for them to do so.

So make one requirement "You must offer service to everyone in this
area who asks for it." Allow charging extra for installation (the
phone companies can charge extra for installation; they hit me for
about $300 or so on my phones (four lines). Note that they also charge
for service startup.

Relevence to Telecom? Well, if you have GTE and Pac Bell trying to
offer service to the same people, we might just see better rates.


Michael     [e-mail]

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

From: Norman Yarvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Proposed Tax
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 19:40:53 GMT


[This is getting a bit far from telecom...]

[e-mail] (Michael Gersten) writes:

> The big problem is that we actually have this now. In LA, we now have
> a sales tax on newspapers. But free newspapers are taxed based on the
> costs of producing them.

> So, if you want to run off 100 copies of something on your laser
> printer and distribute it, boy, pay the government its fee even if you
> wanted to give it away free.

This situation points out a basic conflict between the constitutional
amendment (I forget which one) which allows the government to tax any
form of commerce, and the rest of the Bill of Rights.  For years the
government has been using tax policy (in the form of tax breaks for
some things, and heavy taxes for others) to 'implement social change'
 -- a most Breshnevian phrase.

If people would spend one quarter the effort on eliminating this as we
do on trying to profit from it, it could go away mighty quick.


[Moderator's Note: Thanks to others who contributed to this thread,
but it is too far afield to continue here. This final message has to
close the thread where telecom is concerned.    PAT]

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

From: Joe Stein <sequent!techbook.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USOC Standards (was ISO Standards)
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 19:31:28 GMT


Where can one get a copy of the USOC book?  I am curious as to what
all it covers, and even more so, now.

Thanks,


Joseph W. Stein - [e-mail]  -or-
[phone]   [e-mail] -or- [e-mail]
(voice)

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

From: Christopher Owens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 15:40:02 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave
Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes:

> [... Refused to give phone number to Radio Shack, and the clerk
> brought up some screen of customer names and randomly issued the
> receipt to one of those customers... ]
> My feeling is that names and phone numbers SHOULD NOT EVER be given
> out by merchants for any reason at all.

> [Moderator's Note: Really I think your complaint is petty. The clerk
> did not *give out phone numbers* as you contend. You really had no
> business looking over at the terminal display since none of what was
> on the screen concerned you anyway. [...]

Pat, I think you may have missed Dave's point.  The problem isn't that
the names and numbers appeared on some screen, it's that the employee
randomly picked an existing customer, recorded the sale in that
customer's name, and then handed Dave a receipt with that customer's
name, address, and phone number on it.

So we've got two problems here.  The first is that if someone buys a
couple of gro-lite timers at Radio Shack with cash, there's a chance
that the sale will get booked in my name, and the DEA will smash down
my door looking for the indoor marijuana farm the gro-lites must have
been for.  And the second problem is that the gro-lite customer may
really be a marijuana farmer, and when the DEA arrests him and finds
the receipt in his wallet, they'll smash down my door again.

Although my example may be a bit silly, I do agree with Dave that it's
inappropriate for Radio Shack to randomly give out the names,
addresses, and phone numbers of some of its customers to other of its
customers.


Christopher Owens
Department of Computer Science  1100 East 58th Street
The University of Chicago       Chicago, IL 60637
[e-mail]     [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #625
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06739;
          14 Aug 91 4:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23015;
          14 Aug 91 2:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05092;
          14 Aug 91 1:51 CDT
Date:     Wed, 14 Aug 91 1:21:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #626
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Aug 91 01:21:47 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 626

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Some Notes on CA "B" Roaming [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Phast Phood [Jeff Sicherman]
    We Need Your Voices! [Yeshwant K. Muthusamy via Tad Cook]
    Bell Technical Journals [Jonathan Anderson]
    Keeping Pace With the Competition (was: Directory Assistance) [David Gast]
    Getting Refunds On 900 Numbers [[e-mail]]
    Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone" [Nick Sayer]
    Australian Telephone Deregulation [David E. A. Wilson]
    Appropriate or Ironic? [mission![e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12-AUG-1991 03:42:13.84
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some Notes on CA "B" Roaming


A while back I posted on how the California "B" systems seemed to be
interconnected via their "Auto Access" *28/*29 system, and how this
was similar to certain interconnections in the Northeast which were
"DMXed" to each other.

It was suggested (I forgot who it mentioned it) that the reason for
the similarity was that many switches use Motorola EMX switches, which
pass a good deal of information on to other EMX switches, as to the
busy-status of caller, where they have their calls forwarded to, etc.

After a bit of experimenting, I came up with this chart.

All of the following is based on having "home" service with GTE/San
Francisco, but I see no reason why this shouldn't work with other
carriers as your "home" system, as long as they are in the CA/NV
"Auto-Access" system.

The "Busy" column indicates that if your phone is busy -- ie, you are
talking on it and don't have Call-Waiting, or if someone is ringing
you (directly or via most CA/NV roam ports) and you have not yet
answered -- then calls to the specified port will also return a busy.

The "Follow Me/CF" column indicates that if someone calls you via the
specified system's roam port, and you have activated Follow Me Roaming
or Call Forwarding (*72, not sure about *71), the port will forward
calls as well, even if the port is not your home system's port.

Thus:

 System           Port#    Switch-type    Busy        FMR/CF
 ------           -----    -----------    ----        ------

Santa Barbara (805-680) Motorola    Yes        Yes

San Louis OBP (805-441) Motorola     Yes        Yes
          (both ports page either system as well)

San Diego     (619-540)    Motorola    Yes        Yes

Stockton/Modst(209-439)    Motorola    Yes        No

Bakersfield   (805-838)    AT&T        No        No
          (not to my knowledge an "Auto Access" system)

Fresno/Visalia(209-246)    AT&T        No        No
          (Ditto Bakersfield, but both ports will page either system)

LA          (213-718)    Motorola    Yes        No

Placerville   (916-957)    ???        Yes        Yes

Chico/Redding (916-520)    Motorola    Yes        No

Sac          (916-539) Motorola    Yes        No

Salinas/Mntry (408-671)    Motorola    Yes        Yes

San Francisco (415-722)    Motorola    Yes        Yes (for non SF too???)

Reno, NV      (702-741)    Motorola    Yes        No

Las Vegas, NV (702-379)    Motorola    No         No


A few more notes:

- Why is Las Vegas the only one that doesn't return a busy signal or
follow FMR/CF? Did they get a switch upgrade recently to a non-Motorola?

- Note that the only two systems (one really) that aren't on "Auto
Access" are Fresno and Bakersfield, which use AT&T switches. This
seems to confirm to an extent the notion that certain intricacies of
the Motorola switch are responsible for these "features".

-Many of the larger cities have multiple roam ports. For example, LA
has: 213-718, 714-742, 619-567 (P. Springs), 818-400 (San Fernando
Vly), and up north 805-657 for Ventura. SF has: 415-722, 707-483
(Napa, Vallejo, etc.), and 408-234 (San Jose).

In my experience, you CAN'T use one system's roam port to call a
customer in another CA or NV system (as you can in some cases in the
"Motorola-ized" systems back East), but you CAN use a local roam port
to you to call WITHIN the same system.

Thus, if you have a friend in LA, but you work in San Francisco,
calling the (local) SF port will NOT page anyone (home or roamer) in
LA.

However, if you have a friend with a GTE/SF, who has a 415 number, and
you are down in San Jose, you can call the roam port in San Jose, and
the person with the 415 number will be paged anyhow, as if you called
him directly.

Note that Voicemail, FMR, or any call-forwarding type service should
also work this way, if it is WITHIN the same system. CF/FMR/etc. will
also work outside the same system in the instances noted in the chart,
but I haven't come across any situation where you can actually
page/ring a person in another system.

The only way you MAY be able to to this is as follows: Let's say you
are in San Diego, whose port DOES follow all Call-Forwarding/FMR
instructions. You want to call a GTE/SF customer who is driving in the
GTE/SF system. IF the GTE/SF customer sets Call-Fowarding or No-Answer-
Transfer to *his own number*, then a call to the San Diego port will
have the port look to where calls are forwarded, see it is to a GTE/SF
number, and thus the port will then proceed to ring that number. The
GTE/Sf cusotmer may be billed DOUBLE airtime for this: once for the
Call-Forwarding to himself, and the other for the actual airtime
talking. (To forward to yourself, you may have to leave the SF system,
and forward it from another system, using Auto-Access, since the SF
system seems to refuse to allow you to forward calls to yourself.)

Please note that my experimental evidence suggests that if you use
this method -- ie, using a port that "pays attention" to call-
forwarding/FMR to save toll charges so you don't have to call the
mobile number directly (at toll rates) - then you MAY be forcing the
system whose port you are using to pay for the call. That is, if you
use the San Diego port to call a GTE/SF customer who has forwarded his
calls to New York, what SEEMS to happen is the SD port checks out with
SF where your calls are forwarded to, and then, rather than send the
call to SF, dials the call DIRECTLY to the forwarded number, thus, the
SD system PAYS for the call to NY, rather than the SF system, which
would have been the case had you dialed the SF number directly. Many
systems may block this process for these reasons, eg, LA.

Most of this IS just experimental evidence - No one has ever confirmed
this. It is incredible how little the cell companies seem to know
about this.  I talked to a switch-tech at the Chico system (figured
they wouldn't be too busy there! :) ), and he had NO idea what I was
talking about ... he thought it absurd that the switch would behave
that way!

Anyhow, the Auto-Access system adds yet another layer on to this (it
MAY let you get calls all over CA and NV via any port - haven't tried
this yet), so don't use Auto-Access if you try any of this out. (Or if
you do, let me know how it works out for you ...)

Happy roaming!


Doug    [e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 01:17:42 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phast Phood
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


   According to this week's {Network World}, Domino's is teaming with
AT&T and Bell Laboratories (getting a Pizza the action?) to develop a
service that will route a phone call to a single nationwide number to
the store closest to the caller.

  It's called the Store Locator Service by AT&T (StoreFinder by
Domino's) and will replace Domino's current system which uses regional
telemarketing centers for order taking and distribution. It will use a
950 number: 950-1430 (gee, that doesn't spell anything on the keypad)
to pass the call and ANI data from the local switch to AT&T nearest
POP (point of Presence). Instead of reaching the switch they will be
routed to a Transaction Services' Store Locator Service Node (couldn't
they come up with something that has a decent acronym ?)

The node is comprised of a networked microcomputers containing a copy
of Domino's database (another invasion of our privacy ... now I know
what they meant in those old movies by 'cheese it - it's the cops')
and a unit called a Digital Link Slicer, err Splicer, built by Bell
Labs. The splicer holds the call while the ANI information is matched
against the database to locate the caller (a previous customer) and
determine the nearest store. If a match is found, the phone number of
the store is retrieved and dialed and passed to the splicer witch
'splices' the incoming call with the outgoing one to the store. (Their
description, not mine).

If a match is not made, the area code and three-digit exchange are
used to select a 'default' store for routing.  Using special
point-of-sale terminals connected to the system, Domino's stores can
update the database if the wrong store was selected by this scheme or
update the database when the order is taken. Performance is targeted
for 99.92% of calls to be connected to a store in 11 seconds or less.
(That seems like a lot of rings, or do we get opera-on-hold ?)

  If the trials are sucessful and Domino's accepts the system, the
company will have 190 service nodes nationwide operational in 49
states (who's the lucky one?) within two years. By using the
automatic routing directly to stores the company will be able to
eliminate the regional telemarketing currently in use and by having a
single phone number it can reduce advertising costs both by common ads
and by reduced yellow pages space since separate listings for each
store will not be necessary.

  (Do we really have enough 950-series numbers for all the franchises
in this country and what about when the national and regional
religious organizations find out about this?  In some ways, isn't
this sort of a private 911-like service ?)


[Moderator's Note: Only 49 states? I think there's no Domino Pizza in
Alaska because that state has a law against driving an old junked-up
machine faster than 85 miles an hour on municipal streets.  :) Is it
true Domino's is trying to cut the delivery time down to fifteen
minutes in midtown Manhattan during the evening rush hour?  :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Yeshwant K Muthusamy)
Subject: We Need Your Voices!
Date: 5 Aug 91 23:16:58 GMT
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR


[Moderator's Note: Tad Cook passed this along.   PAT]

I had posted this request about a month ago on this group. I am
posting again since I haven't reached my goal of at least 100 calls
per language yet.  The current tally stands at 50 calls per language
on the average. Still a long ways to go.

So, if you haven't called yet, PLEASE DO! (see notice below)

For those of you who did call and record their voices, a big THANK
YOU!  I appreciate your help!

If anyone has (had) any problems with the call or recording, please
send e-mail to [e-mail], or call [phone].

Yeshwant

                      WE NEED YOUR VOICE!!
                              at
                 The Center for Spoken Language
                   Oregon Graduate Institute


If you are a NATIVE speaker of one of the following languages:

English                          Korean
Farsi                        Mandarin Chinese
French                    Spanish
German                    Tamil
Japanese                Vietnamese

We need your help in building a multi-language database of speech
recorded over the TELEPHONE. This database is to be used for my PhD
thesis research on automatic language identification.

There is a local area number for the Portland (Oregon)
metropolitan area:

PLEASE CALL [phone]

For non-Portlanders, we have set up a TOLL-FREE line (for the US and
Canada) that is open round-the-clock:

PLEASE CALL 1-800-441-1077

You will need a touch-tone phone for this call. A pre-recorded message
in your native language will guide you through a recording session.
Please respond to the prompts in your native language only.  The
entire call will take about five minutes. The speech that you provide
will be used for research purposes only.

**ALL CALLERS REMAIN ANONYMOUS**. This research is not being funded by
any agency or company.  This database is public-domain and will be
made available to any one interested in speech research.

If you have any questions or comments, or would like more information
about this project, call Yeshwant Muthusamy at [phone].

Please pass on this message to others at your site who do not have net
access.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!


Yeshwant Muthusamy            Internet: [e-mail]
Center for Spoken Language    UUCP:  ...!ogicse!yeshwant
Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology
19600 NW Von Neumann Drive    Beaverton, OR 97006-1999  USA
Vmail: [phone]

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

Subject: Bell Technical Journals
From: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 08:53:31 PDT
Organization: League For The Open Information Forum


I remember reading somewhere that Bell offered thier "Technical
Information" in the form of journals.  Whatever I read never bothered
to quote any sources.  If you have any ideas, please send them to me.


Thanks,

[e-mail] (Jonathan Anderson)   Voice: [phone]
Jonathan Anderson @ 1:105/291.2.fidonet.org

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

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 23:35:33 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Keeping Pace with the Competition (was Directory Assistance)


> The increase should net AT&T an extra $830,000 per year, an increase
> which was sought "to keep pace with competition in the long-distance
> trade" according to AT&T officials (by way of the {Sun-Sentinel}).

An interesting comment.  Higher revenues are needed "to keep pace with
[the] competition."  I thought lower prices were usually the result
when one tries to keep up with the competition.


David

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Getting Refunds On 900 Numbers
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 21:43:32 PDT


It was my impression that Pac*Bell had a policy to refund the first
months 900 numbers when call blocking was installed.  A friend of
mine's kids recently discovered these numbers, and ran up a bill.  I
told her to see if the phone company would take it off, but they
refused.  Can anyone tell me what the policy is?

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

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone"?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA
Date: 13 Aug 1991 17:06:35 UTC


Could someone help me out here?

Pac$Bel has been pushing their "Bonus Zone" thing for a while now, and
I've not heard anything here about it.  I am 99% sure without even
asking about it that it is a scam. Think about it. You have no choice
but to use Pac$Bel for the calls to this so-called bonus zone.  What
incentive does Pac$Bel have for saving you money?  Answer: none. If
it's not going to save you money, what's the point? If it _IS_ saving
you money, then where is the revinue being made up? Money doesn't grow
on trees -- it has to come from somewhere. If Pac$Bel can afford to let
people save money on some calls, it means it's getting enough money
that it could lower EVERYONE'S rates instead.


Nick Sayer   [e-mail]   N6QQQ   209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

From: [e-mail] (David E A Wilson)
Subject: Australian Telephone Deregulation
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 23:43:22 GMT


A small article in yesterday's newspaper announced how Australians
will access the second carrier for STD calls -- the number will be
prefixed by the digit 1.  So to ring a Sydney number [phone] via
the second carrier (which has not yet been chosen) I would dial 1 02
234 5678. This choice will become available after the 1st of January.

Aussat is already advertising international calls to New Zealand at a
cheaper rate than OTC. They have been given the prefix 0099 (calls via
OTC use 0011 or 0015 for voice & fax calls respectively) followed by
64 (the NZ country code) or 00 (the test if you can use this service
code).

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

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

From: mission![e-mail]
Subject: Appropriate or Ironic?
Date: Tue Aug 13 14:16:31 1991


On a desolate stretch of Pacific Coast Highway between Corona Del Mar
and Laguna Beach, there are no cell sites (cell phones go dead).  A
highway sign indicates that litter removal in the area is being done
(on a volunteer basis) by the Telephone Pioneers of [went by too fast
to read it].

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #626
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09891;
          14 Aug 91 5:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05491;
          14 Aug 91 4:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23015;
          14 Aug 91 2:57 CDT
Date:     Wed, 14 Aug 91 1:56:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #627
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Aug 91 01:56:26 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 627

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Ringing Current For Old WE 300 Desk Set [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Re: Ringing Current For Old WE 300 Desk Set [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Ed Hopper]
    Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: Message Waiting Indicator [Mickey Ferguson]
    Re: US-Canada Calling Cards [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: What Number CLID Transmits [Tom Lowe]
    Re: Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Information Wanted on Dutch Phone [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Re: International 800 Calling [Steve Forrette]
    Cheap 1200 Baud Modems [mission![e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 21:23:56 EDT
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Current For Old WE 300 Desk Set
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Dave Dintenfass) writes:

> Among other assorted hobbies, one of my interests is restoring old
> telephones -- specifically, Western Electric 500 and 300 desk sets.
> Several years ago, I cleaned up a plastic 300 desk set and gave it to
> a friend of my wife's.  Although the phone worked just fine at my
> house (where I tested it beforehand), it would never ring when I
> installed it at the friend's house.  As it was her only phone, she
> missed a number of phone calls (!).

I don't have the answer to your question, but if you are going to use
old 302 sets, or any set older than the 500 set in actual service, you
should soldera varistor (104A or 100A) across the receiver.  The
purpose of the varistor is to reduce the annoyance from clicks and
loud tones that occasionally occur in the telephone.  These are
usually due nowadays to external disturbances such a lightning etc.
Without varistor protection these clicks can be very loud, although
not damaging.


Herman Silbiger

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

From: Terry Kennedy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Current For Old WE 300 Desk Set
Date: 12 Aug 91 17:23:27 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Dave Dintenfass) writes:

> I have installed 300 desk sets in a number of other places and have
> never had this problem elsewhere.  I suspect the model 300 ringer
> requires more current than the model 500, and that her central office
> could not supply the required amount of ringer current.

  Yes. In "Installation and Operations in the Bell System", a passing
men- tion is made that the 300 (and earlier sets in general) cannot be
used on some subscriber lines, due to loss in the cable. This is in
the section on outside plant planning. If anybody is really
interested, I can go dig up the page reference.


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

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

Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
From: ED HOPPER <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon 12 Aug 91 10:01:25 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575


> [Moderator's Note: That's what makes the Illinois Bell scheme for
> northern Illinois so great. All city boundary lines and area code
> boundaries are ignored. Everyone gets about eight miles in every
> direction as their 'local' area. We get everything in our own CO, and
> the COs which directly connect with our own. Those calls are untimed.
> The next level out is the 'B' zone, then 'C' and 'D' zones follow.
> Everyone's level of zones begins with themselves at the center or
> starting point. Couldn't be fairer!  PAT]

Nonsense!  It amazes me that people in the northeast (and to us,
Chicago is "northeast") and on the left coast sit still for this royal
screwing they get from the telcos called measured service.

Wow! Eight whole miles.  The Houston free calling area is at least
fifty (50) miles in each direction.  It includes 3.5 million people.
Basic local service is about $12 for unlimited calling throughout that
area from SW Bell.  Virtually all offices are electronic.  Facilities
are readily available (I have five lines at home and all it took to
install them was a new buried drop of fifty feet from terminal box to
the house).  And on top of all that, the Texas PUC says that SWBT is
OVER-charging us and owes us a refund!

It's the same story throughout Texas.  And not just in Texas.  Only
the most extreme calls (i.e., far west to far east, etc) in Denver and
Phoenix carry toll charges.  Atlanta is also a large free call area.

Costs are NOT radically different.  SWBT, US West and Southern Bell
are all paying basically the same CWA Union wages as Illinois Bell and
Pac Tel.  They all buy at about the same prices from AT&T Network
Systems, Northern Telecom, etc.  So what's the deal?  Why aren't those
of you in the oppressed areas out raising hell against your telco with
the PUC while pointing at southern and western states that do not have
these oppressive charges??  It would seem to me to be a far more
productive expenditure of energy than carping about Touch-Tone(tm)
charges and Caller ID.


Ed Hopper


[Moderator's Note: But where you pay $12 for unlimited local service,
we only pay about $4.50 for line access, and about 3.9 cents for each
untimed call in our local zone.  For the $6-7 difference, we can get a
lot of untimed local calls. Calls to the B, C, or D zones run about
four cents a minute.  So the application has to be considered, but I
wind up paying proportionatly less now than I did under the old
unlimited plan here several years ago which covered all of
northeastern Illinois.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes?
Date: 12 Aug 91 12:40:33 EST


In article <[e-mail]>, localhost![e-mail]
(Jerry Gitomer) writes:

> their entirety if any fields are changed.  This is why the postal
> service had to back down on Zip + 4.

But the Postal Service did not back down on Zip + 4.  Don't you notice
the mail that comes to you with 9 digit Zips?  I think those silly
Radio Shack catalogs come to my residence with nine-digit Zip codes.
I've never taken the trouble to learn the nine digits for that address
 -- I try to get mail to come to a POBox.  At least one piece of mail
has reached the POBox with the only useful address info being
44061-1419.


dan herrick     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I frequently get envelopes in the mail with the
only thing on the front of the envelope being '60690-1570'. That is my
unique nine-digit zip.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 10:55:21 PDT
From: Mickey Ferguson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Message Waiting Indicator


The general solution proposed by Roy Stehle sounds pretty good.  One
thing he said he couldn't handle was where a message is sent through
the voice mail system network instead of by the ring-no-answer
condition.  (Summary of his problem statement, anyway.)  There is also
another condition which isn't handled - that of busy forwarding.  Say
I'm on the phone talking to someone, and you try to call me.  Instead
of getting a busy signal, you will get my voice mail and leave me a
message.

Well, one idea comes to mind, but it may or may not be acceptable
and/or allowable due to telecom regulations.  One could build a device
which would go off-hook every <n> minutes (where <n> is whatever you
think is appropriate - say 15 minutes) and listen to the dial tone.
If it hears broken dial tone, it can set the message waiting
indication.  Of course it only does this if message waiting isn't
already set.  And this is more fool-proof than just detecting that
someone called and setting the LED, because people often call but
never leave a message.


Mickey Ferguson      Rolm Systems      [e-mail]

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Aug 91 14:17:28
Subject: Re: US-Canada Calling Cards


In the TELECOM Digest, [e-mail] (David Ash) writes:

> Does anyone know of a long-distance U.S. calling card available to
> people without a home phone which can be used for *domestic* calls
> within Canada (where I travel frequently)?  My PacBell card used to
> allow this, but since Stanford took over my on-campus phone service,
> I've lost my PacBell card.  Neither my MCI nor Sprint cards work for
> domestic calls within Canada, although they will allow U.S. - Canada
> calls in either direction.

   I've used my AT&T Universal Card to make long distance calls within
Canada (Bell Canada territory mostly). In the US, there is supposed to
be equal access to all IXC's; but in Canada, AT&T is still treated as
THE American phone company.  Maritime Tel & Tel calling cards work for
US domestic calls on AT&T and MCI, but not on Sprint.  (When I tried
to place a credit card call on Sprint, the operator came on and told
me to dial "10288" first! Doesn't Sprint provide dial-0 credit card
service?  The operator claimed that the "1-800" service worked only
for Sprint cards.)

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Aug 12 08:07:52 EDT 1991
Subject: Re:  What Number CLID Transmits


It was said that ANI uses the billing and CLID uses the actual calling
number.  My experience has shown no consistancy regarding ANI and
CLID.

In our lab, we have some outgoing only trunks.  Each are assigned a
local phone number for administrative reasons, but they all report one
number.  The number that they report is simply a field in the
translation tables at the 5ESS office.  I know this because when they
were first installed, I couldn't place inter-lata calls on a couple of
the lines (including 800 calls or 10xxx calls).  I called an operator
and it turned out that she was seeing my number as being "946-wxy-z000".
It sould have read 908-946-wxyz.

I reported the trouble and got a call back from a tech.  It turns out
someone had entered the number incorrectly into the database.  I asked
him if he could make them all display the same number and he could.  I
had him use one of the numbers in my DID group which is supposedly
billed seperately from the outbound trunks.

Now, when I call my office line from one of these trunks (my office
line is an ISDN phone that shows caller ID) it doesn't see the number,
even though the 946 exchange is Caller ID capable.  I do get ID from
regular 946 numbers.  However, if I call my 800 number that gives ANI,
I get the number I asked them to put into the database.

At home, I have two lines that are billed on the same bill, but ANI
gives the actual number I'm calling from.  I don't know about Caller
ID yet ... the exchange isn't Caller ID capable yet.  Some hotels give
the main hotel number, and some give a random trunk number.  I forgot
to try it from a GTE Airphone to see what I get, but I will next time
I have the opportunity.

I am hesitant to publish my ANI demo number to the world, however, in
the interest of learning more about the behavior of ANI, I will be
willing to give it to individuals who send me a request.  If you do
request it, PLEASE don't publish it anywhere.  I will have to
disconnect it if it gets abused.  Please send me any interesting
findings and I will post a summary to the Digest.


Tom Lowe   AT&T Bell Labs    Holmdel, NJ
908-949-0428      attmail!tlowe   (or [e-mail])

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires
Date: 12 Aug 91 21:20:43 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> I have an old pulse dial phone I'd like to convert to the modular type
> connector but I haven't the foggiest idea what to do with the extra

Get a modular to spade lug cord at (sorry, but they are sometimes
handy) R/S, and connect the red and green to where the previous red
and green went in the phone. If it won't ring, connect the whatever
internal wire went to the old cord's yellow to the new green line
wire's connection.

Just tape up the black and yellow line wires from the new cord.

If you really want to CONVERT the phone to have a modular jack on the
rear, you could buy the punch and template kit GMP sells, but only do
it if you have MANY MANY to do. Get a nibbler with a sample phone to
compare and measure from works. Then just buy the phone end jack and
wire as above and use with mod-plug to mod-plug cords.

You can also BUY complete color change kits that also upgrade to
modular, but the distributors that specialise in such things (try
North Supply) probably WON'T sell to you and anyone that can buy there
won't bother unless you want LOTS of them.

You can also buy a fat clunky modular plug that takes the spade lugs
on the end of your existing cord. I DON'T like this clunky approach,
but it may be what you want.

You can BUY bulk modular cordage cheap, and an SE-xxx tool resold by
R/S to install mod plugs is about $7. The spade lugs for the far end
deserve mention.  They must be insulation piercing ones and bless
their greedy high-markup selves, R/S sells these special lugs! and the
NECESSARY (to do a reliable job) tool for $8 that also is a good
precision uninsulated lug crimping tool with a multi-cavity die that
does a nicer job on random lugs than many more expensive tools. All
this is only necessary if you need lots of random size mod cords at
odd hours.

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

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 21:14:31 EDT
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Dutch Phone
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Guy Hillyer)
writes:

> I have an old black bakelite dial phone with the legend "Made in
> Holland" on the bottom.  It also has metal badges on either side of
> the case.  One of them has the letters "PTT" in a circle, while the
> other is a bell with the word "STANDARD" underneath.

> Inside, a schematic diagram appears on a paper label along with the
> words:

>     TAFELTOESTEL STANDARD MET AARDTOETS TYPE 1954 Htf 2211 BPZ

Translation: table(top) apparatus STANDARD with grounding key etc.
The STANDARD refers to the manufacturer, Standard Electric, an ITT
subsidiary at that time.  I thinks that's all part of Alcatel now.

> There is a small white button directly below the dial on the front of
> the case.  Does anyone recognize this phone?  I'd be interested to
> know its vintage (1954?) and of course I'm curious about the intended
> function of the little white button, which does nothing anymore as far
> as I can tell.

The white button can function as a switchhook flash.  They are very
common on European subscriber sets.  There is also a way to hook two
sets up to the same line with a buzzer and use the white button for
signaling.

I have a 1963 vintage Netherlands PTT set made by HEEMAF, a Dutch
manufacturer better known for electric motors and switchgear.


Herman Silbiger    [e-mail]

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

From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International 800 Calling
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)
Date: Tue 13 Aug 1991  00:00:00 GMT


>> 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.

This reminds me of yet another way that AT&T sets itself above all the
others in service -- call completion assistance to 800 numbers.  Any
AT&T operator will give you call completion assistance to an AT&T 800
number if you are having technical problems.  The other carriers'
operators can't do anything for any 800 number, not even their own.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: mission![e-mail]
Subject: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems
Date: Tue Aug 13 14:21:28 1991


A recent post mentioned 1200 baud modems from Damark.  Does anyone have
a number for them?  Will these work with any RS232 port?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #627
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10035;
          14 Aug 91 5:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05491;
          14 Aug 91 4:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac23015;
          14 Aug 91 2:57 CDT
Date:     Wed, 14 Aug 91 2:36:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #628
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Aug 91 02:35:51 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 628

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin [Nick Sayer]
    Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin [Wayne D. Correia]
    Re: U.S.- Canada Calling Cards [David Leibold]
    Re: Email From Space [Byron Han]
    Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep? [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Information Wanted on Dutch Phone [Peter Knoppers]
    Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Terry Hardy]
    Re: USOC Standards (was ISO Standards) [Laird Broadfield]
    Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle! [John Henders]
    Standards Activity on Radio WANS in US, Japan [Lindsay Wakeman]
    What Are 700 Numbers Used For? [Dave Marthouse]
    OKI 900 Cellular Phone Acts as a Pager? How? [Eric Thompson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA
Date: 13 Aug 1991 16:36:24 UTC


I just have to write in support of Mr. Higdon's observations.

PG&E (the Northern California power utility) doesn't make stoves and
light bulbs.

Cable companies don't sell TVs or take orders for the Cable Shopping
Channel.

Water companies don't sell toilets or fix plumbing.

What makes the telephone company so special?

I'm sorry. They can either be a regulated monopoly or they can
compete. If they want to compete, then that means there should be at
least one other company that I can call up to hook up my two demarcs
and send me dialtone. And those two companies will have to talk to
each other so that the number I dial is handled transparently whether
it is company A or B.

If this took place, then perhaps leased-line prices would drop by 50%
or so. That would truly bring the Internet to the people.  But that's
another topic.


Nick Sayer     [e-mail]
N6QQQ          209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

From: "Wayne D. Correia (408/974-6500" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin
Date: 13 Aug 91 23:15:10 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc., System Software Eng., Cupertino, CA, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> If anyone enjoys the prospect of having one huge company having direct
> control over many aspects of people's daily lives, he should be
> feeling really good right about now. It looks like Pac*Bell will be
> taking good care of us in very short order. And with money we thought
> was supposed to be used to provide us with basic phone service, at
> that.

This makes me really sad. All I really want right now is Caller*ID,
basic rate ISDN, and good LEC service. This is all stuff that I can't
get anywhere else, and all they want to sell me is something I really
don't need. Maybe they should get out of the LEC business and go forth
into their brave new world as a regular competitor instead of my Phone
Company.

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 21:23:49 EDT
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: U.S.- Canada Calling Cards


David Ash ([e-mail]) wrote about the difficulties of
getting an intra-Canada call billed on a long distance carrier's card.

The CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission)
recently reaffirmed restrictions on routing calls within Canada via
the U.S.; this is generally aimed at Canadian companies trying to link
with U.S. carriers in order to make calls back into Canada, but it
would seem that MCI is restricted from carrying Canada-Canada traffic
as well.

I have seen payphones that accept AT&T's calling cards in Toronto; I
can't say whether or not this would be valid for all card dialing in
Canada.  I successfully used a Southern Bell (telco) calling card in
Toronto a few days ago, although a manual operator verification is
needed after the card number is dialed.

As for the situation where the university takes over local billing and
that, all I can think of is to try to get a calling card from PacBell
which is not tied to a subscriber line. This is sometimes possible
depending on the jurisdiction. The state public services commission or
whatever is the regulating body should also be made aware of this
shortfall in dialing/billing capability, as well as the university
administration involved.

1 800 950 1022 (MCI) and 1 800 877 8000 (Sprint) access numbers should
work from Canada for Canada-U.S. calls, however. I'll likely find out
for certain over the next few weeks.


[e-mail]   Temporary: [e-mail]

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

From: Byron Han <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Date: 13 Aug 91 10:26:23 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.


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

> Anyone at least peripherally familiar with the history and culture of
> NASA will be quick to tell you that NASA is never interested in
> easier, cheaper methods.  Complicated, expensive methods that justify
> the existance (and budgets) of hordes of administrative personnel are
> much preferred.

Before flaming, please make sure you have all of the facts straight.
The data path described is indeed the simplest possible with respect
to the twin constraints of minimizing crew training time and
minimizing software development time.


Byron Han, Software Artisan   Apple Computer, Inc.
20525 Mariani Ave, MS: 81NC   Internet: [e-mail]
Cupertino, CA 95014           AppleLink: HAN1  [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]         CompuServe: 72167,1664

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep?
Date: 13 Aug 91 04:59:14 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


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

> BTW, will the AT&T blue phones also be required to provide 10XXX
> access to other carriers?  They've generally been quite nasty about
> blocking any attempt to use any other carrier.

> [Moderator's Note: The AT&T 'blue phones' (I assume you mean the
> charge-a-call units) are *NOT* operated by an LEC or an AOS.

Nevertheless, I have noticed that the AT&T Card Caller Plus telephones
(the ones with a CRT in them) now allow access to 950 numbers and
10XXX dialing.  They did not in the past.

But I'm also not sure whether they are considered to be LEC-operated
or not.  They don't fall under the COCOT tariff.  Maybe AT&T added 950
and 10XXX because they felt it would be hypocritical to complain of
phones that block such access while their own phones did.

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

From: Peter Knoppers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Dutch Phone
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dep. of Electrical engineering
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1991 16:02:43 GMT


In comp.dcom.telecom Guy Hillyer ([e-mail]) writes:

> I have an old black bakelite dial phone with the legend "Made in
> Holland" on the bottom.  It also has metal badges on either side of
   ...
> There is a small white button directly below the dial on the front of
> the case.  Does anyone recognize this phone?  I'd be interested to
> know its vintage (1954?) and of course I'm curious about the intended
> function of the little white button, which does nothing anymore as far
> as I can tell.

I don't know the year that this particular phone was made (the year
that is was designed is probably printed on that schematic), but I do
know the function of the white button. This button is used with PBXs
to put a connection on/off hold. It shorts the /a/ wire (or /b/, I'm
not sure which one) to earth. Earth is the green wire, /a/ is red, /b/
is blue, /eb/ is yellow. For normal operation (on an ordinary phone
line) you must to connect /b/ to /eb/ (to enable the ringer). You can
also connect an external ringer between /b/ and /eb/.  The thing
should work when connected to an American phone line. To do this you
should connect a to tip and b to ring (or vice versa, this doesn't
matter).  The e wire can be left unconnected.


Peter Knoppers - [e-mail]

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

From: Terry Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online?
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 00:03:59 PDT


NPA 213 NXX's that will change to NPA 310 on 11/02/91:

201-210, 212, 214-220, 246, 247, 270, 271, 273-282, 284-289, 297, 301,
302, 305, 306, 312-320, 322-338, 348, 352, 354, 363, 364, 370-379,
390-399, 401-404, 406-410, 412, 414, 416, 417, 419-459, 470-479,
490-499, 510, 512, 519, 521-524, 527, 529, 553, 556, 559, 568,
570-578, 590-599, 601-609, 615, 616, 618, 630-635, 637-649, 652, 657,
659, 670-677, 679, 690-699, 715, 719, 761-764, 767-769, 781-785, 787,
788, 791-799, 801-804, 806, 807, 809, 812-814, 816, 820-842, 854, 855,
858-869, 886, 898, 902-908, 914, 920-929, 940-949, 967, 970, 973, 978,
980-989

NXX's duplicated in 213 and 310 include 520 (choke), 554 (weather),
555, 853 (time), 950, and 976.

Permissive dialing ends 05/02/92.

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: USOC Standards (was ISO Standards)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1991 19:48:46 GMT


In <[e-mail]> sequent!techbook.com!joes@uunet.
uu.net (Joe Stein) writes:

> One of the questions I have had for a long time is what is 'USOC' and
> are any references available?

> [Moderator's Note: USOC = 'Universal Service Order Codes'. These were
> the official names or titles for every possible type of service and/or
> configuration you could get from the telco. When you asked for a
> certain obscure feature or type of service, the Bell rep would
> sometimes have to look in the USOC book to find the correct way to
> write up the order.  PAT]

Okay, so where do we lay hands on a USOC book?  We've all picked up
the standard ones from dealing with them for so long (11, 14, 21X, 45,
13C ...)  but where is the master reference?  Inquiring minds want to
know!  I've looked in Bellcore and AT&T catalogs; is USOC qua USOC an
obsolete referent?  (BTW, why is it *so* difficult to beat the
available features out of the local reps?  "Can I get BCF/RNA
forwarding on a residential line?"  "Ummmm, what?"  (five minutes of
hold later) "Okay, can it go off centrex?"  "Ummmm.... I dunno."
Pathetic*Bell strikes again (or do the rest of you get this too?))


Laird P. Broadfield    UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 23:51:58 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)


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

> 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.

Come now, Macy!  I don't think you've given the telcos a fair chance
at explaining themselves.  Take Pacific Bell for instance.  You've got
your facts all wrong!  First of all, they don't let you dial 10XXX for
intra-LATA calls; there's NO way to route these calls to an IXC,
unless you're really sneaky.  Second of all, there's a good reason why
the intra-LATA long distance rates are so high.  I was recently
looking into a calling plan for such calls from Pacific Bell, and
asked why a call from 916/983 to 916/753 cost as much as a call to New
York City (completely accros the continent), when this call was only
35 miles?  The rep gave me a very straightforward answer -- "it
actually costs more to complete a call of a shorter distance!"  I knew
there had to be a good reason!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: What she *really* meant to say was that telco has
long enjoyed a very cozy relationship with regulators in your state,
and this cozy relationship allows the telco to set quite high rates.
Very seldom do state PUC's not just rubber-stamp what telco tells
them. The relationship with the FCC is more even-handed however.  PAT

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

From: John Henders <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle!
Organization: Wimsey Associates
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1991 10:01:08 GMT


    If I read the Abernathy article, and the prior article it was
based on properly, I beleive they both stated that the address given
was for a ground based mail box, and that there was no guarantee that
the astronauts would read the e-mail while aboard the shuttle. It
would seem that either someone hacked a real forwarded address to the
shuttle, or there's a bit of exageration going on.


John Henders       Vancouver,B.C.

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 14:40:21-0000
From: Lindsay Wakeman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Standards Activity on Radio WANS in US, Japan


I AM POSTING THIS ON BEHALF OF A FRIEND WITH NO CURRENT NETWORK ACCESS

What is happening - if anything - in the standardisation of protocols
for Wide Area Radio-based packet networks for data transmission (i.e.
Aloha and its descendants)?

I need references to papers, reports of progress, and contacts with
which to discuss any US or Japanese activity and to exchange
information on what is happening in Europe. Any related activity -

  - Circuit-swicthed radio data nets if data provision is more
    than just an add-on to digitised voice.

  - Packet-switched radio LANs, but only if the technology is thought
    to be adaptable to wide area use.

- is also of interest.

Any archives which contain information about current standardisation
might also be useful.

All contributions gratefully received! Will summarise to net if
sufficient interest.

Thanks.

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

From: Dave Marthouse <overlf![e-mail]>
Subject: What Are 700 Numbers Used For?
Date: 10 Aug 91 12:58:26 GMT
Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc.  Fords, NJ


I know that 800 numbers are free and 900 numbers are pay services.
What about 700 numbers? I know that 1-700-555-4141 will let you know
what long distance company is being used as the dial 1 company. Does
the 700 areacode have any other uses?


Dave Marthouse
Internet: [e-mail] or, [e-mail]
Fidonet: dave marthouse 1:107/323
Amateur Packet Radio ax.25 n2aam @ w2emu-4.nj.usa.na


[Moderator's Note: Most long distance carriers have stuff going on in
the 700 area. AT&T has their Alliance Teleconferencing there; Telecom
USA has the Voice News Network there; there are others. 700 numbers
can be free or cost a fortune: each carrier can do what they want with
their portion of 700.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 18:17:05 -0700
From: Eric Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: OKI 900 Cellular Phone Acts as a Pager? How?


I've heard and read that the OKI 900 acts as a pager by allowing a
caller to leave a phone number instead.  Am I correct in assuming that
the phone picks up after a certain number of rings and prompts the
caller for a number?  Thus incurring .. a minute of airtime?

If anyone has one or knows how they work and could explain how this
works to me, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks.


Eric Thompson   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #628
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10417;
          15 Aug 91 1:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23535;
          14 Aug 91 23:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12413;
          14 Aug 91 22:32 CDT
Date:     Wed, 14 Aug 91 21:52:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #629
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Aug 91 21:52:08 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 629

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phast Phood [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Phast Phood [Guy Helmer]
    Re: Phast Phood [Peter Thurston]
    Re: Phast Phood [Mickey Ferguson]
    Re: Email From Space [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Email From Space [Christopher Gillett]
    ATT Univeral Card; ATT Marketing; Magic Codewords [Mike Newton]
    Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For? [Bill Huttig]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phast Phood
Date: 14 Aug 91 19:15:25 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> (Do we really have enough 950-series numbers for all the franchises
> in this country and what about when the national and regional
> religious organizations find out about this?  In some ways, isn't
> this sort of a private 911-like service ?)

   Domino's is fairly unique in its position as a coast-to-coast
vendor of fast-food-delivered-to-the-door. My guess is that there's a
limited market for this service, and that Domino's is the most
appropriate lead customer.  Until McDonalds starts home delivery, this
wouldn't make sense for them.

   Pizza Hut already has tried something like this in the Seattle
area; my wife and I were on a Pizza Hut kick at the time, and were
frequent customers until I called and discovered that although I live
within two miles of two different Pizza Huts, they weren't equipped to
deliver to my house.

   This could turn out to be a significant factor in the success of
the Domino's project; although they are now located coast-to-coast, a
large percentage - maybe even a majority - of Americans don't live
within delivery range of a Domino's franchise, and this will (or
should) limit Domino's willingness to advertise this new capability on
network TV. What will the system do with pizza orders from Humptulips,
Washington, or Green River, Wyoming?

> [Moderator's Note: Only 49 states? I think there's no Domino Pizza in
> Alaska because that state has a law against driving an old junked-up
> machine faster than 85 miles an hour on municipal streets.  :) Is it
> true Domino's is trying to cut the delivery time down to fifteen
> minutes in midtown Manhattan during the evening rush hour?  :)   PAT]

During traffic jams in my neighborhood, I've seen Domino's people doing
a brisk business in curbside pizza. That seems to be an effective way
to minimize delivery time.


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

From: Guy Helmer <dsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phast Phood
Organization: Dakota State University
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 13:52:42 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff
Sicherman) writes:

> The node is comprised of a networked microcomputers containing a copy
> of Domino's database (another invasion of our privacy ... now I know
> what they meant in those old movies by 'cheese it - it's the cops')
> and a unit called a Digital Link Slicer, err Splicer, built by Bell
> Labs. The splicer holds the call while the ANI information is matched
> against the database to locate the caller (a previous customer) and
> determine the nearest store. If a match is found, the phone number of
> the store is retrieved and dialed and passed to the splicer which
> 'splices' the incoming call with the outgoing one to the store. (Their
> description, not mine).

Is Sun's PizzaTool protocol going to be modified to be compatible?
Sun could set up a heck of a deal with Domino's -- buy a SparcStation,
get a pizza (or is it the other way around?).

> If a match is not made, the area code and three-digit exchange are
> used to select a 'default' store for routing.  Using special
> point-of-sale terminals connected to the system, Domino's stores can
> update the database if the wrong store was selected by this scheme or
> update the database when the order is taken.

Is no mention made of cities not served by Domino's?  Will they just
block calls, or will we get to dial the number and hassle the nearest
store (50 miles away from me!)?

> If the trials are sucessful and Domino's accepts the system, the
> company will have 190 service nodes nationwide operational in 49
> states (who's the lucky one?) within two years.

South Dakota isn't the lucky one :-)  Anyone for a Domino's Death Disk (TM)?


Guy Helmer, Dakota State University Computing Services
dsuvax![e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Minix archive keeper at wuarchive.wustl.edu


[Moderator's Note: I have to call a Domino's about eight blocks
east of me for service.  And everytime they do not arrive in 30
minutes I always request and receive a discount as promised. Because
the street I live on is sort of odd and not that well known, I would
say at least every other delivery runs about 35-37 minutes. About one
out of four or five takes 45 minutes, thus it is free. Its a great,
and legitimate racket for folks living on obscure little side streets
the drivers never heard of.  PAT]

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

From: Peter Thurston <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 11:05:25 +0100
Subject: Re: Phast Phood


Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]> writes about Domino Pizza's
new national "StoreFinder" number. To recap - this is a US national
950- number which you call to get connected automatically to the
nearest Domino pizza outlet.


It reminds me of a similar system announced in the UK for calling
taxi's.  An enterprising company has set up a free 0800 number which
you call anywhere in the country to get a local taxi company. The call
is free to the caller but the taxi company pays a per-car monthly fee
(and probably per call charge too). Details were sketchy -- I don't
know whether the call is routed automatically to the local cab firm or
is there is a human you speak to. The former is technically possible --
the Automobile Association has a system which can identify your location
when you call from a public phone.

The number itself makes use of the keypad to form the letter T (hence
the service is called Dial T for Taxi). UK Dials have no letters
therefore you must remember the number by the sequence (0800 --
123580). He also plans "Dial E for Electrician" - "Dial P for Plumber"
 -- "Dial M for .. !"


Peter Thurston   Applied Psychology Unit. CAMBRIDGE

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 09:49:35 PDT
From: Mickey Ferguson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phast Phood


OK, this isn't really telecom related, but all pizza chains are not
created equal.  We all know that one store may have better quality
than another, and what if I know I don't want to do business with an
individual store, but my call automatically gets routed there?  Or
what if I know that the manager of the store is my girlfriend's former
boyfriend and want to avoid it? :)


Mickey Ferguson      Rolm Systems      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: With Domino's, no-can-do. Walk-ins can go where they
like for the purchase, but to enable them to meet the 30 minute
delivery guarentee, they will *not* go outside their franchise
territory. In fact, franchise rules forbid it.   PAT]

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Date: 14 Aug 91 09:02:28 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Byron Han) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.
> jp![e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead) [dat's me.] wrote:

>> Anyone at least peripherally familiar with the history and culture of
>> NASA will be quick to tell you that NASA is never interested in
>> easier, cheaper methods.  Complicated, expensive methods that justify
>> the existance (and budgets) of hordes of administrative personnel are
>> much preferred.

> Before flaming, please make sure you have all of the facts straight.
> The data path described is indeed the simplest possible with respect
> to the twin constraints of minimizing crew training time and
> minimizing software development time.

Sigh.  I keep forgetting how the net is a magnet for the
sense-of-humor-impaired.  To correct Mr. Han, whom I believe was
involved in this particular project (and so probably feels that it is
_his_ ox being gored), this particular snide remark of mine was not
aimed at him, per se, but at NASA and their mindset.  The fact that so
simple a thing as a modem link has to bounce around the world umpteen
times and go through eleventy-three protocol conversions (as described
in excrutiating detail here in c.d.t) is a damning indictment of the
way NASA so often works.  The "Not Invented Here" syndrome was in all
likelyhood invented _there_!  That the data path described "is indeed
the simplest possible..." is just icing on the cake.  How many
billions for each shuttle, and how many billions for the TDRS sat
system, and they still forgot to include an RS232 data port?  Sheesh!

BTW, more than one net-person has mailed me telling me, from their own
personal experience, that I "hit the nail on the head."  If the blade
of my rapier (ahem) wit has sliced open the thin skin of Mr.  Han,
then I truly, abjectly, and abasedly apologize, and I hope that the
scabs that will inevitably form on his epidermis will protect him from
the next assault from an uncouth netter.


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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 13:09:55 -0400
From: Christopher Gillett <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Semiconductor Engineering Group


In article <[e-mail]> is written:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 625, Message 2 of 10

> [e-mail] (Robert Savery) writes:

>> Seriously, is there anyone here connected with the project? If so, I'm
>> curious as to why such a convoluted routing was used. It would seem
>> that there are dozens of easier, cheaper methods available.

> Anyone at least peripherally familiar with the history and culture of
> NASA will be quick to tell you that NASA is never interested in
> easier, cheaper methods.  Complicated, expensive methods that justify
> the existance (and budgets) of hordes of administrative personnel are
> much preferred.  After all, if the US Government and people realized
> that space travel could be much simpler and relatively cheap, then
> most of them would be redundant.

Oh, I see.  And you're an expert in communications between the ground
and the space shuttle?

This posting made me laugh because immediately before it was a
completely rational explanation by the author of the portable Mac
software used on the shuttle.  Made good sense to me, and didn't
necessarily seem like a complicated method put in place by hordes of
administrative personnel.

So, just what does this drivel have to do with telecom, PAT?  Mr.
Woodhead seems more eager to beat his political drums than to
contribute something of technical value. (I can hear those flame-
throwers lighting up all over the country.)

So, Bob, what's your point?


Christopher Gillett                   |    [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corporation         |    [phone]
Semiconductor Engineering Group       |
Hudson, Mass                          |    cout << StandardDisclaimers;


[Moderator's Note: In reading the message to which Mr. Gillett
responds, I couldn't help but feel the same thing is true at times of
telcos. *Must* there be so many complications in so many things they
do? Yes, some aspects of voice telephony are very complex. But the
telcos build layer upon layer of bureaucracy also.    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 02:16:07 -0700
From: Mike Newton <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATT Universal Card; ATT Marketing; Magic Codewords


In the 91.8.9 issue of Telecom [e-mail] complained
about my use of 'telesleaze' regarding ATT's marketing department.

An explanation:

    + I have two unlisted lines, one w/ ATT, one w/ MCI through Amex
                (Amex provides alternative operators ==> no long waits).

    + I am registered (at my home address) with the Direct Marketing
        Association as not wanting junk mail.  This is quite
        effective (I was amazed).

    + I am _very_ strict about who I give my number out.

So, guess what the one company is that I still get

    - regular junk mail, and

    - irregular phone pitches from?

   ATT

 -- the one company I can't hide my phone numbers from.  (Actually,
MCI knows it too, but the Amex deal seems to prevent them from being
obnoxious about it).  That the sales deptartment won't let me alone is
the reason I call them telesleaze.  As an often-during-the-day
sleeper, I feel justified in this opinion.

Please note that I think very highly of ATT with respect to []
service, [] research, [] quality of service.  It's just the telemarketing
people that get on my nerves.

Some other notes:

>> Mr. Newton virtually admits to knowing that the initial free-for-life
>> offer was limited to those who applied during the first year. Whose
>> fault is it that he waited until after time ran out?

Obviously mine.

But remember I had also heard from others that the offer was still
open.  Otherwise I would not have called.

>>  or said anything illegal, immoral, unethical or sleazy.

In my (biased) world view, calling me at home to sell stuff is sleazy,
bordering on unethical when it is a company with which I have not
choice but to give my phone number.

>> > After some questioning, it seems that ATT [sic] is 'randomly'
>> > sending out offers for the same deal that had expired earlier,
>> > namely free lifetime renewals.

>> Here I doubt Mr. Newton's interpretation.  No business sends out
>> offers at random.  Far more likely the Universal Card people have
>> selected specific target markets that they decided would be worth
>> making the no-annual-fee offer to.  The nub of Mr. Newton's problem
>> seems to be that he is not part of any of those target markets --
>> so he didn't get the offer.

You may question my interpretation, but I am the one that quizzed the
"sales rep" at the other end of the line.  I too suspected the same
thing, but was repeatedly told that it was 'random'.  The one
exception that she offered was that she thought people who recently
changed service were sent flyers.

The "sales rep" even offered suggestions on how to get the "magic
code", but none is easily appicable to my situation -- with one
exception (see below).

>>  but please cut this person some slack for doing her job!

>> I would suggest asking the rep's supervisor what the qualifi-
>> cations are [...]

Talking with her supervisor seems to me not a very good way of cutting
her some slack.  The conversation I had w/ her was quite pleasant up
to the point that she started trying to push the $20/year version, at
which point I (politely) declined and said goodbye.

>> There's no point in whining about the limited offer.

I'm not whining -- one of the agents suggestions was to ask a friend
that had gotten the offer.  Though I would hesitate to call most of
the net 'friend' I felt it would do both [] me a favor (to find the
"magic password" and [] others that read telecom a favor -- to know
that they can do so too.

>> Now would lying about receiving a particular mail offer be sleazy?
>> Naahhh, couldn't be.

Well, ignoring the holier-than-thou attitude in this 'question',
remember: the rep suggested I ask people.  I'll the answer up to you.

I didn't get any 'answers' to my question, so I guess the set of
Telecom readers does not intersect the set of people the offer is
extended to!


Mike

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For?
Date: 14 Aug 91 16:50:42 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <zach![e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> overlf!n2aam@kb2ear.
ampr.org (Dave Marthouse) writes:

> what long distance company is being used as the dial 1 company. Does
> the 700 areacode have any other uses?

Different companies can use the same number for different things.

MCI/Telecom*USA uses it to by-pass the LEC within the areacode.
1-700-number instead of 1-home area code-number.

MCI and Sprint use it for VNET/VPN services.


Bill

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #629
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14089;
          15 Aug 91 2:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04396;
          15 Aug 91 0:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac23535;
          14 Aug 91 23:40 CDT
Date:     Wed, 14 Aug 91 22:58:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #630
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Aug 91 22:58:09 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 630

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Martin Luddite]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [John Eaton]
    Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems [Peter Thurston]
    Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems [Gabe M. Wiener]
    Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems [Mike DeMetz]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [John Higdon]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Rob Knauerhase]
    Re: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone"? [John Higdon]
    Re: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone"? [Linc Madison]
    Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Rick Tyler]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
From: Martin Luddite <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 14:25:32 EDT
Organization: The Dorsai Diplomatic Mission (Mail address: [e-mail])


Having read the ongoing discussion about Radio Shack clerks and access
to information, I cannot help but comment on it.

I disagree with Pat, who seems to think that this is not a security
concern and/or privacy violation.  Having once worked for a private
investigator, I have used Radio Shack in order track down people.

Simply put, almost everybody has bought something from a Radio Shack
in the past two years.  Having a person's phone number, I would go to a
Radio Shack, buy a 25 cent diode, give the clerk the last four digits,
and on many occassions come up with address information on a certain
person.  It seems that the address (mailing list) database is
centralized.  This means that if you buy something at one Radio Shack,
they can pull your information at another store.  This makes it easier
for Tandy to prevent duplicate storage of records while maintaining a
rather accurate mailing list.

Periodically, they clear their list of bogus records.  I don't know
how they do this, but I assume they try to match up zip codes with
phone exchanges to see if that record is valid.  After a while they
also purge old customers to make room for new ones.  If you bought
something in 1988, and haven't purchased anything since, it is
unlikely that your name and address information is in Tandy's
computer.

Summarizing: This is a security violation, and a privacy concern,
since many people in their mailing list have unlisted phone numbers,
and there would be no other way to track them down except through
Radio Shack.  As you know, unlisted phone numbers cannot be used for
CN/A or criss-cross (ie. Cole's) directories.  There is no need to
look on the screen except when they ask you to pick out your name from
the list of people with the same last four digits, since all the
information you need on that person is printed on the receipt.


Martin C. Luddite    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Then the Radio Shack franchises in your area
operate different than the ones here in Chicago. The clerk does not
have you 'look at the screen and pick out your name'. He takes the
last four digits of your number and then asks, "What is YOUR name and
address?", and if you say something that matches his records he will
confirm by reading back the first name, or part of the address, etc.
If there is no match, then he adds you. Each store periodically
transmits names and addresses only -- no sales data per individual
customer -- to some central location; however it is not obtainable
from another store here in the Chicago area.  PAT]

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

From: John Eaton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Date: 13 Aug 91 19:09:03 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA


> Lo and behold (and as if I didn't know what was coming next) a
> screenful of names and address appeared based on these numbers.  The
> salesperson then picked a number and a receipt was issued to a person
> I don't even know.

> [Moderator's Note: Really I think your complaint is petty. The clerk
> did not *give out phone numbers* as you contend. You really had no
> business looking over at the terminal display since none of what was
> on the screen concerned you anyway.    PAT]

If the store handed out a receipt with Joe Random Customer's name and
address on it then he has a valid complaint. Suppose he was walking
out to the parking lot and he scrapped a shopping cart across
someone's paint job? Just write "send me the bill" on the receipt and
stick it on the dash.  Let Joe pay it.

Suppose Joe's neighbor finds that someone has plugged into his telco
interface box and made $2,000 worth of 900 calls. Joe claims not to
have any phone capable of plugging in but a check of Radio Shack shows
the receipt claiming he bought a lineman's handset. He will not be
amused.

Suppose a sheriff finds the receipt with Joe's name on it at the
bottom of a pile of garbage at the bottom of a cliff.

If they aren't going to protect their data then they shouldn't gather
it.

John Eaton    !hp-vcd!johne


[Mderator's Note: All those things are very interesting scenarios; but
do they *really* happen? And again, recall our original correspondent
claimed 'Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers' which in fact the
corporation does NOT do. A *single* clerk, in a *single* RS franchise
somewhere mishandled the records on a *single* sale. And you feel any
investigator looking for someone who bought a lineman's handset will
'obviously' know to go to that store, and what? Bribe the clerk to
show *him* all the phone numbers beginning xxxx, manage to match up
sales data with name -- I have yet to see my last ten thousand dollars
in purchases at the local RS on the screen -- and somehow figure out
that Joe Random must be the guy! Yes sirree!  You are grasping for
straws, intent on showing this massive conspiracy by RS to deprive
everyone of their privacy by no doubt peddling it to, let's see ... ah
yes! ... to that great bogeyman, the 'telesleaze'.  PAT]

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

From: Peter Thurston <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 11:14:05 +0100
Subject: Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems


A question: In the UK, usually the cheapest modems are unapproved
imported units from the USA. These are often very good modems -- just
the manufacturers have not bothered to go to the trouble to get UK
Approval. What is the situation in the states -- are the cheap modems
cheap imported European modems (or for that matter -- Japanese, etc)?
Given that most good modems will operate in both Bell and CCITT modes.


Peter Thurston

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

From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems
Reply-To: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 14:27:41 GMT


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

> A recent post mentioned 1200 baud modems from Damark.  Does anyone have
> a number for them?  Will these work with any RS232 port?

They should.  The Damark catalog lists it as a "Famous Maker" brand.
From the picture, I can make out an Atari label with a magnifying
glass.  Ad says it's 1200 baud, hayes compatible.  Damark's # is
1-800-729-9000.  The item number is B-375-181504.  $19.99 plus $5.50
S/H.


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. [e-mail]
N2GPZ in ham radio circles   72355,1226 on CI$

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

From: Mike DeMetz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems
Organization: Syscon International
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 19:34:34 GMT


mission![e-mail] writes:

> A recent post mentioned 1200 baud modems from Damark.  Does anyone have
> a number for them?  Will these work with any RS232 port?

They are ATARI modems with a standard RS232 and Hayes commands.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 11:14 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road


ED HOPPER <[e-mail]> writes:

> Wow! Eight whole miles.  The Houston free calling area is at least
> fifty (50) miles in each direction.  It includes 3.5 million people.
> Basic local service is about $12 for unlimited calling throughout that
> area from SW Bell.  Virtually all offices are electronic.  Facilities
> are readily available (I have five lines at home and all it took to
> install them was a new buried drop of fifty feet from terminal box to
> the house).

Well, let's see. I just installed six lines at home for a "voice BBS".
Since these are incoming only, the calling area does not matter much
to me. The lines are crossbar, but for simple incoming calls -- again,
who cares? The lines were readily available (even though Pac*Bell
groaned a bit) and required NO effort on my part. No trenches --
nothing; and I have sixteen lines in my home. Pac*Bell even cleaned up
the drops.

Now let us look at pricing. Each line costs $4.45/month, or about one
third the price of SWBT. The total monthly for six lines (with the
network access screwjob, taxes, license, dealer prep, 911, local
taxes, regulatory fee, extra dealer markup, etc., etc.,) is $55.70.
This is approximately $17 LESS than you would pay for the RAW monthly
charges for the same amount of lines.

Who is getting screwed?


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

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

From: Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 17:06:30 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (ED
HOPPER) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: That's what makes the Illinois Bell scheme for
>> northern Illinois so great. All city boundary lines and area code

> Wow! Eight whole miles.  The Houston free calling area is at least
> fifty (50) miles in each direction.  It includes 3.5 million people.
> Basic local service is about $12 for unlimited calling throughout that
> area from SW Bell.  Virtually all offices are electronic.  Facilities

> [Moderator's Note: But where you pay $12 for unlimited local service,
> we only pay about $4.50 for line access, and about 3.9 cents for each
> untimed call in our local zone.  For the $6-7 difference, we can get a
> lot of untimed local calls. Calls to the B, C, or D zones run about

When I moved from Ohio to Illinois, I asked for unlimited local
service and was told it wasn't available.  So I asked "Why" and was
connected to someone higher up in IBT who called it "part of the grand
plan to assign costs more to people who use the services" [and THIS
from the company that wanted everyone to pay $.15/month to subsidize
poor-people's phones?!?  Pick a position, guys].  She asked where I
was from, and said that Ohio Bell (as another Ameritech company) will
soon be moving to metered service as well.

I suppose for someone who NEVER uses the phone, it's cheaper.  But
simply dialing in once or twice a day (which might go down once I
begin running SLIP :) pushes my local bill higher than my mother's
under Ohio Bell.  Since there's no way to break down her bill, there
may be hidden differences in price, but we make about the same number
of local calls per month (and her local area is much bigger than mine,
and much bigger than eight miles).

I have to wonder if the costs involved in counting each local call
(which are charged differently by time-of-day) don't make service more
expensive than the old-fashioned way.  I've also heard people complain
about overcharging (who counts local calls?  not me!) and suchlike.

Lastly, in Champaign, IL, not much is outside the A band.  But here in
Portland (with banded local calls), I can't call across town for a
flat fee; from Hillsboro, one can't even call to central Portland
without incurring a per-minute charge.  Bands should be a lot bigger
in cities.


Rob Knauerhase
[e-mail]     Intel Development Tools Operation (for the summer)
[e-mail]        Univ. of Illinois, Dept. of CS, Gigabit Study Group

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 10:29 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone"?


Nick Sayer <[e-mail]> writes:

> Pac$Bel has been pushing their "Bonus Zone" thing for a while now, and
> I've not heard anything here about it.

As with everything Pac*Bell does, the Call Bonus (tm) offerings are
designed as revenue generators. The particular one you refer to is the
plan that offers (residence only) a 25% discount on calls made within
the LATA between the hours of 9PM and 8AM, 12N to 2PM and all weekend.
The plan costs $6.75 which buys your first $8.50 worth of calls.

> incentive does Pac$Bel have for saving you money?  Answer: none. If
> it's not going to save you money, what's the point? If it _IS_ saving
> you money, then where is the revinue being made up?

Some (I, for one) actually save money. If you make certain calls at
certain times regardless of cost, then you will benefit. But
statistically, people who sign up for the plan simply have friends and
relatives out of town and you will notice that this is what the
advertising is aimed at. The psychology is simple: if you think you
are getting a "deal", you will call more often. Pac*Bell's marketing
studies show that people who subscribe to the Call Bonus (known by
many of us as "Call Bogus") spend more on intraLATA toll than they
would without the plan.

Since the plan only works off-peak, there is no danger of blockage so
any use during that time is "bonus" revenue in Pac*Bell's pocket. Idle
facilities cost just as much to maintain as busy ones, so any trick
the company can use to pack them is money in the bank. No, Pac*Bell is
not giving away anything here; it is simply using very sophisticated
marketing tactics to enhance its revenue base.


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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 03:44:52 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone"?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Nick Sayer (mrapple@quack.
sac.ca.us) writes:

> Pac$Bel ... "Bonus Zone" ...  I am 99% sure without even
> asking about it that it is a scam. Think about it. You have no choice
> but to use Pac$Bel for the calls to this so-called bonus zone.  What
> incentive does Pac$Bel have for saving you money?  Answer: none. If
> it's not going to save you money, what's the point? If it _IS_ saving
> you money, then where is the revinue being made up? Money doesn't grow
> on trees -- it has to come from somewhere. If Pac$Bel can afford to let
> people save money on some calls, it means it's getting enough money
> that it could lower EVERYONE'S rates instead.

Your "bonus zone" is your LATA minus your ZUM area, generally.  You
save money if you have a high volume of calls in this area by paying a
flat monthly fee for a percentage discount on these calls.  The way
they make money with it is that the plan is structured to encourage
calls at times when the network is under-utilized: noon to 2 p.m., 9
p.m. to 8 a.m., and weekends.  With this plan, in fact, it is less
expensive to call at 1:00 than at 5:30 because the former is in
"bonus" time (35% off) and the latter is just regular evening rate
(30% off).

Also, they figure that instead of paying $10 for ten calls, you'll pay
$15 for twenty calls.  [I've oversimplified this example, of course;
there are several different plans available with all sorts of
different terms.]

Still, I certainly agree that there is AMPLE room for Pac*Bell to
lower the general rates, and I've told the PUC.  They told me in
April, 1989 that they have the issue under review.  I feel *so*
reassured.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]  =  ucbvax!tongue1!linc

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 11:22:33 -0700
From: Rick Tyler <mtxinu!Ingres.COM![e-mail]>
Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM![e-mail]
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online?


According to the mailing I received from Pacific Bell last week, area
codes 310 (Southern CA) and 510 (Northern CA) come into being on
September 2, 1991, NOT November 2, 1991, as someone has suggested.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #630
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17657;
          15 Aug 91 3:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25462;
          15 Aug 91 1:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04396;
          15 Aug 91 0:48 CDT
Date:     Thu, 15 Aug 91 0:41:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #631
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 15 Aug 91 00:41:35 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 631

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Bell Technical Journals [Leland F. Derbenwick]
    Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For? [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Hotels and AOS's AGAIN [Mike Berger]
    Re: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle! [Seth Cohn]
    Re: Robot Operators; Voice Response Collect Calls [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Mark Day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 13:37:41 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

> Second of all, there's a good reason why
> the intra-LATA long distance rates are so high.  I was recently
> looking into a calling plan for such calls from Pacific Bell, and
> asked why a call from 916/983 to 916/753 cost as much as a call to New
> York City (completely accros the continent), when this call was only
> 35 miles?  The rep gave me a very straightforward answer -- "it
> actually costs more to complete a call of a shorter distance!"  I knew
> there had to be a good reason!

> [Moderator's Note: What she *really* meant to say was that telco has
> long enjoyed a very cozy relationship with regulators in your state,
> and this cozy relationship allows the telco to set quite high rates.
> Very seldom do state PUC's not just rubber-stamp what telco tells
> them. The relationship with the FCC is more even-handed however.  PAT

  Sorry to interrupt this sarcasm-fest with some serious arguments ...

 I'm not sure *ALL* PUC's are rubber stamps. There are a few that have
seemed somewhat customer pro-active, at least at times. New York, and
occassionally California (go ahead, Higdon, make your day) but they
don't have the resources to fight these issues indefinitely and can't
pay as many or as much to lawyers as the telecos do with our rate
money. Does any state have a customer ombudsman or lobby supported by
a tax or surcharge on the bills ?

  I also have significant doubt that the FCC has been so even-handed
in the era of Reagan and his clones and cronies. I think hands off
would be a more apt description. What has improved the long distance
situation has not been the regulators but by AT&T being forced to
compete because of alternate LD services and the required divestiture
eliminating the cross-subsidizations.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 17:38:16 EDT
From: Leland F Derbenwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Technical Journals
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> I remember reading somewhere that Bell offered thier "Technical
> Information" in the form of journals.  Whatever I read never bothered
> to quote any sources.  If you have any ideas, please send them to me.

Once upon a time there was _The Bell System Technical Journal_.  Then
there was divestiture, and there was no more Bell System, so the
journal was retitled the _AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Journal_.
Later that was decided to be too restrictive a title, and it is now
the _AT&T Technical Journal_.

I know that in the _BSTJ_ days, many libraries carried it; I can't
speak for the present.  (I know _our_ library system has it.  :-)

To quote from inside the front cover of the March/April, 1991 issue:

   AT&T TECHNICAL JOURNAL (ISSN 8576-2324) is published six
   times a year by AT&T.  Individual subscriptions: U.S. -- 1 year
   $50; 2 years $90; 3 years $120  Foreign -- 1 year $64; 2 years
   $118; 3 years $162.

   Payment for foreign subscriptions must be made in U.S. funds,
   or by check drawn on a U.S. bank, and made payable to the
   _AT&T Technical Journal_, and sent to AT&T Bell Laboratories,
   Circulation Group, Room 1B-413, 101 J. F. Kennedy Parkway,
   Short Hills, NJ 07078-0905.  ...

   Current or recent issues may be obtained by writing to the
   Circulation Group or calling [phone].  You may obtain
   back issues from the AT&T Customer Information Center, P.O.
   Box 19901, Indianapolis, IN 46219, or by calling
   [phone].  From outside the U.S. call [phone].
   Photocopy or microform reprints from the _AT&T Technical
   Journal_ are available by writing to University Microfilms
   International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, or
   calling [phone].  From outside the U.S. call
   [phone].

Hope this helps,


  Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ
  [e-mail]  or  <wherever>!att!cbnewsm!lfd

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 13:09:48 GMT


Nick Sayer <[e-mail]> writes:

> I just have to write in support of Mr. Higdon's observations.
> PG&E (the Northern California power utility) doesn't make stoves and
> light bulbs.

No, but for years PECO, the regulated power utility for Philadelphia
sold stoves and light bulbs, and TVs and ... they only recently
gave it up because they weren't making any money from it anymore.

> Cable companies don't sell TVs or take orders for the Cable Shopping
> Channel.

No, but they all get a cut of the revenue from the orders from their
zip codes.  That's their fee to carry the channel.

> Water companies don't sell toilets or fix plumbing.

Many do fix plumbing ...


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP           Elm Coordinator: Current 2.3PL11
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                  Projected 2.4 Release: Late 1991
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd      Voice: [phone], FAX: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: For many years, Commonwealth Edison in Chicago has
given away free light bulbs based on the size of your electric bill
each month.  PAT]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For?
Date: 15 Aug 91 03:47:12 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> Bill Huttig <zach!wah%winnie@
uunet.uu.net> writes:

> MCI and Sprint use it for VNET/VPN services.

I forgot to add that is most likely the reason that in PAT's post of a
few days with the 10333 # returned a service was disconnected
recording.  As in the last {Network World} it said VPN calls are
dialed as 10333 + # + seven digits for on net calls.


Bill

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

From: Mike Berger <berger@iboga>
Subject: Re: Hotels and AOS's AGAIN
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 18:55:49 GMT


[e-mail] (Marcel Mongeon) writes:

> The result of all of these policies is that our revenues dropped by
> about 25% on telephone.  The fact that we are the only hotel in town
> with free local calls has not attracted a single piece of new
> business.  Anyone want to suggest why?

Ask again next year.  I suspect that most people don't check the phone
policies in advance, but they'll consider it on a return visit.


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

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

From: seth cohn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle!
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 11:20:18 EDT
Organization: Alchemy International, Ithaca, N.Y.


[e-mail] (David Lemson) writes:

> A test of electronic-mail between earth and laptops aboard the space shuttle
> Atlantis was intended to lay the groundwork for use of E-mail on space
> station Freedom.  But the test is in jeopardy after 80 E-mail messages
> were received by the Atlantis crew from unauthorized users.  The leak
> behind the E-mail address remains a mystery.

> Now, who was it that leaked that??? Could it be???  USENET??? :-) The
> power of Usenet, for you.  (Now I *have* to try to find that original
> article where someone posted "Hey, everyone, try this e-mail
> address!")

> [Moderator's Note: I humbly suggest it was an article which originated
> here in TELECOM Digest which led to a longer article written by Joe
> Abernathy in the {Houston Chronicle} (which was then re-printed here
> in the Digest) which started the activity.

NO, Pat, the address YOU gave was for a ground based email address
and that was the one spread around ([e-mail])
UNLESS someone else screwed up and gave it to YOU, you're clear. :)


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 :)
[e-mail] OR [e-mail] (slow)


[Moderator's Note: What I meant was, I wonder if it occurred to anyone
at all to try and make an email connection until the stories started
appearing saying it was possible but that email would be held here on
earth. Or by chance is the 'atlantis' address automatically forwarding
things along inadvertently? The actual address *in space* was
different, right?  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 13:00:40 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Robot Operators; Voice Response Collect Calls
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)


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

> [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]

Pacific Bell has a similar (maybe the same) system as Illinios Bell.
But, it works much better than those used by the "third banana"
carriers.  The recipient is instructed to indicate acceptance by
pressing a key, or to hang up to refuse.  If the recipient doesn't
have touch-tone, they are instructed to hold on, in which case a live
operator comes on after a timeout.  This is the best of both worlds --
complete automation when both parties have touch-tone, and human
intervention in other cases.  Since they do not rely on voice
recognition, there's no reliablility degregation as there is with the
alternative systems.

This parallels the differences between the "good" and "bad"
implementations of auto-attendants and VRUs.  The good ones let you
use tone to direct your call and/or get account information, while
letting you easily talk to a real person when you need to or want to.
The bad ones are installed to shield the customer from the company,
and reduce human costs rather than improve customer service.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Day)
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 19:07:56 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes:

> I was in my local Radio Shack the other day and when I went to pay for
> the small item that I'd selected, the salesperson asked for the last
> four digits of my phone number.  I refused and this person just keyed
> in four digits.

Interesting.  I had complained to Radio Shack (up to the regional
V.P.)  about employees badgering me for my name, address, and phone
number.  The veep apologized and said that part of an employee's
evaluation was their "hit rate" (sorry, can't remember the phrase he
actually used), meaning what percentage of sales had an associated
mailing address.  He then went on to say that the sales people should
stop asking when the customer refused to answer.

I thought about this a while and realized that my dispute wasn't with
the poor fellow ringing up the sale, but with the stupid bureaucracy
of the company.  So I resolved to make their database as useless as
possible.  Whenever I go into a Radio Shack, I'm perfectly happy to
give them a name and address.  It's just that the name and address
aren't mine, and in fact aren't anyone's.  In fact, it's become sort
of fun to see what I can get away with.  Can I be George Bush?  Nahh.
How about Charlie Parker? Yeah, that'll work ... I give reasonable but
nonexistent addresses from cities that I've lived in.  The one
significant drawback to this scheme, as far as I can see, is the waste
produced by extra fliers that Radio Shack sends out bulk rate and the
Post Office winds up pulping.

> At this point I complained that, if not illegal, it was unethical to
> give out the name and address of anyone who appears in their ragsheet
> flyer.  He said that maybe the person wanted the flyer but I told him
> that maybe the person didn't know what R.S. was doing.

> My feeling is that names and phone numbers SHOULD NOT EVER be given
> out by merchants for any reason at all.

I'm glad that the employees also subvert this particularly obnoxious
system, although I agree that the mechanism used isn't appropriate.
All I can hope is that the information disclosed in this incident was
bogus... :-)

> [Moderator's Note: Really I think your complaint is petty. The clerk
> did not *give out phone numbers* as you contend. You really had no
> business looking over at the terminal display since none of what was
> on the screen concerned you anyway. Some RS dealers get around the
> problem of recalcitrant customers who refuse to give their name by
> keeping an account on the machine under 9999 for a 'customer' named
> Cash Sale, whose address is that of the store. Obviously the clerk who
> waited on you did not record the transaction correctly, but its hardly
> the big deal you make it.   PAT]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  This is a big deal, and Radio Shack is just the
leading edge of what we'll see everywhere if we don't resist it.

Radio Shack "really has no business" knowing my name and address; they
should be satisfied with my money.  The screen is also where the total
is displayed, so it's perfectly reasonable for a customer to be
looking there.  And just what allows you to characterize a customer as
"recalcitrant" if s/he refuses to give a name for a cash sale?

Radio Shack used to be much more reasonable about cash sales, but at
least for the last year in the Boston area, they've become real pains
in the a**.  Perhaps there are still dealers who have a "customer" for
cash sales, but my guess based on talking to the Radio Shack veep is
that someone decided there was Big Money being lost by not building up
their mailing list, so it was time to eliminate anonymous cash sales.

For what it's worth, I also think the Moderator owes the original
poster an apology.


Mark Day   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Oh you do, do you? I wish I could get apologies
from people every time I read messages which sorely tax my imagination
with bizzare examples of all the things that will *in theory -- but
never or rarely ever* happen if the horrible bogeyman known as
'telesleaze' should happen to get your name and number. I mean really,
one RS salesman in West Podunk diddles up a receipt for a cash sale
and suddenly we have 'Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers', and let's
stop the world while someone gets off and shudders at the prospect
that the sheriff might come along and find a bag of trash that has the
receipt in it for a 29-cent diode and the innocent victim lives at a
place where some third party unknown ripped off phone service from
someone else and now they will take the name and put it in a data base
of people who are known to go around putting RS diodes on other
people's phone lines and to make matters worse the poor devil will get
a telephone call in the middle of the day from someone selling diodes
for a competitor to whom the sheriff sold the name after investigating
the guy and the guy with his name on the reciept will need to install
another phone line with an answering machine and a non-pub number so
he need not risk the awfulness of answering the phone in person when
the telemarketer calls unless of course he demands to speak to the
telemarketer's supervisor's supervisor's supervisor to debate some
obscure technical question about the 29 cent diode for which none of
this would ever have happened had not Radio Shack been such a greedy
company looking to make more money by demanding some name and address
from every customer.  And we are told if we don't stop this henious
pratice now, freedom, privacy and no doubt the entire American Way
will be facing imminent death.  Gaak .... only on Usenet!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #631
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21081;
          15 Aug 91 4:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00183;
          15 Aug 91 3:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25462;
          15 Aug 91 1:55 CDT
Date:     Thu, 15 Aug 91 1:19:10 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #632
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 15 Aug 91 01:19:03 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 632

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Voice Mail Support From Southwestern Bell [Dave McCracken]
    Sure-Fire Privacy Protection in Thailand [Dave Leibold]
    Tour of a CO [Thomas Lapp]
    Cable TV Competition [Larry Rachman]
    Precision of Phone and Postal Codes [Carl Moore]
    Re: USOC Standards (was ISO Standards) [Toby Nixon]
    Re: U.S. - Canada Calling Cards [Nigel Allen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Voice Mail Support From Southwestern Bell
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 09:16:46 CDT
From: Dave McCracken <[e-mail]>


I found a public notice in this morning's {Austin American Statesman}
that I thought this group might find interesting.  Here are the first
two paragraphs:

"On July 22, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company file an application
with the Public Utility Commission of Texas for approval of two new
optional services, Exchange Connection Service and Customer Alerting
Enablement.  Exchange Connection Service will permit a customer of the
Telephone Company to provide voice messaging service, telephone
answering service, or other services to itself or to patrons of the
customer.  Customer Alerting Enablement will permit residenc and
business lines to receive an alerting tone (intermittent dial tone)
transmitted by an Exchange Connection Service customer.  The proposed
effective date for this offering is September 23, and will be
available statewide where facilities permit.

"The calling party's telephone number and other originating network
call information will be delivered to the Exchange Connection Service
customer when the calling number and the called number are served by
the same switch.  Additionaly, the caller's telephone number and other
originating network call information may be recorded and store by the
Exchange Connection Service customer.  Customers may be able to
identify the caller before the call is answered.  All Exchange
Connection Service customers will be required to sign a non-disclosure
agreement prior to being provided service.  In the agreement the
customer agrees not to disclose the calling party's telephone number
unless the customer has written permission from the calling party."

I looks like all you who would like stutter dial tone from your
voicemail vendor just have to move to Texas :-).


Dave McCracken      [e-mail]      [phone]
Dell Computer       9505 Arboretum Blvd    Austin, TX 78759-7299

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 21:33:07 EDT
From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sure-Fire Privacy Protection in Thailand


I spotted a 1991 Bangkok (English-language) directory in a library
tonight. There was a section on page two assuring customers that the
phone company won't invade privacy, while explaining how re-used
numbers could be called by acquaintances of the number's previous user
(something that happened to me a few times in Toronto). The last
paragraph of this section is interesting:

"In case any doubts persist, there is an easy and effective method you
can use to test the privacy of your line. Simply dial your own number
from an outside line and see who answers. This test is best conducted
when you are sure no one is home and your house or office is secure.
Repeat the procedure periodically, and at different hours, until you
are fully confident that the privacy of your line is not being
violated."

I guess the wiretappers either get caught answering the line, or
perhaps there are other situations in Thailand where people splice
phone lines.

Meanwhile, while on the directory, Thailand cellular numbers are
dialed as 01-NP-XXXXX where the NP digits vary according to the
region. From north to south, the NP digits are: 51, 41, 52, 42, 31,
32, 21 (Bangkok), 72, 71. Thus, 01-21-1xxxx or 01-21-2xxxx could
represent a Bangkok cellular phone number. This separates it out from
the regular numbering plan, as is the case in some other countries.


[e-mail]   temporary: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 17:40:42 EST
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tour of a CO
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I had the opportunity to take a tour of my local CO (Wilmington, DE)
this afternoon, and was pretty amazed by both the equipment that they
have, and what they don't have.

What they don't have is a lot of bulky equipment taking up rooms of
space.  In fact, they are reclaiming switch rooms for office space,
since they don't need all the extra space.  I even saw a large section
of raised floor which was completely empty.

However, it is not ALL empty.  Back when I was in elementary school,
the telco opened a new office in my section of Morgantown, WV
(Suncrest) and installed a brand-new 1AESS which had DTMF
capabilities!  About all I can remember more than 20 years down the
road was the clicking noises of the relays.  This afternoon was an
audio trip down memory lane, since I found that indeed this CO still
has several 1AESS switches in use.  As my tour guide pointed out,
"they're just workhorses that don't justify taking them out."

But the 1A's can't handle all of the traffic of the CO, so they do
have some newer Northern Telecom equipment for some of the newer
exchanges.

One of the highlights was watching my host do a line test on my
residential line (which is serviced out of that office).  Everything
(DC, AC, etc) tested well within specs, and I also found out that my
"pair" from CO to my end-user equipment is 31,800 (+/- 10) feet!  (It
measured a 65 dB loss for this distance, by the way).  All the testing
was done via a single terminal console in an office in the CO.

Another thing which impressed me was the number of records they have
on connections.  I could see all the records of the cross connections
from the punchdown location within the CO to the cross cable connects
outside my apartment complex, to the connect pair on the 25 pair block
in the basement of my building (it was correctly listed as pair five).
To have that much data and have it accurate is really what impressed
me.

Thanks for letting me share with you some of my experiences from
today.  I'm sure the telecom veterans probably could make some
interesting comments about the history of those records, and the
current methods of testing lines as well as the historical methods.  I
was told by my tour guide that the testing system they use allows them
to determine if there is discontinuity in a circuit and if so, where
the discontinuity is WITHIN 10 FEET.  I asked how it was done, (via
Time Domain Reflectometry or signal loss, or what) and he wasn't
entirely sure of the exact method.  Could someone tell me how they
might determine circuit lengths and points of failure?


tom

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

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

Date: 14 Aug 91 07:02:48 EDT
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cable TV Competition


With all this discussion of multiple dialtone and cable television
suppliers in the same territory, I thought it might be interesting to
describe a specific case history (actual mileage may vary -- I'm
working from memory).

The town is Huntington, NY (516-427, et. al.), and when I moved to
this area about six years ago, you could buy your cable TV from two
competing companies.  Huntington Cable was the original service
provider, they provided basic cable on 2-13, with their own movie
channel on (I think) 3, with notch filter scrambling, and some sort of
soft-core porn on one of the superband channels (also scrambled).
Picture quality was so-so, and I believe basic service was around $12
per month.

The upstart competitor was Cablevision, bigger, already in many areas
on Long Island, and 'ready to serve you better.' Basic service
included a box, a few more channels (nothing special), and access to
the 'the traditional' premium channels (HBO, Showtime ...). Their
quality was so-so, to.

So there we were, two sets of physical plant on all the poles, and
everything. A friend of mine played one company's special offers
against the other's; he had an A-B switch on the TV so he could select
whichever one he wanted to watch at any particular moment. When I
moved into my home, the old drop for Huntington cable was still there,
so I hooked up the TV. That lasted about a year until a falling tree
branch ripped it out; I didn't want cable badly enough to bother
getting it fixed.

As you might expect, we eventually got a letter from Cablevision,
announcing how they were taking over the customers of Huntington
Cable, and how the services would be eventually merged. The word above
board was that Cablevision premium service was slaughtering
Huntington's market. The grapevine said that Huntington eventually
succumbed to rampant sabotage of their physical plant (your guess as
to which is the true story; perhaps both are).

Anyway, it took less than a year for the Huntington Cable service to
vanish.  A Cablevision brochure announced how "... crews would be
removing the excess unsightly wiring from the poles"; sounds to me
like they were *making sure* that no one would ever use it again.
Nowadays, youze abuys youze cable from Cablevision, and youze likes
it!

So whats it like? 30-40 some odd channels, a variety of tiers of
premium services, 'free' cable boxes. Basic service includes about 20
channels and costs about $20/mo; if you take *all* the premium
channels, its about $60/mo.

When my antenna fell down a few years ago, I decided to wander into
the storefront Cablevision store (!) to see what they had to offer. I
spent the first 15 minutes or waiting for someone to help me.
Eventually I started fiddling with the box on a Cablevision-equipped
TV sitting there. Plenty of channels, miserably noisy picture ... $60 a
month for this???

SALESPERSON: (Indignant) MAY I HELP YOU? (get your fingers off that
cable box).

ME: Why, yes ... I was thinking of subscribing to cable.  Is that the
quality of reception I can expect to receive?

SALESPERSON: (with a straight face) That picture looks perfectly fine
to me.

(We verbally fence for a while, and eventually get to the decoder
boxes.)

ME: I'll probably take basic service, but I have a cable-ready TV. How
much of a discount do I get because I don't need the converter box.

SALESPERSON: You don't understand sir, the box is free, so there's no
discount for not having one.

I stopped off at Radio Shack on the way home to buy a new TV antenna.
It gets 2-13 with a better picture than cable provides, and for the
$60 saved, I could rent 30 movies per month, and I could never watch
that many. As an added premium, I enjoy the reverse snobbery of *not*
having cable.

Latest item in the local newspaper is that some people are getting
*very upset* about how Cablevision can poll the new addressable
decoder boxes and know what you're watching. The editorial theme is
that this is an invasion of privacy. Its nice to know that *I'm*
safe :-). There's also some discussion about installing *fiber optic*
physical plant in the future; if the picture gets better than my
antenna, maybe I'll resubscribe.

And that's the way it happened here, with the big fish eventually
eating the little one. I'd be curious to hear the outcome of similar
stories in other areas.


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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 9:53:10 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precision of Phone and Postal Codes


In the apartment complex where I have lived, I found that there are
two zip + 4's available: one for the entire complex, and one for that
particular building only.  But I do not get heavily involved in zip +
4, because even a five-digit zipcode is almost always defining a
smaller area than a telephone exchange (eliminating duplicate areas of
service of the latter, in case more than one prefix serves the same
geographic area).  And yes, where a zipcode is used for PO boxes only,
the zip + 4 is usually based on that box number (except for business
reply).

Long ago, I wrote to this Digest about precision of various
postal and phone codes in the U.S.  Here they are in ascending
order of precision (descending order of size of geographic area):

Telephone area code
First three digits of zipcode
Phone prefix
Five digit zipcode
Nine digit zipcode

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USOC Standards (was ISO Standards)
Date: 15 Aug 91 00:41:22 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Laird
P. Broadfield) writes:

> Okay, so where do we lay hands on a USOC book?  We've all picked up
> the standard ones from dealing with them for so long (11, 14, 21X, 45,
> 13C ...)  but where is the master reference?

USOCs are defined in Part 68 of the FCC Rules and Regulations, related
to connection of equipment to the public switched telephone network
(sorry I can't give you the exact name and CFR volume number; I'm not
in my office).  The document is available from the US Government
Printing Office.  Every telecom afficianado should have a copy; it
contains a lot of important and interesting information.


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             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet       [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 02:52:11 PDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: U.S. - Canada Calling Cards


[e-mail] (David Ash) writes:

> 1. Does anyone know of a long-distance U.S. calling card available to
> people without a home phone which can be used for *domestic* calls
> within Canada (where I travel frequently)?  My PacBell card used to
> allow this, but since Stanford took over my on-campus phone service,
> I've lost my PacBell card.  Neither my MCI nor Sprint cards work for
> domestic calls within Canada, although they will allow U.S. - Canada
> calls in either direction.

Historically, AT&T and local exchange carrier calling cards could be
used for domestic calls within Canada, and Canadian telephone company
cards could be used for domestic calls within the U.S.  I believe this
is still the case.

AT&T offers a non-subscriber credit card, which you should be able to
use for domestic calls within Canada. However, you would be charged
the regular Canadian telephone company rates (automatic calling card
calls or operator-assisted calling card calls, as applicable). Call
the regular AT&T customer service number (800-222-0300, I think) for
more information.

You might want to ask Pacific Bell if it offers a non-subscriber card.

As well, some Canadian telephone companies offer non-subscriber
calling cards. Bell Canada service reps are usually unfamiliar with
the offering, and need to check with a supervisor or two before they
know how to process the request.  On the other hand, I was able to get
a card from the British Columbia Telephone Company quite easily.  The
service rep apparently had an electronic script she was working from,
and asked me the usual questions you would expect on a bank credit
card application.

To get a non-subscriber calling card from a Canadian telephone
company, you will probably need to give a mailing address within the
company's operating territory. (In the case of B.C. Tel, I asked them
to send the card to my sister's apartment in Vancouver.) If your
permanent address is elsewhere, they will want to know that address as
well.


Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #632
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03148;
          16 Aug 91 3:14 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04769;
          16 Aug 91 1:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02412;
          16 Aug 91 0:20 CDT
Date:     Thu, 15 Aug 91 23:51:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #633
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 15 Aug 91 23:51:20 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 633

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Lost Buttset Message Makes My Day! [TELECOM Moderator]
    Intra LATA Calls (Was Audiotext) [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Kid-Aide [Kyle Rudden]
    Routing Nationwide Number to Nearest Service Point [Brent Chapman]
    Setting Up a Fax Gateway [John Higdon]
    Long Distance Recommendations [Bill Berbenich]
    Request: Area Code Map for Company Directory [Larry Rosenman]
    Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Michael Van Norman]
    More Detail on Bronx-to-718 [Carl G. Moore, Jr.]
    Citbank Visa/Mastercharge is Too Friendly [[e-mail]]
    Wanted: PBX For Home [Todd Inch]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 23:28:42 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Lost Buttset Message Makes My Day!


The weekend is getting off to a great start. Due to a problem with my
clutzy fingers a message go lost, and I'd like to ask the person to
resubmit it.

The message was a clipping from a local newspaper about a prosecutor
who arrested someone and seized several lineman's handsets in the
process. Unfortunatly the article got lost in a shuffle between
directories here, and I can't even recall who sent it, except it was
someone from AT&T.

Send it again please ... it was a <good> article!


PAT

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Intra LATA calls (was: Audiotext)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 15:58:07 GMT


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> Come now, Macy!  I don't think you've given the telcos a fair chance
> at explaining themselves.  Take Pacific Bell for instance.  You've got
> your facts all wrong!  First of all, they don't let you dial 10XXX for
> intra-LATA calls; there's NO way to route these calls to an IXC,
> unless you're really sneaky.

I reported a phone in Vacaville (60 miles from my home in the 707
area) to the PUC because it wouldn't let me use AT&T to dial my home
(415 area code).  Turns out 707, 415, and part of 408 are all in the
same LATA, and I CAN'T use 10xxx. ( But I tried dialing 00, which got
me a Sprint operator, who put me through on Sprint.)


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 14:42:14 edt
From: Kyle Rudden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kid-Aide


The following is taken from the August 11, 1991 edition of the
{Cincinnati Enquirer}.  The article was written by Sue MacDonald.
Personal comments are encased in brackets at the end.

   Keep lines of communication open with Kid-Aide program

A Cincinnati businessman and father has launched a 24-hour telephone
assistance progam called Kid-Aide to help busy children and busy
parents stay in touch with each other for necessary messages and
life's emergencies.

Whether it's a child who has missed a bus, a parent who has to work
late or a family emergency that requires a change of plans, Kid-Aide
serves as a central message and notification point for family members
who need to keep in touch.

Families who sign up for the $30-a-year program have access to an 800-
telephone number staffed round-the-clock by operators who can take
messages, contact family members, contact friends or neighbors who
serve as emergency backups, get in touch with law enforcement
agencies, family physicians or others.

Kid-Aide clients have the option of being able to leave and/or
retrieve phone-mail messages.  At all times, they can speak directly
to an operator.

Kid-Aide President Robert W. Wray, who is also involved in the
security business, says he came across the idea for Kid-Aide several
years ago after he and his son missed messages about a canceled
after-school activity.  When Wray arrived at Walnut Hills High School,
his usually punctual son was nowhere to be found.

The two eventually found each other, but Wray says the event was
disturbing enough that he developed a system by which families could
stay in contact with each other.

"I'm surprised at the number of things available to families after the
fact, like child identification programs and the like, but there
aren't available as many proactive things to keep situations from
happening," says Wray, who launched Kid-Aide at the 1991 All About
Kids show.

"With Kid-Aide, there should be no need for a child ever to consider
hitchhiking, accept a ride with a stranger, walk home at night or
through a dangerous area, or just wait outside a building in hopes
that someone will eventually come," he says.

Among clients who already have signed up, missed rides and family
emergencies are the most reasons for using the service, he says.

In addition to the $30 annual fee, users pay 45 cents a minute for
time used (65 cents a minute for operator time).  Wray says the
average call is about five minutes long and costs about $5.50.

For more information, call 800-543-2433.

[IMHO, the service presented here seems redundant given all of the
communication options available today.  Answering machines with remote
message retrieval are commonplace.  Couple this with an AT&T Call Me
card, or personal 800 number, and Kid-Aide is replicated.  Comments
welcome.]


Kyle Rudden <--> [e-mail]

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

From: Brent Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Routing Nationwide Number to Nearest Service Point
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 19:24:16 GMT


[e-mail] (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

> According to this week's {Network World}, Domino's is teaming with
> AT&T and Bell Laboratories (getting a Pizza the action?) to develop a
> service that will route a phone call to a single nationwide number to
> the store closest to the caller.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has had an 800 number that
works just like this for pilot weather briefings for at least a couple
of years now.  You dial the number and are automatically connected to
the Flight Service Station (FSS) that serves your area.  There are
something like 150 FSS facilities, nationwide.

Before the change to this "one number, nationwide" (the changeover is
still not totally complete, by the way, but I think it's been
completed at most of the FSS facilities), a pilot had to find the
right number for the local FSS (often an 800 number, if the FSS served
a large enough area to justify that).  Since exactly the same weather
information is available at all FSS's, pilots would often call a
non-local FSS for information if the local FSS was too busy (for
instance, if Oakland FSS, which serves all of the San Francisco Bay
Area, was busy, you could call Reno FSS or Salinas FSS, who might be
able to talk to you sooner).  As the FAA has been switching the FSS's
over to the new nationwide auto-routing number, they've been shutting
down the old local numbers, so you can't do this any more; this has
some pilots rather annoyed.


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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 14:26 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Setting Up a Fax Gateway


A word of warning for those of you setting up a fax gateway in your
UNIX-based PC.

Some months ago, I checked into doing just that. The consensus was
that the DigiFAX software (by DigiBoard) was the way to go. It
supports two modems: Hayes and Brooktrout. I bought the Hayes JT Fax
9600.

Today I finally received the DigiFAX package. A little piece of paper
fell out that mentioned that the Hayes JT Fax and the Adaptec 154x
series SCSI controllers were incompatible. (And guess what my system
has for a hard drive controller!) A call to DigiFAX confirmed that the
game was over: the Hayes and the Adaptec are indeed incompatible and
neither company has expressed any desire to fix the problem. There is
no workaround.

So, for those of you who have PC's with Adaptec SCSI controllers who
have decided to "go fax" with DigiFAX -- go straight to Brooktrout;
the Hayes won't work.


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

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

Subject: Long Distance Recommendations
From: Bill Berbenich <wabwrld![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 12:16:42 EDT
Organization: Wabworld, Atlanta/Doraville, Georgia, USA


   I am considering switching LD carriers and am interested in hearing
the experiences of others.  I already have a lot of perspective on
AT&T, so please don't reply about them.  They have all of their cards
out on the table and they are also able to advertise a lot about their
advantages.  It is the other LD carriers, besides the "Big Three" that
I am interested in.  My LD charges are never more than $100 per month
on my home phone, so that may have some bearing on your reply.

   I will be using the carrier for run-of-the-mill stuff, no need for
residential 800 service or other telecom exotica.  I am particularly
interested in Cable & Wireless and Telecom*USA (or did they merge
with someone?).

   Please mail your replies to:

srchtec!wabwrld!ld -or-
wabwrld![e-mail] (for you domain people).

A summary will be posted to the Digest if I get enough input from my
fellow readers.

   Thanks in advance for your input.

               ---=== wabwrld Waffle BBS ===---
                A small, quality e-mail system
                on the outskirts of Atlanta, Ga.
        bangpath - {emory,uupsi}!srchtec!wabwrld!bill

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

Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online?
From: Michael Van Norman <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 22:44


mtxinu!Ingres.COM![e-mail] (Rick Tyler) wrote:

> According to the mailing I received from Pacific Bell last week, area
> codes 310 (Southern CA) and 510 (Northern CA) come into being on
> September 2, 1991, NOT November 2, 1991, as someone has suggested.

That "someone" was me :) According to the piece of mail I am holding
in my hand at this very moment, the date is November 2, 1991.  The
mailing came with my last bill from GTE.  The telecommunications
office here at UCLA also says the switch happens on November 2.  Could
PacBell and GTE be doing this at different time?  I tend to believe
the November 2 date because six months from that date is May 2 (at
least they agree on that point) and other information I have seen says
the grace period is six months, not seven.


Michael Van Norman     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: As John Covert once reminded me, cutovers and
conversions are most often scheduled for Saturday, dating back to when
that was the slowest day of the week, traffic-wise. Do either of
those dates fall on Saturday? That would probably be the day.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 20:58:13 -0400
From: Carl G Moore Jr <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Detail on Bronx-to-718
Reply-to: [e-mail]


December 11, 1990 {New York Times} article on page B-3 announces that
(as you have heard in Telecom already) Bronx will be switching to 718
instead of the 917 area code; currently, it shares 212 with Manhattan.
More details:

 -- Bronx officials insulted at the prospect of being lumped with
nonhumans (area 917) and thus feeling cut off from rest of NYC.

 -- 212 was created in 1947.

 -- 3 area codes will be sufficient until at least 2000 (source:
N.Y.Telephone).

 -- Rejected alternatives were mind-boggling; they included:
2 area codes in Manhattan;
All new NYC numbers go to new area code

 -- At least at the outset, 917 will be used for cellular and paging in
212, and for pagers only in 718 (I don't see why 718's cellular is not
included).  A task force will study expansion to faxes, computers,
etc., and whether to expand 917 to such services in 516 and 914 areas.

 -- Bronx to move to 718 not later than July 1992; permissive dialing
"for a year or so".

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

Date: 13 Aug 91 00:29:00 GMT
Organization: Sherwood Forest
From: Corporate Raider <[e-mail]>
Subject: Citbank Visa/Mastercharge is Too Friendly


Ever see those commercials on TV about how Citibank is such a friendly
bank?  For example one person needed a new engine for his car while he
was on vacation, and citibank "authorized" a credit limit increase?
Well while I am on this topic, if you call Citbank Customer Service
line, and if you need to get a balance or a limit on your credit card,
all you have to do is enter in your card number, then it waits and
asks you for your zip code. You then can ask it for the balance of
your account, the maximum credit limit of your account, etc. etc.

Now think all a crook needs is your card number and your zip code and
they can access your records nite or day, not even a crook, but say
your local merchant wants to make sure you have "enough" he simply
calls the 800 number, enters in your card number and zip code, and
poof he/she has you complete billing history.

I think Citibank should make their system more secure. Have a added
feature of your phone number and a four digit "PIN" number that only
you know, so that only you and Citibank could access this information.


k/orkc   -k/rock

Internet : [e-mail]
  UUCP   : rutgers!bobsbox!sherwood!k-rock
 Bitnet  : k-rock%sherwood.rent.com@pucc


[Moderator's Note: Isn't it something how the telephone had made it so
much easier to lie, cheat and steal than in the past?  I think Western
Union had the right idea when they said they wanted no part of such an
instrument!    :)    PAT]

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

From: Todd Inch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: PBX For Home
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 16:23:37 GMT


Several of you regular readers have mentioned or recommended some
small PBX's appropriate for residential use, including a few models
made by Panasonic, if I recall.

Does anyone know of a vendor for these, or, better yet, have one
laying about that they want to sell?

I have an immediate need and cash in my pocket.

Specifically, it must use analog plain-'ol telephones, such as the
2500, NOT electronic sets (unless it's a real deal and a bunch of
phones come with it.  I have the 2500's and want to add answering
machine, modem, etc.  I think this rules out many non-hybrid "key
systems".)

As small as two lines by six extensions would be acceptable, but I'd
rather have something more like three lines by twelve extensions.
(Yes, for you non-phanatics, I've had tne phones/devices in a 1200
square foot single-story home.)

Would like intercom calling, hold, forward, conference calling,
"call-waiting" programmable ringing (e.g. what phone rings on which
line) etc.  Paging adapter and MOH inputs would be plusses.

So far, I haven't found a local vendor who wants to/is able to sell me
such a critter.  Several said this size unit doesn't exist.  At that
point, I mention AT&T's Partner, which uses one or two self-contained
2 x 6 modules, each at about $400 (Hello Direct price.)  It does need
a proprietary electronic set to do programming, but I've got access to
one I can borrow.

So, I'm thinking I've got to be able to do better than a $400 2 x 6
unit, especially if I don't mind used.

One vendor did offer a Mitel SX-20 for $800, configured for 4 x 24,
which he claimed would do anything I'd ever want, but was strictly
as-is, cash, and he wasn't willing to even do the work of faxing me a
spec sheet on it.  If the wife would let me spend that much, I might
go for it if I added a ten-day no-questions-asked return it if I don't
like it clause.  (Maybe I'll have to bring up the subject of her
in-state long distance bill. :-) I think the vendor thinks he's doing
me a favor.  Maybe.

So, where can I get something this size, and is it reasonable to
expect under $400 for it?


[Moderator's Note: If Melco is still in business (?) they make/made a
unit called the 212 which would go for about the price you want. Melco
also had/has a unit called the 424 and the 824.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #633
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07877;
          16 Aug 91 4:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06097;
          16 Aug 91 2:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04769;
          16 Aug 91 1:30 CDT
Date:     Fri, 16 Aug 91 0:50:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #634
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 16 Aug 91 00:49:36 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 634

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Christopher Owens]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Leonard P. Levine]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Mark Fulk]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Mark R. Jenkins]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Robert Prescott]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Toby Nixon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 0:34:45 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers


This issue of the Digest is devoted to replies to ealier messages on
Radio Shack policies regarding names and addresses for purchase
reciepts, and my responses to some of those messages.

There are still more messages, and they will be appearing in the next
issue of the Digest, since this issue is as full as I can make it.
Suffice to say, we do not see eye to eye on this controversial issue,
but these little disputes from time to time are what make TELECOM
Digest, IMHO, such an interesting news group.

I had to cut the quoted stuff extensively since it made room for more
messages, and eliminated reading (for the most part) the same quoted
stuff over and over.

Enjoy this issue!


PAT

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Date: 15 Aug 91 07:38:06 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


TELECOM Moderator Notes, responding to [e-mail] (Mark
Day) concerning RS and their mailing list:

> [Moderator's Note: Oh you do, do you? I wish I could get apologies
> from people every time I read messages which sorely tax my imagination
> with bizzare examples of all the things that will *in theory -- but
> never or rarely ever* happen ...

I beg to differ with you.  The aforementioned behavior is epidemic at
Radio Shack.  I have had similar experiences when I was living in
Ithaca NY at all of the RS stores in the area.  The badgering for
telephone numbers and addresses was intense.  My bitching to the store
managers eventually resulted in them using 0000 as a catchall number
for irascible types like myself.

RS' collection of names and telephone numbers is not in itself bad;
it's _demanding_ of them is at the very least, extremely rude; but
it's lack of guidelines for the control of this information is
shocking.  It is out and out sloppy and could cause someone some
serious pain.

Lest you think that *such things don't happen*, I would direct your
attention to one of any number of articles that have been appearing
recently, both on the net and in newspapers, regarding governmental
abuse of seizure laws, in which peoples money and propery have been
siezed on the most flimsy of pretexts and without benefit of due
process -- often justified by such shaky chains of evidence as have
been suggested by c.d.t contributors.  Just because it has never
happened to you (or, for that matter, anyone!) doesn't mean that it
can't happen.

>I mean really,
>one RS salesman in West Podunk diddles up a receipt for a cash sale
>and suddenly we have 'Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers'

You are ignoring the evidence of your own contributors, several of
whom have written to confirm their experience of similar behavior.  Me
three (or is it four) ...

> And we are told if we don't stop this henious
> pratice now, freedom, privacy and no doubt the entire American Way
> will be facing imminent death.  Gaak .... only on Usenet!   PAT]

If we don't defend our right to privacy, we will all too soon find out
that we don't have any left.  The net is a great bastion of
independant thought and (occasionally rational) discourse.  Yes, it's
noisy at times.  I would contend that that is a good thing.  While the
signal to noise ratio may be high, and the feedback occasionally
positive, the signal is there - and it is worthwhile and valuable.


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

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

From: Christopher Owens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 13:50:48 GMT


For another random datapoint in an extremely random discussion,  I
bought a patch cord in a local Radio Shack on Saturday with cash and
the clerk did not ask me for my name or phone number or address.


Christopher Owens
Department of Computer Science  1100 East 58th Street
The University of Chicago       Chicago, IL 60637
[e-mail]     [phone]

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Date: 15 Aug 91 15:55:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Greg
Kemnitz):

> Perhaps an apology from you, in the same forum, would be appropriate?
> [...]

> [Moderator's Note: Perhaps an explanation from you as to why --
> despite the circumstances being as you claim -- this is still not a
> petty matter would be of more interest than an apology from me.   PAT

Perhaps we need a new Moderator, one who is moderate.  It is not a
crime to make a social error, it is very wrong not to understand that
we did so.

An apology is called for.  The poster described a situation in which a
company's practices caused a customer name and address to be passed on
to someone else.  That was and is wrong.  You (Pat) were wrong to
abuse him.  You should apologize and correct your behaviour.  You are
a MODERATOR, not a king.  Be moderate.


Leonard P. Levine                    e-mail [e-mail]
Professor, Computer Science             Office [phone]
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee       Home   [phone]
Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A.              FAX    [phone]


[Memo From the King: Now if I were not a benevolent king, your message
would never have seen the light of day here, would it?  Pardon me as I
giggle, but I always get amused when people from Usenet tell me I
should apologize for something. As the late Jack Benny phrased it,
'Really, Mary'.   PAT]

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

From: Mark Fulk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 16:30:41 GMT


A long and ridiculous straw man argument from the Moderator ....

> from every customer.  And we are told if we don't stop this henious
> pratice now, freedom, privacy and no doubt the entire American Way
> will be facing imminent death.  Gaak .... only on Usenet!   PAT]

If you didn't owe an apology before, you do now, for misrepresenting
other people's arguments.  If you ask me, you live in a Pollyanna
never-never land where no-one (especially the government or the
hallowed Ma Bell) would ever misuse information about another human
being.  Unfortunately, government and corporate misuse of personal
data are rife.

People have been arrested on the basis of evidence that amounted to
the receipt with an address.  Unfortunately, when the police believe
they're on to the right criminal, they often harass the suspect
unmercifully for months trying to get more evidence.  If you haven't
noticed this yourself, you don't read the newpaper.

Perhaps you would be interested in a small experience of mine.

I bought some batteries at RS.  The salesman asked me for my address
and phone number; I gave them but noticed that he misspelled my name
"Mark E. Felk".  I didn't bother to correct him.

Within six months Mark E. Felk got ads for courses in
radio-electronics and computer programming, for scanners, radar
detectors, and even radar jammers (pardon me, radar _calibrators_,
with the warning that it was illegal to perform the simple mod that
made them jammers).  He also got unasked-for subscriptions to two or
three magazines, all but one of which were easily cancelled.  Pretty
soon Mr. Felk was the recipient of about half the mail in our mailbox.
Unfortunately, Radio-Electronics was not easily dissuaded.  It took
about three months, four or five long-distance phone calls, and two or
three threats to call the FTC before I could get Mr. Felk's
subscription cancelled and the ``collection agency'' off his (my)
back.

Mr. Felk also got several calls at our residence.  Two or three of
those calls wakened the baby.  I never bothered to find out who was
calling; when they said "Is Mr. Felk there?" I just hung up.

Now, I do think that Radio Shack has an obligation to warn me about
this kind of harassment.  I rarely shop there any more, and NEVER give
them my correct name, address, or phone number.  Mr. Felk's address
cost me about two days worth of time, and three or four dollars worth
of phone calls, not counting the irritation of dealing with collecting
agents.

I do agree that the government is most likely uninterested in RS
purchases.  This is simply because the inventory of an RS store is
really rather boring and useless.  I wouldn't be surprised if the
government does watch for purchases of some things through the larger
electronics mail order houses.  My bet would be that they care about
any sort of very high speed circuitry, and they may also watch for
patterns of purchase that indicate the construction of spread-spectrum
radio equipment.


[The King Again: Why do you *buy* batteries from RS? I get all mine
free from the local store using bunches of those 'battery club' cards
they give away. If I forget to take a punch card, the manager just
gives me one anyway. Being nineteen and a veteran employee, he loves
the stories I tell him about Allied Radio, and Tandy's take over of a
wonderful company.   PAT]

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

From: "Mark R. Jenkins 619-458-2794" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Date: 15 Aug 91 13:16:12 PST
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego


I have been following the thread on Radio Shack's sales policies, and
since I wanted to buy something at Radio Shack anyway, I took a trip
over.

I bought a book for about $8.  This is apparently too small a sale to
bother getting my telephone number for, which I would not have given
them anyway.  (Personal policy).  When I examined my sales receipt, I
noticed that the computer-generated slip was not blank up top as I had
expected, but had a woman's name, address, and telephone number on it.
It wasn't someone else's sales receipt, because the line item covered
what I had just bought.  I don't know who she is, and I don't care.
But what if I was a social deviant who liked bothering people?  Sure,
I could use the phone book to pick out my victims ... but why not use
this great Radio Shack lottery instead?  Someone who might otherwise
have escaped unbothered by me gets targeted simply because they bought
something at Radio Shack.

It is an absurdly easy thing to build into your sales system an
"anonymous" sales transaction.  In fact, I find it amazing that all of
these systems apparently have no capacity for this type of action.
Instead, the sales personnel have to resort to tricks like "99999" for
the zip code, or picking some random customer, in order to get the
sales receipt to print out.  As unlikely as I think it is that someone
would end up getting hassled because of Radio Shack's actions, their
actions are careless and negligent at best because they are so easily
avoided.


Mark Jenkins <[e-mail]>  Science Applications
International Corporation            San Diego, CA   USA  [phone]

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

From: Daniel Herrick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Date: 15 Aug 91 17:43:24 EST


In article <[e-mail]>, the Moderator Notes:
(responding to John Eaton) ...

> [Mderator's Note: All those things are very interesting scenarios; but
> do they *really* happen? And again, recall our original correspondent
> claimed 'Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers' which in fact the
> corporation does NOT do. A *single* clerk, in a *single* RS franchise
> somewhere mishandled the records on a *single* sale.

> ... that Joe Random must be the guy! Yes sirree!  You are grasping for
> straws, intent on showing this massive conspiracy by RS to deprive
> everyone of their privacy by no doubt peddling it to, let's see ... ah
> yes! ... to that great bogeyman, the 'telesleaze'.  PAT]

Is there a reader in Chicago who will go to Radio Shack and spend a
dollar and get a receipt with Pat's name address and phone number on
it?  We know he shops there.  If someone would do the leg work, then
Pat would understand there is a security issue here.


dan herrick         [e-mail]


[Dictator's Dictum: And I suppose you know *what four digits* make up
the category where my record is filed, and *which* RS store I go to?
None of the RS stores here share those files with each other.  Good
luck ... you'll need it!   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 15:56:47 CST
From: Robert Prescott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers


First Radio Shack keeps customer name address etc on file. Then next
they decide to keep track of what was purchased (for whatever reason).
Then you have credit card companies, libraries, and a horde of other
places keeping track of you. Now all you need is some over zealous
bureaucrat wanting to put all this information together and doing only
the gods know what with it.


Robert


[Another Immoderate Remark: Doesn't that happen already, with or
without Radio Shack's help?  PAT]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Date: 15 Aug 91 18:57:30 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


Obviously, Pat, you haven't read the books about the investigation
into the Mormon bomber case in Utah a couple of years back.  A major
break in that case came when the investigators determined from bomb
remnants that the electronic components were from Radio Shack.  They
searched through store records, and were able to pin down (from the
same components having been purchased at multiple stores) several good
leads to the bomber.

I would have hated to have been the person selected at random to be
the one recorded as having bought those parts.  I have no doubt such
electronic investigations of third party records will become more
common.  Look at how Procter and Gamble has the FBI going through 40
million long distance call records in Ohio trying to find out the
identities of every person in the Cincinnati area who called the {Wall
Street Journal} reporter to whom was alledgedly leaked certain
supposedly confidential information.  No, they're not just checking
the records of P&G employees, but EVERYBODY in the LATA.

Still feel comfortable?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Martin
Luddite) writes:

> Simply put, almost everybody has bought something from a Radio Shack
> in the past two years.  Having a person's phone number, I would go to a
> Radio Shack, buy a 25 cent diode, give the clerk the last four digits,
> and on many occassions come up with address information on a certain
> person.

That wouldn't work with me.  I have never given RS my home phone
number or address, but my office number and P.O. Box -- which any
investigator could get much easier than scamming an RS salesman.

Anybody who is sincerely concerned with privacy could give RS a
completely fictional phone number, address, and even name.  A
different one every time you go, if you wish.  They don't check ID.

This doesn't mean I agree with RS's system, and especially not with
the giving out of OTHER CUSTOMERS addresses and phone numbers at
random.  They should simply have a "9999" code for "CASH SALE" or
something like that.  Better than saying "uh, sorry, here's your money
back; I can't sell to you without your address and phone", or, worse,
handing out printouts of other customer's private information.


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             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet       [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #634
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22329;
          16 Aug 91 11:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16572;
          16 Aug 91 9:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18400;
          16 Aug 91 8:16 CDT
Date:     Fri, 16 Aug 91 7:53:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #635
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 16 Aug 91 07:53:28 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 635

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Marc Siskin]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Henry E. Schaffer]
    Re: Email From Space [Byron Han]
    Re: Email From Space [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Email From Space [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: Phast Phood [John J. DiLeo]
    Re: Phast Phood [William Kucharski]
    Re: Phast Phood [David Leibold]
    Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [John Higdon]
    Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Praul Cook]
    Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For? [Carl Moore]
    Re: Long Distance Across A Road [Steve Dillinger]
    Upcoming Report on Telecommunications: Globe and Mail [David Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Marc Siskin)
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Organization: Univ. of Michigan Language Resource Center
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 12:24:40 GMT


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

> If the store handed out a receipt with Joe Random Customer's name and
> address on it then he has a valid complaint.

> Suppose a sheriff finds the receipt with Joe's name on it at the
> bottom of a pile of garbage at the bottom of a cliff.

And our Moderator Notes:

> [Moderator's Note: All those things are very interesting scenarios; but
> do they *really* happen?

Pat, What about this scenerio: I Tom Terrorist go to that Radio Shack,
give the clerk a random four digit number and confirm that one of the
names listed is mine.  Or as in the case that started this whole
thread, the clerk just assigns a client to the purchase.  Now what I
Tom Terrorist have is a slick piece of mis-direction.  I just toss
this reciept somewhere the police can find it (maybe in the bag I
carry the bomb in) and let the police (assuming it survives) assume
that Ronnie Random customer was the one who purchased parts for the
bomb from Radio Shack.

The risk (in Comp.Risks terms) here is not so much that I would get
someone's phone number but that I can put in records that can be
searched the fact that someone not myself purchased something that was
used for my purposes.


Marc Siskin    Senior Media Designer  Language Resource Center
University of Michigan        [e-mail]
Std. Disclaimer claimed

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

From: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 00:07:13 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> the Moderator Notes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 631, Message 8 of 8

 > ...  I mean really,
 > one RS salesman in West Podunk diddles up a receipt for a cash sale
 > and suddenly we have 'Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers', and let's
 > stop the world while someone gets off and shudders at the prospect
 > that the sheriff might come along and find a bag of trash that has the
 > receipt in it for a 29-cent diode and the innocent victim lives at a
 > place where some third party unknown ripped off phone service from
 > someone else and now they will take the name and put it in a data base
 > of people who are known to go around putting RS diodes on other
 > people's phone lines and to make matters worse the poor devil will get
 > a telephone call in the middle of the day from someone selling diodes
 > for a competitor to whom the sheriff sold the name after investigating
 > the guy and the guy with his name on the reciept will need to install
 > another phone line with an answering machine and a non-pub number so
 > he need not risk the awfulness of answering the phone in person when
 > the telemarketer calls unless of course he demands to speak to the
 > telemarketer's supervisor's supervisor's supervisor to debate some
 > obscure technical question about the 29 cent diode for which none of
 > this would ever have happened had not Radio Shack been such a greedy
 > company looking to make more money by demanding some name and address
 > from every customer.  And we are told if we don't stop this henious
 > pratice now, freedom, privacy and no doubt the entire American Way
 > will be facing imminent death.  Gaak .... only on Usenet!   PAT]

Pat,

  Wonderful!

  Are you interested in selling the film rights?  I can see the
Dutchman purchasing the diode, with Paul Newman's name getting on it
(a la 7 Days of the Condor) and lots of action, gunfire and sex.
Perhaps you can play a bit part in the telemarketing office
supervising some personnel - perhaps catching you saying something
like "Of course, Mr. Bloomingdale."  over the phone?

  What possibilities - the critics will love it.

  Got to go now baby, perhaps we can do lunch sometime and
discuss residuals?  Ciao.


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

From: Byron Han <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Date: 15 Aug 91 08:31:34 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.


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

> Sigh.  I keep forgetting how the net is a magnet for the
> sense-of-humor-impaired.  To correct Mr. Han, whom I believe was
> involved in this particular project (and so probably feels that it is
> _his_ ox being gored), this particular snide remark of mine was not
> aimed at him, per se, but at NASA and their mindset.

Which was precisely what I was taking umbrage at.  My hide is
(un)fortunately rather thick as my colleagues will attest to.

> ...  That the data path described "is indeed
> the simplest possible..." is just icing on the cake.  How many
> billions for each shuttle, and how many billions for the TDRS sat
> system, and they still forgot to include an RS232 data port?  Sheesh!

Here are some of the options available:

One option was to tap into the existing Orbiter to Ground telemetry
stream which would involve designing some custom hardware and software
to interface the standard RS232 serial port from the back of the DOS
compatible or Macintosh Portable to the telemetry downlink.

Another option was to tap into the Orbiter to Ground voice channel
using custom off the shelf modems and software.

Another option was to design a custom modem to utility the Orbiter to
Ground voice channel.

Engineering judgment dictacted that using commercially available
hardware (fax modems) and software would minimize development time and
reduce exposure for component failure.  The "complexity" of the
datalink is simply the standard path that voice takes going from
Orbiter to Ground.  This is the nature of the TDRSS system.

I am not in the habit of defending my engineering judgment on the
net.  I would merely like to set the record straight and point out
that in this case (granted perhaps an exception to the rule) NASA did
indeed do something rather nifty without having to reinvent everything
from scratch.

In my opinion, the most significant lesson that NASA can learn from
this admitedly relatively minor experiment (after all e-mail is not
rocket science) is that taking commercial off-the-shelf hardware and
software and integrating the two can result in excellent results at a
fraction of the cost of rediscovering the wheel.


Byron Han, Software Artisan    Apple Computer, Inc.
20525 Mariani Ave, MS: 81NC    Internet: [e-mail]
Cupertino, CA 95014            AppleLink: HAN1  [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]          CompuServe: 72167,1664

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Date: 15 Aug 91 07:50:54 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Christopher Gillett) writes:
    [concerning my reply concerning a question on NASA]

> So, Bob, what's your point?

The original questioner wondered why the data path was so complex and
convoluted.  I therefore concocted an answer that was 1) reasonably
engaging and 2) reasonably correct.  NASA is indeed renowned for doing
everything from scratch and damn the expense.

My purpose was to entertain the readership while at the same time
perhaps infecting the Usenet genome with a virulent and dangerous
meme.  Attracting the attention of antibodies is but an occupational
hazard of such an undertaking.

I consider the effluent of my occasionally skewed mindset to be of
value if it receives more kudos than flames.  So far, by that
standard, I'm doing ok.


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

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

From: "90958, HERRICK, DANIEL" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Date: 15 Aug 91 12:46:19 EST


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

> In article <[e-mail]> is written:
> X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 625, Message 2 of 10

>> [e-mail] (Robert Savery) writes:

>>> Seriously, is there anyone here connected with the project? If so, I'm
>>> curious as to why such a convoluted routing was used. It would seem
>>> that there are dozens of easier, cheaper methods available.

> completely rational explanation by the author of the portable Mac
> software used on the shuttle.  Made good sense to me, and didn't
> necessarily seem like a complicated method put in place by hordes of
> administrative personnel.

Yes, there was an explanation, but it explained something much simpler
than the original routing we were told would be used.  That routing
involved at least two orbiting satellites besides the shuttle.  Didn't
make any sense to me.  Still doesn't.  Did they use the routing
originally described here?  What were the constraints that made that
routing appropriate?

I think the flames and rhetoric in this thread were wasted bandwidth,
but I really am curious about the engineering decisions.


dan herrick   [e-mail]

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

From: "John J. DiLeo" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phast Phood
Date: 15 Aug 91 16:52:24 GMT
Organization: Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity


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

> It will use a 950 number: 950-1430 (gee, that doesn't spell
> anything on the keypad) to pass the call...

    Just a thought ... I seem to recall that the guarantee is 30
minutes or less delivered, *14* minutes or less for pickup.


John DiLeo   [e-mail]

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

From: William Kucharski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phast Phood
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 21:43:11 GMT


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

> According to this week's {Network World}, Domino's is teaming with
> AT&T and Bell Laboratories (getting a Pizza the action?) to develop a
> service that will route a phone call to a single nationwide number to
> the store closest to the caller.

This is interesting.  When Domino's originally expanded into the
Milwaukee, WI area, there was one central Domino's number that you
called.  The central order processing center took your address and
order and this information came out of a printer located at the
appropriate Domino's location.  All in all, it was a pretty neat
system.  However, in the past few years Domino's changed to a "call
your local store" scheme in Milwaukee like they use everywhere else in
the country.  What the reasons were for the change, I don't know.  I
thought the original system was pretty cool; perhaps it was some type
of pilot program for the national system.  Anyone out there that
worked for Domino's Pizza in Milwaukee in 1985-6?


William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.  | Opinions expressed above |
Internet: [e-mail] Ham: N0OKQ  | are MINE alone, not
uucp: ..!{boulder,sun,uunet}!stan!kucharsk   | those of Solbourne.
Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO 80501

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 21:47:39 EDT
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phast Phood


With Domino's using 950.1430 nationwide, and recalling that 950
numbers are generally patterned as 950.1ccc where the ccc is the
carrier ID code (for instance, 950.1022 gets MCI, as 022 is an MCI
carrier ID code) would it make sense that Domino's or AT&T has 430
assigned as a carried ID code from Bellcore? I wonder what happens if
access via 10430+ is done?

Your call is connected within 30 minutes or its free :-)


[e-mail]  also [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: 10222 is MCI; I don't know about 10022. From here,
10022-anything goes to intercept immediatly.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 01:05 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online


Rick Tyler <mtxinu!Ingres.COM![e-mail]> writes:

> According to the mailing I received from Pacific Bell last week, area
> codes 310 (Southern CA) and 510 (Northern CA) come into being on
> September 2, 1991, NOT November 2, 1991, as someone has suggested.

Please go back and reread:

The 510 code begins in September;

The 310 code (the one in question) begins in November.


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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 17:55 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online?


Rick Tyler <mtxinu!Ingres.COM![e-mail]> writes:

> According to the mailing I received from Pacific Bell last week, area
> codes 310 (Southern CA) and 510 (Northern CA) come into being on
> September 2, 1991, NOT November 2, 1991, as someone has suggested.

A recent mailing I got from Bellcore shows 510 effective September 2
and 310 effective November 2.


Paul Cook   Proctor & Associates  Redmond, WA  98052  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 10:27:30 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For?
Reply-to: [e-mail]


10835-1-700 + 7D did not work for me.  I got "1 2 , 1 5; welcome to
Telecom USA 1+ dialing", and the message said if there were questions,
to call 800-383-3333.  The message repeated, then I got a fast busy.
This was from 302-731 in Delaware.

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

From: Dill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 16:01:25 GMT


  On the thread of Illinois Bell's new 'pay-as-you-go-service,' my
phone bills have tripled.  I live in an apartment with three other
roommates and according to our phone bill we make 600-800 calls a
month.  That ends up being a lot of cash.

   I love it when IB gives us this story of how they switched plans to
bill the people who use the service.  That is such bullshit.  Some
brain at the telco just figured out they would make more money this
way so they switched.  I wonder how many peole -really- do have lower
phone bills.  I am sure it is a lot less than they say ...

  Steve 'Screw ma Bell, before she screws you' Dillinger


[ Steve Dillinger :: [e-mail] :: [e-mail] ]
[               University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign              ]

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 22:07:40 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Upcoming Report on Telecommunications: {Globe and Mail}


The {Globe and Mail} in Canada has announced that it will be running
another Report on Telecommunications section in its 10th September
1991 issue. This would presumably be similar to a section which ran in
early April, featuring articles on such matters as competition and
deregulations, plus advertising from various carriers and
interconnects.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #635
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12836;
          17 Aug 91 2:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31991;
          17 Aug 91 1:21 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31047;
          17 Aug 91 0:14 CDT
Date:     Fri, 16 Aug 91 23:34:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #636
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 16 Aug 91 23:34:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 636

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Steve Urich]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Mike Northam]
    Alice's Restaurant (was Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers) [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [John Higdon]
    Big Bad Radio Shack [Edward Hopper]
    Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Jerry Gitomer]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: U.S. - Canada Calling Cards [John R. Levine]
    Re: Cable TV Competition [Rick Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Urich <beyonet![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Date: 16 Aug 91 11:17:12 GMT
Organization: Beyonet Network


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

> For another random datapoint in an extremely random discussion,  I
> bought a patch cord in a local Radio Shack on Saturday with cash and
> the clerk did not ask me for my name or phone number or address.

<*> Possible. I have a friend that works part-time as a salesman not
at R.S. He has to enter the phone number also and the database he uses
has a default entry like 555-5555. Or the R.S you shop at had their
system down and they were writing it out manually.

Did you get a recipe?   [No, but he may have gotten a reciept! :)  PAT]

In article <[e-mail]> hayes![e-mail]
(Toby Nixon) writes:

[Bomber and FBI Stuff Deleted]

> Still feel comfortable?

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Martin
> Luddite) writes:

[Martin's Stuff Deleted]

> Anybody who is sincerely concerned with privacy could give RS a
> completely fictional phone number, address, and even name.  A
> different one every time you go, if you wish.  They don't check ID.

<*> Right! Just tell them your name is John Smith, 999-9999.  Usually
the clerk doesn't care unless his R.S. boss gives him flack. The more
blatant you are with your false ID the better you would feel if you
don't like to lie. B-)


Steve Urich WB3FTP

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

From: HERRICK, DANIEL <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Date: 16 Aug 91 11:52:41 EST


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

> Is there a reader in Chicago who will go to Radio Shack and spend a
> dollar and get a receipt with Pat's name address and phone number on
> it?  We know he shops there.  If someone would do the leg work, then
> Pat would understand there is a security issue here.

> [Dictator's Dictum: And I suppose you know *what four digits* make up
> the category where my record is filed, and *which* RS store I go to?
> None of the RS stores here share those files with each other.  Good
> luck ... you'll need it!   PAT]

You published your home address in response to my jibe a couple days
ago about zip + 4.  I'm sure there are other alert readers who know
where your office is located.  You recently described the walk from
your office to the R/S where you bought some phone gadget.

Your personal privacy is already only as secure as the good will of
the readers of comp.dcom.telecom lets it be.  It is amusing to watch
you pooh pooh other people's concerns about privacy while publishing
the dossier that would make a demonstration relatively easy.


dan herrick        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: What I said was that mail to 60690-1570 reaches me
as the sole occupant of that code. You'll find its a box at the
Downtown Station post office.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 16:32:19 PDT
From: Mike Northam ext 2651 <celit!fpssun.fps.com!mbn.fps.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers


In article <[e-mail]>, the Moderator Notes:
(responding to John Eaton) ...

> [Mderator's Note: All those things are very interesting scenarios; but
> do they *really* happen? And again, recall our original correspondent
> claimed 'Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers' which in fact the
> corporation does NOT do. A *single* clerk, in a *single* RS franchise
> somewhere mishandled the records on a *single* sale.

> ... that Joe Random must be the guy! Yes sirree!  You are grasping for
> straws, intent on showing this massive conspiracy by RS to deprive
> everyone of their privacy by no doubt peddling it to, let's see ... ah
> yes! ... to that great bogeyman, the 'telesleaze'.  PAT]

[stuff about tracking down PAT's RS store deleted]

Just to (needlessly :-)) jump into the fray, let me state that I have
received other people's names/addresses several times at various RS
stores in a similar manner.  It may not be 'company policy', but RS'
pressure on salespeople (a $3 incentive for each phone-numbered
transaction was reported here) to provide a phone number for _each and
every_ sale leads many of them to (randomly) give out such
information.

I've found myself lately either giving them my real home or business
number (to avoid the pleading and hassles of explaining, yet again, my
objection to RS' practices) or giving them the local weather number or
555-xxxx, when I'm feeling in an ornery mood.

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alice's Restaurant (was Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers)
Date: 16 Aug 91 13:20:27 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


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

> Suppose a sheriff finds the receipt with Joe's name on it at the
> bottom of a pile of garbage at the bottom of a cliff.

> [Mderator's Note: All those things are very interesting scenarios; but
> do they *really* happen?

Besides the Alice's Restaurant legend (all you youngsters go ask
somebody over 35), this actually can happen.  My brother, who lives in
rural Wisconsin, once emptied his dump truck in front of a closed
dump.  Yes, "We found your name on this envelope at the bottom of half
a ton of garbage" was approximately what they said. (And yes, there
were 8x10 color glossy photographs, with circle and arrows and a
paragraph on the back of each one ...)

Yes, I know it's not telecom, but this light hearted example does
indicate that you take the issue a bit too lightly, Pat.  Because in
fact, it was not my brother's mail they found under half a ton of
garbage, it was mail belonging to the person from whom he bought the
dump truck.  They, like Joe Smith, ex Radio Shack customer, were the
first ones hassled by the cops.  Fortunately for them, my brother had
paid by check.


Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ
AUDIBLE: [phone] READABLE: [e-mail] or
att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T?  You must be joking!

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 10:23 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers


[e-mail] (Marc Siskin) writes:

> Tom Terrorist have is a slick piece of mis-direction.  I just toss
> this reciept somewhere the police can find it (maybe in the bag I
> carry the bomb in) and let the police (assuming it survives) assume
> that Ronnie Random customer was the one who purchased parts for the
> bomb from Radio Shack.

And if this is indeed Radio Shack's procedure, and that receipt is the
ONLY evidence that the police have on Ronnie Rondom, then I would
suspect that Ron would have very little to worry about. I have seen
some pretty thin cases against defendants accused of all manner of
high-tech wrongdoing, but this would not even fly across the room if
it were made into a paper airplane.

I'm afraid I am going to have to agree with Pat here; all of this
conjecture is reminiscent of all the garbage people dredge up when
arguing against Caller-ID. Radio Shack receipts are NOT real estate
title deeds, court warrants, witnessed wills, diplomatic documents, or
even car registrations. They are retail store receipts and nothing
more.

Wake me up when someone gets 20 to life for international conspiracy
based solely on the evidence of one erroneous Radio Shack receipt. If
people spent as much time worrying about things that matter as they do
about this sort of non-issue, this country would probably not be
headed down the dumper quite so fast.

> The risk (in Comp.Risks terms) here is not so much that I would get
> someone's phone number but that I can put in records that can be
> searched the fact that someone not myself purchased something that was
> used for my purposes.

When was the last time Radio Shack records were searched by law
enforcement? Can you document a single case? And if so, was someone
convicted and sentenced based entirely on that search? If so, let me
know; I will get involved.

Now, back to telecom...


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Aug 16 10:20:07 CDT 1991
Subject: Big Bad Radio Shack


Pat:

I couldn't stop laughing when I read your scenario about the "abuse"
that could be created by the disclosure of one's address and phone
number.

Of course, the really frightening thing about all this is the degree
of paranoia and absence of reality checking found in some of these
postings (and of course the rantings one finds in the Telecom-Privacy
list).

It amazes me, really, that I have never had these problems.  Oh, every
once in a while I have received odd phone calls and I have been
bothered by telemarketers, but it has never been the tremendous burden
these poor souls seem to have suffered.

On a more serious note, I did discuss this matter with a co-worker who
was formerly employed by Tandy.  He tells me that, in fact, employees
are evaluated based upon the percentage of their sales that bear name,
address and phone number information.  An employee who lets too many
sales go by without getting the required info would be in hot water.

In addition to RS, CompuAdd computer stores do the same thing.


Ed Hopper

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

From: Jerry Gitomer <npri6![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes?
Date: 15 Aug 91 12:59:34 GMT
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA


[e-mail] writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, localhost![e-mail]
> (Jerry Gitomer) writes:

>> their entirety if any fields are changed.  This is why the postal
>> service had to back down on Zip + 4.

> But the Postal Service did not back down on Zip + 4.  Don't you notice
> the mail that comes to you with 9 digit Zips?  I think those silly

As originally proposed Zip + 4 would have been required for all mail
sent by organizations (and perhaps even all mail).  After catching a
lot of flak from just about every organization that mails out bills,
statements, checks, or whatever the Postal Service backed down and
made Zip + 4 optional and set up some special pricing to encourage
mass mailers to use it.


Jerry Gitomer at National Political Resources Inc, Alexandria, VA USA
I am apolitical, have no resources, and speak only for myself.
1-703/683-9090     [e-mail]      ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!jerry

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Date: 15 Aug 91 18:47:46 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> Lastly, in Champaign, IL, not much is outside the A band.  But here in
> Portland (with banded local calls), I can't call across town for a
> flat fee; from Hillsboro, one can't even call to central Portland
> without incurring a per-minute charge.  Bands should be a lot bigger
> in cities.

Depends on the city. I'd agree that Hillsboro-Portland ought to be a
local call (at least the part of Hillsboro you're calling from); in
fact I'm surprised it's not, since we have the same telco, and you
have to get fairly far away from Seattle (except to the north, where
there's GTE and a county line) before it's long distance to call
there. I guess Hillsboro is GTE too, though, huh?

Chicago is a different story, though. It's a lot more likely there
that your acquaintances will live in the same part of town that you
do; I had metro service in Chicago back when they used to offer it (in
Evanston, actually), and I don't remember *ever* calling *anyone* who
was south of Wrigley Field, or west of Skokie.

In smaller (and younger) cities like Seattle, Portland, and, yes,
Champaign, your friends are far more likely to live all over town.


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: U.S. - Canada Calling Cards
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 15 Aug 91 13:51:11 EDT (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


Based on experience in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia lat month, I can
report that my AT&T calling card (the one with my phone number+PIN,
they haven't sent me a new one) is usable just like a Canadian calling
card.  I used it for intra-Canadian calls, and AT&T told me it would
work for calls to third countries, though I didn't have the
opportunity to try one.  After you enter the card number, an operator
comes on and tells you to wait, presumably while they look it up in
the U.S card database, but other than that there's nothing funny.  The
call showed up on the AT&T page of my local bill.

The MCI and Sprint 800 numbers work but you can only call back to the
U.S.  Calls within Canada and to third countries fail with a recording
telling you that service is not available.  Sprint calls to the U.S.
were dialed and went through as normal.

One thing that is unclear is how AT&T charges for the call.  My
suspicion is that they charge you the Canadian price without making
any allowance for the exchange rate.  For example, a one minute
evening calling-card call from Meteghan to Yarmouth NS, 902-742 to
902-645, cost me 72 cents.  (There's no PST or GST, since it's not
billed in Canada, though there is a separate U.S.  federal tax.)
Could a reader in Nova Scotia look up the rate and see how much it
would have cost billed locally?


Regards,

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

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

From: Rick Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition
Organization: SCTC
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 14:00:07 GMT


Here in Minnesota just about all the cable companies operate as local
monopolies, generally with franchise agreements through municipal
governments.

[e-mail] (Larry Rachman) writes about monopoly cable:

> ME: ... I was thinking of subscribing to cable.  Is that the
> quality of reception I can expect to receive?

> SALESPERSON: (with a straight face) That picture looks perfectly fine
> to me.

I live about 25 miles south of St. Paul and about 30 miles (as the EM
signal flies) from the broadcast antenna farm that all the Twin Cities
TV stations use. My $55 Channelmaster antenna in my previous house
consistently provided better picture quality.

> ME: I'll probably take basic service, but I have a cable-ready TV. How
> much of a discount do I get because I don't need the converter box.

> SALESPERSON: You don't understand sir, the box is free, so there's no
> discount for not having one.

Around here most of the municipalities require the local cable
monopoly to provide a sort of "sub basic" service. No box, just the
wire.  In our town the franchise was required to provide such service
free if the cable wire was already installed.

A local paper reviewed the situation with "sub basic" service and
found that it was almost impossible to get cable companies to admit to
the existence of that level of service. It generally took some arm
twisting before they'd admit it, and they wouldn't usually display
that level of service on their rate cards.

I've heard rumors that our local cable service now tries to charge for
"sub basic" service, though that level of "free" service was part of
the franchise agreement with the city. In any case that's the level of
service we get now in our house, mostly because our old house lacks a
visually appropriate place for an antenna.


Rick   [e-mail]     Arden Hills, Minnesota

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #636
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18997;
          17 Aug 91 4:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02838;
          17 Aug 91 3:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01850;
          17 Aug 91 2:22 CDT
Date:     Sat, 17 Aug 91 1:19:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #637
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 17 Aug 91 01:19:48 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 637

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    950-PIZZA (was Phast Phood) [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Re: Phast Phood [Ron Newman]
    Re: Email From Space [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: Email From Space [Byron Han]
    Re: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle! [Ralph W. Hyre]
    No Shuttle Mail Bomb [Joe Abernathy]
    Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin [Dan Jacobson]
    Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin [H. Peter Anvin]
    Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [William Warner]
    Re: OKI 900 Cellular Phone Acts as a Pager? How? [Larry DeMar]
    Re: Bell Techincal Journals [Bud Couch]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Bud Couch]
    Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'Casters [D. Gregoire]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 950-PIZZA (was Phast Phood)
Date: 16 Aug 91 14:01:19 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


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

> (Do we really have enough 950-series numbers for all the franchises
> in this country ...

I don't believe there's anything inherent in the technology that
limits it to 950 numbers.  (I'm not an expert on it.)  There are
probably different tarriffs for IntraLATA vs. InterLATA that make 950
more attractive from a financial point of view than 800 service.

Citibank had a 950 number that they used for customer inquiries.  I
believe customers were routed to the 'closest' regional customer
service center.  It wasn't quite implemented properly everywhere. Not
all of the independent telcos handle 950 calls properly.  I imagine
Dominoes is only worried about the metropolitan areas they serve, so
connectivy wouldn't be a concern for them.

I wonder if Domino's will reject calls from pay-phones.  I often order
a pizza for pick-up or delivery on my way home (ie not from my home
phone).  950 calls are usually free from payphones, so that would make
me more likely to order pizza from whoever paid for the call (all
other factors being comparable).

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mickey Ferguson) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 629, Message 4 of 8

>> ...I know I don't want to do business with an
>> individual store, but my call automatically gets routed there?

> [Dominos]. In fact, franchise rules forbid it.   PAT]

But there still needs to be a POTS number available to customers,
somehow.  What if you want to call the manager of a store and
complain?


[Moderator's Note: I suppose you could still call the 950 number.
After all, you'd probably want to complain to the same store where you
got the food.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 13:19:39 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phast Phood


Dialing 950-1430 from here (617-873, Cambridge, MA) results in a LOUD
blast of white noise!  Any idea what I'm getting?


Ron Newman    [e-mail]

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

From: "90958, HERRICK, DANIEL" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Date: 16 Aug 91 12:09:02 EST


In article <[e-mail]>, Byron Han <[e-mail]>
writes:

> Engineering judgment dictacted that using commercially available
> hardware (fax modems) and software would minimize development time and
> reduce exposure for component failure.  The "complexity" of the
> datalink is simply the standard path that voice takes going from
> Orbiter to Ground.  This is the nature of the TDRSS system.

Thank you, Mr. Han.  This sounds like a good engineering judgment.

The original description covered the fantastic aspects of the path,
not the mundane aspects.  We are not familiar with the normal paths of
shuttle communications.

It seems possible you might have had some friendly conversations with
engineers in NASA about the available communications paths (among
which you had to choose).  If we could prevail upon your good will,
after having tried it sorely, would you describe some of the reasons
for running voice communications through a routing that seemed so
rococo when we first read it described here?

I could guess that it might be a combination of low cost and covering
most of the shuttle orbit, but I would like to see a more informed
description.


dan herrick           [e-mail]

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

From: Byron Han <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email From Space
Date: 16 Aug 91 17:37:59 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(HERRICK, DANIEL) writes:

> Yes, there was an explanation, but it explained something much simpler
> than the original routing we were told would be used.  That routing
> involved at least two orbiting satellites besides the shuttle.  Didn't
> make any sense to me.  Still doesn't.  Did they use the routing
> originally described here?  What were the constraints that made that
> routing appropriate?

The NASA TDRSS (Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System) allows
ground controllers to stay in touch with the Orbiter (and other
satellites like Hubble).  By replacing the old ground station network
where the Orbiter was essentially handed off from one ground station
to the next while in orbit, NASA has increased the coverage from about
15% to 85%.

Orbiter voice and telemtry, instead of being beamed down to Earth
directly, is sent to a TDRSS satellite in geosynchronous orbit.  The
TDRSS satellite then relays the signals to the Primary TDRSS Downlink
Site in White Sands, NM.  From there, it is a simple satellite hop via
commercial communications satellite to Houston (or elsewhere for other
satellites).

There are currently four TDRSS satellites in orbit out of five launch
attempts (one was lost on Challenger STS-51L).  Two are partially
functional, one is working nominally, and one was just launched by
Atlantis STS-43 and is undergoing engineering checkout.


Byron Han, Software Artisan   Apple Computer, Inc.
20525 Mariani Ave, MS: 81NC   Internet: [e-mail]
Cupertino, CA 95014           AppleLink: HAN1  [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]         CompuServe: 72167,1664

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle!
Date: 16 Aug 91 14:30:47 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
us (seth cohn) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 631, Message 6 of 8

> [e-mail] (David Lemson) writes:

>> A test of electronic-mail between earth and laptops aboard the space shuttle
>> Atlantis was intended to lay the groundwork for use of E-mail on space
>> station Freedom.  But the test is in jeopardy after 80 E-mail messages
>> were received by the Atlantis crew from unauthorized users.  The leak
>> behind the E-mail address remains a mystery.

> earth. Or by chance is the 'atlantis' address automatically forwarding
> things along inadvertently? The actual address *in space* was
> different, right?  PAT]

 From my fuzzy recollection of Applelink, there is only one ID and
'mailbox' (on the ground).  The Mac user retrieves the message from
Applelink to read it.  I believe you have a choice of whether to
'download' your messages (from the ground-based mailbox to the Mac) or
just look at headers.

  If one was trained to download without perusing header, then I could
see where the astronauts would probably get a little irritated at
watching the spinning globe cursor while waiting while 80 message are
downloaded. (The spinning globe is a neat bit of irony in space).

Remember your reaction when you first scanned comp.dcom.telecom :-)

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 14:07:35 CDT
From: Joe Abernathy <chron!magic322![e-mail]>
Subject: No Shuttle Mail Bomb


Details of the Atlantis email in space experiment won't be avaialable
until next week, after the mission debriefing. But engineers
associated with the mission say that NASA's initial statement appears
to be a bit of an overreaction. The shuttle was never in danger, and
no shuttle experiments were endangered, by the address published in
TELECOM Digest. It was created for that very purpose.

This isn't to say that the actual uplink into space wasn't sensitive
in other ways, and it isn't to say that someone might have tried to
tamper with the more sensitive parts of the link. Nobody's said yet if
that happened, though.


Cheers.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 10:23:00 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: For many years, Commonwealth Edison in Chicago has
> given away free light bulbs based on the size of your electric bill
> each month.  PAT]

Lies, lies! :-) It ain't free.  There's a "light bulb fee".  You owe
it to the readers to give the full story below in another "Moderator's
Note".  Err, me?  I no longer live in Commonwealth Edison territory so
err, am unfamiliar with the details.


[Moderartor's Note: I stand corrected. There is a rate for people who
wish 'light bulb service' and another rate for those who do not.
Depending on how often you go through bulbs it may be a bargain, or
maybe not.   PAT]

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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 16:58:31 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: For many years, Commonwealth Edison in Chicago has
> given away free light bulbs based on the size of your electric bill
> each month.  PAT]

We have never got any light bulbs from Edison ... I thought they
charged $2 for four light bulbs or something like that ... of course,
I don't live in the city.


INTERNET: [e-mail]   ([e-mail] after this summer)
BITNET:   HPA@NUACC           HAM RADIO:  N9ITP, SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/989.4
"finger" the Internet address above for more information.

[Moderator's Note: There is some rate for electricity for people who
want the service, and some other rate for those who do not want light
bulb service. If on the plan, then your monthly bill detirmines what
you pay for the bulbs. I think it is a waste of money.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext
Date: 15 Aug 91 11:51:23 EST
Organization: The Ohio Data Network


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

>  I'm not sure *ALL* PUC's are rubber stamps. There are a few that have
> seemed somewhat customer pro-active, at least at times. New York, and
> occassionally California (go ahead, Higdon, make your day) but they
> don't have the resources to fight these issues indefinitely and can't
> pay as many or as much to lawyers as the telecos do with our rate
> money. Does any state have a customer ombudsman or lobby supported by
> a tax or surcharge on the bills ?

Ohio has a Office of Consumers' Counsel which is funded by a tax on
the public utilities.  The current Consumers' Counsel is Bill
Spratley.

The Office did not fair the State Budget Cuts very well, especially in
the funding of expert consultants that are used to fight the
utilities.  This may limit the effectiveness of their lobbying in the
future.

They put out a newsletter every so often that discusses what they are
doing.  The number to call is: [phone].  [phone] (toll
free probably just in Ohio.)  Address: 77 S High St., 15Th Floor;
Colubmus, Ohio 43266-0550.

But, they are overwelmed right now dealing with Caller ID, the massive
rate increase that the electric companies want to pay for the Zimmer
power plant (Was designed and built as a nuclear power plant, then
converted to a coal power plant, and may not be needed at all.) , and
the problems that Columbia Gas has gotten itself into with expensive
gas contracts.


William "Bill" Warner, III (N8HJP)    [e-mail]
Ohio Data Network                     WARNER@OHSTPY (Bitnet)
65 E State St, Suite 810              [phone] (Voice)
Columbus, OH  43215                   [phone] (FAX)

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

From: Larry DeMar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: OKI 900 Cellular Phone Acts as a Pager? How?
Organization: Chinet - Chicago public access UNIX
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 05:58:23 GMT


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

> I've heard and read that the OKI 900 acts as a pager by allowing a
> caller to leave a phone number instead.  Am I correct in assuming that
> the phone picks up after a certain number of rings and prompts the
> caller for a number?  Thus incurring .. a minute of airtime?

You have it right.  You put the phone in pager mode (to answer on some
number of rings if you don't).  When it answers, it sends the standard
"paging beeps" to the caller.  The phone then remembers the
touch-tones entered by the caller.  The phone will hold several such
numbers.


Email:  chinet![e-mail]

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Technical Journals
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 21:47:51 GMT


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

> I remember reading somewhere that Bell offered thier "Technical
> Information" in the form of journals.  Whatever I read never bothered
> to quote any sources.  If you have any ideas, please send them to me.

Which Bell are we talking about here :-) ?

AT&T Technical Publications
 Get PUB 10000, _Catalog of Technical Publications_ -cost $2.50 check or M.O.
 made payable to AT&T. Send to:
                Corporate Mailing, Inc.
                26 Parsippany Road
                Whippany, NJ 07981
                ATTN: Karen Burns

Bellcore
I can't tell you off the top of my head how to get the index for TA, TR, etc.
Write to:
                Bellcore Customer Services
                60 New England Avenue
                Piscataway, NJ 08854-4196

                    Telephone:  [phone]-CORE (2673)
               or:  1-908-699-5800

If you are interested in the old Bell System Technical Journal, it
metamophosed into the AT&T Bell Technical Journal in 1984, only to
become the AT&T Technical Journal the next year. I don't happen to
know how to order it, but back issues (to 1968) are available on
microfilm or microfiche from University Microfilm in Ann Arbor, MI.


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

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 22:41:57 GMT


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

> Lastly, in Champaign, IL, not much is outside the A band.  But here in
> Portland (with banded local calls), I can't call across town for a
> flat fee; from Hillsboro, one can't even call to central Portland
> without incurring a per-minute charge.  Bands should be a lot bigger
> in cities.

As a note, Hillsboro is 15 air miles from "downtown" Portland, (more
like 20 from the geographic center) and 12 of those miles are in GTE
territory.  Portland is US West.


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

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

From: Dannie Gregoire <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 19:38:39 GMT


I spoke with my Congressman (Ron Mazoli) this morning about this very
issue.  He personally was opposed to it, and said that the bill in its
current wording is not very likely to pass.


   Dannie J. Gregoire     \\\\////   dannie@coplex
 Copper Electronics Inc.  ////\\\\   !uunet!coplex!dannie

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #637
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24765;
          17 Aug 91 18:01 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28680;
          17 Aug 91 16:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20930;
          17 Aug 91 15:35 CDT
Date:     Sat, 17 Aug 91 14:51:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #638
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 17 Aug 91 14:50:56 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 638

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Standards Activity on Radio WANS in US, Japan [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [John Higdon]
    Re: Long Distance Recommendations [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Wanted: PBX For Home [Paul D. Anderson]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Tarl Neustaedter]
    Re: Citbank Visa/Mastercharge is Too Friendly [Michael P. Deignan]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Stephanie da Silva]
    Re: Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires [Todd Inch]
    Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Carl Moore]
    My Mistake (was 310 Area Code) [Rick Tyler]
    Panasonic EB-H30 Programming Help Needed [[e-mail]]
    Dial Up Terminal Servers in 416 Area (Toronto) [Kevin Coutinho]
    Global Phone Quality [John Howard Osborn]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Standards Activity on Radio WANS in US, Japan
Date: 16 Aug 91 14:33:28 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lindsay
Wakeman) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 628, Message 11 of 13

> What is happening - if anything - in the standardisation of protocols
> for Wide Area Radio-based packet networks for data transmission (i.e.
> Aloha and its descendants)?

The amateur radio community has pushed this the farthest.  TCP/IP over
an X.25/HDLC variant is a popular option, but the ISO camp is also
represented.  My opinion is that datagrams are the superior
technology, circuit-switching is the wrong metaphor.

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 10:09 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road


Dill <[e-mail]> writes:

> I wonder how many peole -really- do have lower
> phone bills.  I am sure it is a lot less than they say ...

This matter of measured service is at once a net revenue enhancer and
a politcal sop. In California, the "poor" person is king. Therefore,
utility rate structures have been inverted to subsidize "the less
fortunate". It also looks good on certain reports.

For instance, PG&E (the northern California electric utility) claims
to have rates that are "among the lowest in the nation". This is done
by charging less than half price for the first 500 KWH. So the utility
then says that the "average" customer using 450 KWH pays less than
most areas of the country. But after 500 KWH in the month? Then it is
Katy bar the door. My PG&E bill is around $360/month.

It is the same with telephone service. Pac*Bell can claim that it
costs less in California (particularly under "lifeline") to have a
telephone than almost anywhere else in the country. Note nothing was
said about USING the telephone -- just about having one.

To Pac*Bell's credit there are some pluses. You can have any mix of
measured or unmeasured service in the residence. There is none of this
business about it must be all unmeasured or all measured. Also, there
are no SWBT-style restrictions on how many lines you can have for your
BBS or what-have-you. Not to mention there is no problem with
business/residence-neutral items such as hunting, ground-start, etc.
(Some of my lines have hunting; some of them are ground-start.) Also,
I have never been given any razzamatazz about only being allowed to
have a certain number of lines in the house.


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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 13:44:54 -0400
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Recommendations
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


Since you are in GA you can subscribe to ATC's Ring America. It is
better than MCI's Primetime since it includes all day Saturday and
Sunday.  It is $7.50 for the first hour and .10 a minute after that.
ATC's Customer Service number is 800 749-9000.  They will be rolling
out a new Travel Card soon with lots of nice features (I'm not sure
what the are yet). They also have local access numbers which are billed
the same as the rate you get at home. They also do their own billing
and offer many different views of you invoice.  Project account
codesof three or four digits non-verified are free.

Metion my name and account number 139658 and I might get a small
referral fee if they are still doing that promo. Let me know what you
decide.


Bill

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

From: "Paul D. Anderson" <emory!Dixie.Com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: PBX For Home
Date: 16 Aug 91 17:54:12 GMT
Organization: Dixie Comm, The South's First Commercial Public Access Unix


[e-mail] (Todd Inch) writes:

> Several of you regular readers have mentioned or recommended some
> small PBX's appropriate for residential use, including a few models
> made by Panasonic, if I recall.

> Does anyone know of a vendor for these, or, better yet, have one
> laying about that they want to sell?

You might watch for bankruptcy sales / foreclosures / etc in the
business and legal sections of the newspaper.  A friend of mine tells
me he got a 12 line / 128 extension system with 20 desk sets this way
for $400.00 (yes, four hundred).


Paul Anderson * Dixie Communications * [phone] * [e-mail]

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

From: Tarl Neustaedter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Date: 17 Aug 91 01:48:57 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.


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

> my phone bills have tripled ... we make 600-800 calls a month.

> ... plan to bill the people who use the service.  That is such bullshit.

Boggle. You don't think 600-800 calls a month is a higher than average
(perhaps even three times higher than average) use of a residential phone?


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

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

From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Citbank Visa/Mastercharge is Too Friendly
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1991 02:52:20 GMT


[e-mail] (Corporate Raider) writes:

> Well while I am on this topic, if you call Citbank Customer Service
> line, and if you need to get a balance or a limit on your credit card,
> all you have to do is enter in your card number, then it waits and
> asks you for your zip code. You then can ask it for the balance of
> your account, the maximum credit limit of your account, etc. etc.

> Now I think all a crook needs is your card number and your zip code and
> they can access your records nite or day, not even a crook, but say
> your local merchant wants to make sure you have "enough" he simply
> calls the 800 number, enters in your card number and zip code, and
> poof he/she has you complete billing history.

This is clearly an exageration.

While an individual armed with your VISA number and Zip code can in
fact obtain anyone's balance and available credit (including next
payment due date,) there is no mechanism for an individual to obtain
"your complete billing history" or in no way query the machine for
other information. The message one obtains is limited to current
balance, available credit (generally limit, balance, and holds) and
next payment amount and due date. Any further information must be
obtained from a Customer Service Rep, which requires interaction with
another unit, and requires providing additional information, such as
your SSN or mother's maiden name for verification.

This isn't to say that the system shouldn't be more secure, by adding
a PIN, etc., however.


Michael P. Deignan   Domain: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd   Telebit: [phone]

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

From: Stephanie da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1991 05:32:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> ED HOPPER <[e-mail]> writes:

> > The Houston free calling area is at least fifty miles in each direction.
> > It includes 3.5 million people. Basic local service is about $12 for
> > unlimited calling throughout that area from SW Bell.

> Well, let's see. I just installed six lines at home for a "voice BBS".
> Now let us look at pricing. Each line costs $4.45/month, or about one
> third the price of SWBT.

Not to mention the fact that if one has more than three lines hooked
up to a BBS, Southwestern Bell automatically charges business rates.
No matter if it's a hobby BBS; they'll assume if you want more lines
than that, you must be charging your users. That's $40 per line.

I have two lines hooked up to my BBS. I pay $17 per line. (The $12
basic rate sounds good in theory...)


Stephanie da Silva                  Taronga Park * Houston, Texas
[e-mail]          568-0480   568-1032

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

From: Todd Inch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 04:09:08 GMT


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

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

>> I have an old pulse dial phone I'd like to convert to the modular type
>> connector but I haven't the foggiest idea what to do with the extra

> Get a modular to spade lug cord at (sorry, but they are sometimes
> handy) R/S, and connect the red and green to where the previous red
> and green went in the phone. If it won't ring, connect the whatever
> internal wire went to the old cord's yellow to the new green line
> wire's connection.

This wire is probably the black one.  The red bell wire attaches to
the red line cord wire (called the Ring wire) and the black one
attaches to the green line cord wire (called the Tip wire), although
it used to connect to earth ground, which used to be yellow.  The grey
and red/grey striped (or whatever is left, I think it used to be a
different color) each attach to A and K on the network block or
printed circuit board in the phone.  In reality, A and K are just two
ends of a .47 or so microfarad capacitor.

So, if you want spare phone bells, you can just pick up the capacitor
(rated at at least 200 volts) from Radio Shack, connect the grey and
grey/ red wires to its ends, and connect the remaining two to the
phone line.  Or leave grey and red/grey connected to A and K in the
phone and disconnect everything else for a cheap and easy auxiliary
bell.

So, who can tell me why there are two different series-connected
windings on the bell?  Were these rewired funkily for party line
ringing or something?

And, what about that blue wire to the bell on some trimline phones?

> Just tape up the black and yellow line wires from the new cord.

But be sure the black and yellow are separated from each other in case
you every plug into a jack where they're used for "line two" or
something, don't just tape them together.

> You can also buy a fat clunky modular plug that takes the spade lugs
> on the end of your existing cord. I DON'T like this clunky approach,
> but it may be what you want.

In this case (a near-no-brainer, you don't even open the phone, but
clunky is right) connect both the green and yellow wires to the screw
marked GREEN or with the green wire going to the plug.  Connect the
red and black wires as expected.

Occasionally I've rewired phones to move the bell TO the yellow so you
can put a switch in the wall jack or remotely located elsewhere to
turn the phone on and off by connecting the green and yellow.  (I
damaged too many phones in my youth by drilling holes in the phone
itself for switches, then wanted to remove the switch and was left
with an ugly hole.)

Really old phones just have two wires to the bell and the bell is just
connected in series with the capacitor (a huge metal can inside the
phone) across the line.

Whenever I wire phones funky, or disconnect the bell inside them, I
use a permanent felt tip pen (Sharpie) to write what I've done on the
bottom.  Erases with denatured alcohol or a rubber eraser.

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 16:29:06 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online?


Nov. 2, 1991 and May 2, 1992 are both Saturdays.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 10:17:21 -0700
From: Rick Tyler <mtxinu!Ingres.COM![e-mail]>
Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM![e-mail]
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Subject: My Mistake (was 310 Area Code)


I stated that I received a mailing from PacBell implying that both the
510 and 310 area codes go into effect on September 2.  Apparently, I
was mistaken.  A couple of people have e-mailed me, insisting that the
date for 310 is November 2, 1991.  However, they (and I) do agree that
the date for 510 is September 2.

My sincere apologies,


RT

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 15:30:25 PDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panasonic EB-H30 Programming Help Needed


I have a Panasonic EB-H30 handheld Cellular Phone.  Two trips to my
cellular carrier's service shop have resulted in a phone that won't
roam, and doesn't have the lock feature set up properly.  I know how
to jumper the phone to access the maintainance mode, and to recall/set
the parameters for NAM1 and NAM2.  Can anyone send me a set of
programming instructions, especially the decoding of the three
bit-encoded option locations?  Thanks.

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

Date: Thursday, 15 Aug 1991 14:18:26 EDT
From: Kevin Coutinho <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dialup Terminal Servers in 416 Area (Toronto)
Organization: York University


  I was wondering if anyone knows of any dialup terminal servers
around the Toronto area, somewhere in the 416 Area Code, I guess.  I
know the US has a lot of public telnet bridges, sorta like terminal
servers where you can dial in and then telnet out to anywhere you
want.

  I'd appreciate any info! I wouldn't mind paying for access but not
too much!  Thanks.


Kevin  ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: I am not sure what you mean by the term 'public
telnet bridges'. Most major universities have dialup numbers for use
bu authorized persons. It used to be you could call one of these and
then rlogin or telnet to other sites in addition to the sites of the
sponsoring institution, but this is rare lately because of how phreaks
and irresponsible hackers have used them as ways to break in to other
sites. Then there is Telenet/Sprintnet, a company which operates a
public switched data network. They offer numerous dialups in cities
across the USA. Using their PC Pursuit program, you can then jump off
the network in a distant city making a 'local' modem call.  You would
get the information on those phone numbers from the organizations
which maintain them. PAT]

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

From: John Howard Osborn <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 09:53:16 -0500
Subject: Global Phone Quality


I'm in the planning stages for a motorcycle trip thoughout the world
and I'm hurting for information.  The problem is that I want to take a
small, portable computer to maintain communication with my "home base"
in the United States, but I don't know the best way to go about it.

For example, I could try to rely on international telephone calls, but I
don't know if line quality is sufficient for modems, especially in
places like central Africa or in Asia.

Packet radio has been suggested, and I need to look into it, but this
is obviously the wrong group for that.  :)


John H. Osborn    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #638
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27494;
          17 Aug 91 19:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31759;
          17 Aug 91 17:45 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28680;
          17 Aug 91 16:40 CDT
Date:     Sat, 17 Aug 91 16:12:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #639
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 17 Aug 91 16:12:40 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 639

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    FCC Renews Campaign on Enhanced-Services Pricing [Peter Marshall]
    Book: "Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay" [Dan Jacobson]
    Privacy and the Telephone [Ken Jongsma]
    Teleglobe Canada Regulatory Review [David Leibold]
    Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Marcel Mongeon]
    AT&T Data Network [Ken Jongsma]
    AT&T 5ESS Feature Handbook [Ken Jongsma]
    10xxx# Dialing [[e-mail]]
    Astounding Telecom Facts! [Macy Hallock]
    Caller-ID Phones [Sami Khoury]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: FCC Renews Campaign on Enhanced-Services Pricing
From: halcyon![e-mail]
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 07:51:19 PDT


Excerpts from an item in {Communications Daily}, July 15, 1991:

New FCC order setting out [ONA] rules for pricing of interstate access
for ESPS could raise costs to ESPs as much as three or four times over
what they now pay, ADAPSO attorney Joseph Markoski said ...
Commission order ... could start another round of protest from ...
[ESPs] and from on-line community, industry experts said.

Key difference between this round and massive protest lodged against
FCC in 1987, when Commission proposed to revoke special ESP exemption
from access charges, is that this rule is far more complicated and
appears on surface to go along with ESP demands, industry observers
said.

In 1987, FCC suggested ... exemption be eliminated, which could have
resulted in ESPs' paying access charges of as much as $4 per hour,
which they said would ruin the ESP industry.

Markoski said by virtually requiring ESPs to take access from BSAs
or BSEs, effect will be same. Assuming ESPs use average business
line that costs $40 monthly now, Markoski said, ONA services could cost
same user $160 monthly or more. ESPs may not want to use ONA services
now, he said, but they will "have a problem down the road ..."

"It's absolutely astounding that the agency that stated its commitment
to promoting information services would issue this order," Markoski
said....

[From COMMUNICATIONS DAILY, 7/15/91, p.2]


  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA
                           PEP, V.32, V.42
                  +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Book Review: "Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay"
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 10:09:00 GMT


Interesting sounding book:

Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay: The Theory of the Organization
    Ideal / Howard S. Schwartz.
Schwartz, Howard S., 1942-
New York : New York University Press, c1990. xiv, 151 p.
Corporate culture.; Organizational behavior.; Challenger (Space
    shuttle)--Accidents.; General Motors Corporation--Management.; U.S.
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration--Management.
isbn 0-8147-7913-1

CONTENTS:

    PART ONE - The Theory of the Organization Ideal
        Introduction     3
        1 - The Clockwork or the Snakepit: An Essay on the Meaning of
                    Teaching Organizational Behavior     7
        2 - On the Psychodynamics of Organizational Totalitarianism     16
        3 - Antisocial Actions of Committed Organizational Participants     31

    PART TWO - Organizational Decay and Organizational Disaster
        Introduction     49
        4 - Totalitarian Management and Organizational Decay: The Case of
                    General Motors     53
        5 - Organizational Disaster and Organizational Decay: The Case of the
                    National Aeronautics and Space Administration     73
        6 - On the Psychodynamics of Organizational Disaster: The Case of the
                    Space Shuttle "Challenger"     90

   PART THREE - American Culture and the "Challenger" Disaster: A Historical
                    Perspective
        7 - The Symbol of the Space Shuttle and the Degeneration of the
                    American Dream     107
        8 - Conclusion: Addiction and Recovery     127

   Notes     137
   References     143
   Index     147

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

Subject: Privacy and the Telephone
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 12:40:19 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


I don't know how many people have been following the story about
Proctor and Gamble vs the {Wall Street Journal}, but it's getting kind
of interesting.

Apparently, a week or so ago, WSJ ran a story about some high up P&G
people leaving the company. I vaguely remember the story: it had some
slightly negative comments about P&G in it and quoted some unnamed P&G
sources.

Well, P&G was ticked off and has asked the local DA to investigate the
loss of trade secrets. This after four whole days of internal P&G
investigation.

Anyway, the DA was able to subpoena Cinncy Bell *for all call records
originating within 513 to the WSJ reporter* for a three and a half
month period. The story talked about 35 million toll calls in that
period but did not mention local calls.

Talk about a fishing expedition. And of course, the Cinncy Bell
security people had no problem with this. Hey Macy: What's going on in
Ohio?


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


[Moderator's Note: Are they going to search *all* possible numbers for
the WSJ? The paper has hundreds of phone lines, just as does P&G. One
might call various 800 numbers to reach WSJ; various local numbers in
different communities around the USA where bureaus or their syndicate
offices are located (and be transferred from there over a tie-line,
etc); the main number of the centrex in New York; the direct line to
the reporter; the direct line to someone else who then transferred the
call; the circulation department with their own group of lines, etc.
Or maybe the reporter placed the call to a contact at the company
instead of the other way around. P&G has been fighting the world for a
long time now; they are still angry about the Satan rumors as well.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 21:55:24 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Teleglobe Canada Regulatory Review


Teleglobe Canada is the monopoly supplier of overseas telecommunications
in Canada. CRTC hearings have just begun to review regulations
concerning Teleglobe. This company was formerly a federal government
Crown Corporation until it was privatized and sold to Memotec Data
Inc. in 1987 (Memotec has since assumed the Teleglobe name for its own
corporation).

Teleglobe wants everything but the telephone services deregulated. The
CRTC is expected to be quite critical of Teleglobe, particularly with
such aspects as cash management systems, rate of return and other
financial matters. Bell Canada/BCE don't like the current rates that
Teleglobe has, although overseas phone rates have decreased
significantly in the past few years. BCE wants Teleglobe to be more of
a wholesaler of telecommunications services to the other phone
companies in Canada, with concern that Canadian companies will move
overseas traffic to private networks in other countries.

Teleglobe, from one of its international calling guides, has a complex
rate structure for customer-dialed overseas calls with respect to
rates and discount periods. British Telecom, on the other hand, seems
to have a cleaner "rate band" structure with a minimal number of rate
groupings.  The Teleglobe rate card listed at least 75 different rate
categories, depending on the country dialed.

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel Mongeon)
Subject: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service?
Organization: The Joymarmon Group
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 03:11:44 GMT


I would like people in Toronto to be able to call me in Hamilton
(about 40 miles west of Toronto) toll free.  Obviously I could put in
an 800 number (and pay through the nose if a lot of people use it) or
put in a Foreign Exchange Trunk (and pay a relatively hefty flat
monthly rate -- about $500 per month).  However, is the following
possible??

Toronto to Oakville is a local call.  Oakville to Burlington is a
local call and Burlington to Hamilton is a local call.  Can I put a
phone in each of Oakville and Burlington both with call forwarding and
then forward the calls from the Oakville number to Burlington and then
from the Burlington number to my ultimate number in Hamilton.
Therefore, when someone from Toronto wants to call me they can dial
the local number in Oakville without charge, I get the call in
Hamilton and all I have to pay is two monthly rates for the basic
phone service in each of Burlington and Oakville.  Obviously, I would
probably need a place to put phones in each of those two places but
that isn't a problem.  Also, I realize that this is not truly FX
service in that I can't place calls in reverse.

What type of signal degradation might I expect?  As I understand it,
all the switches involved would probably be digital.  Would the
connection be suitable for Telebit or other data?

As a related question can a Northern Telecom DMS forward more than one
call at a time? For example, if the Hamilton number that I am pointing
the Burlington calls to in the above is actually a set of hunted
trunks, can more than one person at a time from Toronto call me using
only one line in Oakville? Or will the Oakville CO know that a call
has already been forwarded and it is still in progress?

Finally, Bell Canada offers a service that I have heard of called
Remote Call Forwarding where they give you a telephone number in one
CO that is automatically set to forward calls to a number in another
CO.  There is no physical set associated with the remote number.
Although it would seem this was originally designed to generate LD
revenues from the forwarded calls, would such a service be allowed in
the above scheme?  If so, I would save myself the aggravation of
having to keep the two "dummy" sets in each of Oakville and
Burlington.


Marcel D. Mongeon
e-mail:    ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root  or
                              joymrmn!marcelm


[Moderator's Note: Remote Call Forwarding with most telcos is tariffed
only as a business service. You'll want to insure the same generous
flat rate service available in the communities in question on
residence phones is available to business phones as well. As soon as
local calls start getting measured and timed, linking any two or three
together via call forwarding *rarely* is less expensive than a
straight dial-thru as a long distance call. If you just use
residential line call forwarding, you will still need to install
service at the interim points, and pay the monthly bill for the line
and the call forwarding feature. How many calls per month will you
need to receive before you amortize the monthly base charges for two
or three interim service points and the installation costs associated
with each? Simply put, chain-forwarding as we call it rarely if ever
is a viable alternative to just placing calls and paying the tolls. Go
with an 800 number and control who you allow to use it.  PAT]

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

Subject: AT&T Data Network
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 13:39:17 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


The current {PC Week} has an article about packet data networks
available to the public. One of the ones they mentioned was an AT&T
network designed for those that access database vendors without the
need to go through a gateway such as Compuserve. The number they gave
in the magazine article was 950-1288 as a national access number. This
number indeed works from my area.

That is, a modem answers and one can get carrier. However, at that
point the AT&T net is apparently waiting for some type of account
number or handshaking arrangement, as there is no response to the
usual carriage returns or breaks.

Does anyone have any additional information on this net, what it
connects with and what the rates are?

Almost as an aside, what an interesting concept for someone like
Compuserve.  That is, using a single national 950-XXXX number instead
of individual numbers for each city.


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


[Moderator's Note: From 312 at any time during the past day, calls to
950-1288 return an IBT intercept 'all circuits are busy now'.  PAT]

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

Subject: AT&T 5ESS Feature Handbook
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 13:40:04 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Someone in the Digest recently recommend the 5ESS Feature Handbook.
I'd like to thank that person! This is a neat book. It breaks down
every possible feature available for the 5ESS. Some hightlights:

  Network Call Denial. Allows the switch to interrupt call processing
  for all calls that arrive on specified trunks. A query is sent to an
  external database and, depending on the response, the call is
  either completed normally or is rejected and routed to an announcement,
  if the customer has not paid his/her bills to AT&T.

  Leased Network 8 Hours Past MDR. This feature generates intermediate
  Message Detail Recording (MDR) records periodically for those calls
  which have been in progress for more than 8 hours. This feature helps
  in the identification of problem facilities and network abuse.

The bool is 430 pages long (softcover) and with shipping, goes for
just over $5 from the AT&T Customer Information Center. AT&T
Publication #235-390-500.


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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 12:16 PDT
From: Hansel <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10xxx# Dialing


In Los Angeles (213), when dialing 10333# I am connected immediately
to what appears to be their long distance calling port (950-1033). I
recieve a tone and can enter the same calling card that works on
950-1033.  When I dial 10835# I recieve the long distance port for
Telecom*USA's calling cards.  When dialing 10288# I am connected
directly to an AT&T operator. I have not tried any other combinations.
Basically, immediately after hitting the # key I am transfered to
their long distance calling card port.


Hansel

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


[Moderator's Note: I am amazed by the response on 10288#. We get
nothing from that here except an intercept.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 00:06 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Astounding Telecom Facts!


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

[ Regarding conversation with PacTel rep concerning high cost of intra-LATA
toll calls routed via PacTel: ]

> The rep gave me a very straightforward answer -- "it actually costs more
> to complete a call of a shorter distance!"
> I knew there had to be a good reason!

This, of course, is why the telco's want to begin charging us for
local calls.  Those local calls cost them so darn much to carry, and
they're such a nuisance, tying up their nice clean ESS, as well.


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]

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

Subject: Caller-ID Phones
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 22:38:53 -0400
From: Sami Khoury <[e-mail]>


On the subject of Caller-ID, in Canada, other than the boxes that can
be hooked to the phone line, there exist one phone, the Maestro by
Northern Telecom, that can be used with the Caller-ID service.

  Is the Caller-ID system somehow standard in North America, and if so
does anyone know of any other company that makes phones for the
Caller-ID service with advanced features such as alphanumeric display.
This way one can associate a name to a number and get the name rather
than the number displayed.


Sami Khoury    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #639
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02961;
          17 Aug 91 21:14 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30951;
          17 Aug 91 19:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04427;
          17 Aug 91 18:46 CDT
Date:     Sat, 17 Aug 91 17:45:49 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #640
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 17 Aug 91 17:45:31 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 640

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cable TV Competition [Shawn Goodin]
    Re: Tour of a CO [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems [Jason Williams]
    Re: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone" [Marty Brenneis]
    Low Technology Email From Space [Bruce Perens]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Steve Thornton]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [William J. Carpenter]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [[e-mail]]
    Re: 950-PIZZA [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: Alice's Restaurant (was RS Gives Out Phone Numbers) [Dan Jacobson]
    Re: Phast Phood [Tim Russell]
    FAX / Modem Autoswitches - Which Ones Work? [Steve Owens]
    Dial 0 for Operator? (In Schools/Office Buildings) [Dan Jacobson]
    Lonely Repair Service [Jeff Sicherman]
    IXO Protocol Files for Archives [J. Brad Hicks]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Shawn Goodin)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1991 17:17:17 GMT


[e-mail] (Larry Rachman) writes:

> I stopped off at Radio Shack on the way home to buy a new TV antenna.
> It gets 2-13 with a better picture than cable provides, and for the
> $60 saved, I could rent 30 movies per month, and I could never watch
> that many. As an added premium, I enjoy the reverse snobbery of *not*
> having cable.

Only problem is what do you do if you live in an area where you CANNOT
put up an external antenna?  In my neighborhood, we have the dreaded
local deed restriction which prohibits external antennas and such on
roofs, towers, etc.  No satellite dishes either.  While a table-top
antenna works, it looks tacky on top of a $2,400 TV, and my attic
doesn't have enough room for hiding the antenna in there.

Strangely enough, the local cable company here is Cablevision of
Charlotte as well.  Same lousy picture, etc.

This really bothers me -- especially since an external antenna (with
rotor) is capable of picking up stations in other markets around North
Carolina and South Carolina.  Any suggestions?


UUCP:  ....!crash!pro-charlotte!shawng      | Pro-Charlotte - [phone]
ARPA:  crash!pro-charlotte![e-mail]  | 300-9600 baud (HST) 24 hrs/day
INET:  [e-mail]         | Log in as "register"


[Moderator's Note: Try putting the table-top antenna in the attic by a
window with one of those signal boosters attached to it; then snake
the coax down in the way you would from a rooftop antenna.  PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tour of a CO
Date: 17 Aug 91 20:55:18 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Thomas Lapp) writes:

[ describing a tour of the central office serving his residence ]

> One of the highlights was watching my host do a line test on my
> residential line (which is serviced out of that office).  Everything
> (DC, AC, etc) tested well within specs, and I also found out that my
> "pair" from CO to my end-user equipment is 31,800 (+/- 10) feet!  (It
> measured a 65 dB loss for this distance, by the way).  All the testing
> was done via a single terminal console in an office in the CO.

Are you sure there isn't a decimal point missing here?  I can believe
a loop loss of 5 - 10 dB, but 65 dB -- I don't think you'd be able to
hear the dial tone, much less the far end!


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

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

From: Jason Williams <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Aug 91  16:56:44
Subject: Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems


As I recall, the cheap 1200 baud modems at Damark are Atari SX212
modems in disguise (I believe they say SC212). They should have an
Atari SIO interface and an RS-232 interface.

The following opinions are my own and not those of anyone else who
might be registered on fquest.fidonet.org.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 10:10:28 PDT
From: Marty the Droid <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone"


I had some version of PacBel's bonus plan, (Circle Calling?). Each
month there was a report of my savings with the plan. When I saw a
negative number for six months in a row I called and cancelled the
plan. It seemed to me that they were happy to tell me that I would be
better off without the plan.

For all the net.whining about PacBell I still think they aren't all
that bad.  (Try GenaTEl sometime.. :-)


Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis     ...!uupsi!kerner!droid
Industrial Magician             [e-mail]
[phone]  KAE7616 - 462.700 - 162.2       KC6YYP

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: Low-Technology Email From Space
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 02:58:27 GMT


> From: [e-mail] (Byron Han)
> Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

> The data path described is indeed the simplest possible with respect
> to the twin constraints of minimizing crew training time and
> minimizing software development time.

Astronauts haven't had any problems dealing with the much more
sophisticated amateur radio packet communications when there has been
any motivation to do so. There isn't any motivation this time because
this is little more than an Apple Computer Inc. publicity stunt at
taxpayer expense.

And the sad fact is, Apple's effort is low-tech. I'm not a ham, but
have read about the SAREX missions and amateur packet networks. Ham
packet uses CSMA/CD over radio, and a reliable X-25 data link, for
about $250 per modem/protocol-unit. They did this in their spare time,
on kitchen tables, and then established an intercontinental repeater
network composed of systems belonging to clubs and individuals. The
resulting technology is straightforward and elegant, and can be used
to link a ground station directly to space when both sides of the link
are using _hand-held_ transceivers. Contrast this to the Rube Goldberg
implementation used to connect this misson to AppleLink.


Bruce Perens

The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author, not of
his employer or any other organization.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 04:18:30 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Customer Phone Numbers


Regarding the Radio Shack dispute, I realize that moderation is not a
strong point on this or any other list, but it remotely possible that
yes, RS's policy sucks for lots of reasons, and no, it's not a major
problem in the world today. I have been pressured to state my full
name and address when making a cash sale, which P's me O, especially
compared to normal behavior, such as _anyplace_ else. It never occured
to stupid me to give a false name or address. I guess I have to
reconcile myself to the fact that I must lie to secure my rights. So,
why don't you all just stuff RS? What do they have that you can't get
elsewhere?

Personally, I hate RS and their policy, so I don't go there.  I can
get diodes mail-order. I see personal data as a serious problem in the
future, but the current schemes are weak.


Steve

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

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 16:11:35 EDT
From: William J Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> [Moderator's Note: All those things are very interesting scenarios;
> but do they *really* happen?

Late this past week, NYC police issued a public apology to a man.

The police provided his picture to the media, and it was shown on
every front page and TV news show in town.  He was wanted "for
questioning" in connection with a recent well-publicized series of five
rapes.  They had his picture because he was filmed using one of the
victim's cards at an ATM machine shortly after one of the crimes.  The
photo was quite clear (not one of those blurry hidden camera shots).
Dozens of people did their duty and reported his whereabouts to the
police.

Unfortunately, the ATM machine/software/operators/(not clear from the
news) misidentified him, and he just happened to have made a
transaction with his own card around the same time someone else used
the stolen card.

Do these things *really* happen?


  Bill Carpenter         att!hos1cad!wjc  or  attmail!bill


[Moderator's Note: It is not clear to me what the connection is
between a RS receipt deliberatly diddled up by a clerk and a photo
from an ATM machine mis-identified by bank employees. One thing is
certain though: Soon the man misidentified as a rapist is going to be
very rich. If it were me, suit would be filed for defamation of
character against the bank owning the ATM; the City of New York (whose
employees, the police are instructed by their employer); and where
they are known by subpoena of 911 logs, the individuals who called to
turn in my name. The bank and the city would settle handsomly. And if
a customer of RS is injured by the actions of a dealer's employee,
they should likewise sue RS and the dealer involved.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Organization: Penn State University - Great Valley Graduate Center
Date: Saturday, 17 Aug 1991 16:22:54 EDT
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers


In article <[e-mail]>, Steve Urich <beyonet!beyo@
cs.widener.edu> says:

> Did you get a recipe?   [No, but he may have gotten a reciept! :)  PAT]
                ^^^^^^^                                 ^^^^^^^
But then again, he also might have received a receipt! :-)


Arthur


[Moderator's Note: Touche! And a recipe for continued success with a
mailing list is to know when to end a thread and when to continue it.
Thanks for a brilliant and witty conclusion to this one, Arthur!   PAT]

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 950-PIZZA
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 17:58:26 EST


Here in Australia Telecom has 10,000 numbers allocated for businesses
that want one number that can be advertised anywhere in the country
but when called will terminate at the nearest or appropriate office.
The calls cost a single unit (24c just like a local call) and the
numbers have the form 13xxxx.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Alice's Restaurant (was Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers)
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 08:20:00 GMT


On 16 Aug 91 13:20:27 GMT, [e-mail] (Andy Sherman) said:

> Besides the Alice's Restaurant legend (all you youngsters go ask
> somebody over 35)

Hey bud, even my youngest sibling who's 28 has heard that Arlo Guthrie
record.

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

From: Tim Russell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phast Phood
Date: 17 Aug 91 20:17:16 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA


In article <[e-mail]> Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax!carroll@
cs.washington.edu> writes:

>   Pizza Hut already has tried something like this in the Seattle
> area; my wife and I were on a Pizza Hut kick at the time, and were
> frequent customers until I called and discovered that although I live
> within two miles of two different Pizza Huts, they weren't equipped to
> deliver to my house.

    Godfather's Pizza (who I work for at the corporate office) also
tried this in Seattle, and it's also closed down; supposedly it was
too expensive to operate.  How that can be considering the profit
margin on pizza I don't know.  :-)

    Obviously we didn't do anything as fancy as Domino's proposes: we
just had an 800 number and people manning (personing) the phones.

    Gee, now I'll /always/ know the number of the Domino's that I
won't give my business to because they support pro-life groups!  :-)


Tim Russell   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Ah, please! No responses here to the final
paragraph in Mr. Russell's article. I'm sure just as many folks will
remember the number for the opposite reason.   PAT]

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

From: Steve Owens <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Aug 91 16:55:47 GMT
Subject: FAX / Modem Autoswitches - Which Ones Work?
Date: 16 Aug 91 16:55:47 GMT
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR


 We would like to share a phone line between our FAX machine and our
Unix dialup - Sun3/160 + Telebit. Does anyone have any experience with
auto fax-modem swtich boxes that really work? We would like the
operation to be completely transparent to our fax users. Thanks in
advance.


Steve

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Dial 0 for Operator? (In Schools / Office Buildings)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 14:50:00 GMT


Most of us probably have some special phone system for our school or
office building with shortened local versions of regular phone
numbers.  A common scenario is to have special phone number(s) for
emergencies, e.g., "93151".  "911" (what United States children are
drilled to remember to call in emergencies) is often disabled, as it's
a prefix to office phones "91100" thru "91199".  "0" (the key that
even has the name "Oper" on it) might even get a recording: "we're
sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed..." since it might have
been forgotten about by your building's phone planners.

One day a panicked visitor (or even a local person who forgets the
"93151" and can't find a reminder sticker or poster) will try calling
"911", then "0" and get nowhere.  Later, lawsuits and bad press will
result from whatever disaster occurred, not to mention loss of life,
etc.

There is probably a similar situation with the phone system in you the
reader's office building.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 22:21:24 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lonely Repair Service
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  Having got some either wrong or confusing information about wiring
for my newly 'installed' additional line, I called 611 for some
information. The call seemed to go to a central operator somewhere
(didnt even know my area code from the call) and was told I would be
called back.

  The guy who called (not the one who did the outside wiring was very
helpful but went on and on about what to look for on the inside
wiring, repeating the same instructions many times. Are these guys
starved for human interaction?

  Also thought I heard kids in the background. I hadn't realized that
Pac*bell was a home-based business.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 16:49 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: IXO Protocol Files for Archives


I am sending two files for the Telecom Digest archives that are the
result of my request several weeks ago for information on the IXO
protocol.

The IXO/TAP protocol is the preferred computer-to-computer interface
for calling pagers; your computer and modem dial a modem number at the
local paging company, and using the IXO packet format send the pager
ID (phone number) and the message.

The first file, "pager.bin.uqx", is a free application for all
Macintosh HyperCard 2.1 users that will handle digital paging.  The
second one, "IXO.example", is the text of the source code that handles
the actual IXO session.  It's in HyperTalk scripting language, but
that's English-like enough that any halfway clever hacker ought to be
able to translate it into just about anything.

Special thanks to Brent Chapman of Telebit who faxed me a copy of the
IXO/TAP protocol spec.  If you want your own copy of this document,
try calling Glenayre Electronics at 1-604-263-1611 and ask if you can
get a copy of chapter seven of manual GLP-3000-180 (mine is from Issue
5: 91/01/30, pages 7-1 to 7-13).

Questions about pager.bin.uqx or IXO.example can be directed to me at
1-314-275-3645, via AppleLink at B0186, via Compu$erve at 76012,300,
via MCI Mail at JBHICKS, or via Internet to [e-mail].


[Moderator's Note: This file will be available in the archives over
the weekend sometime. You can use anonymous ftp to lcs.mit.edu.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #640
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26449;
          18 Aug 91 6:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19706;
          18 Aug 91 4:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16319;
          18 Aug 91 3:52 CDT
Date:     Sun, 18 Aug 91 3:15:57 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #641
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Aug 91 03:15:52 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 641

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Ed Hopper]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [David Ritchie]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Andrew Payne]
    Re: Alice's Restaurant (was RS Gives Out Phone Numbers) [Jamie Mason]
    Re: Alice's Restaurant (was RS Gives Out Phone Numbers) [Dan Jacobson]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [John Higdon]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Gary Snow]
    Re: Setting Up a Fax Gateway [James Cummings]
    Re: Privacy and the Telephone [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: Phast Phood [Ed Hopper]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
From: ED HOPPER <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat 17 Aug 91 19:27:48 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575


In article, [e-mail] (Leonard P Levine) writes:

> An apology is called for.  The poster described a situation in which a
> company's practices caused a customer name and address to be passed on to
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> someone else.

Wait a minute!  No one has presented conclusive evidence that Tandy
Corp has, *AS A POLICY*, any practice which, when *PROPERLY EXECUTED*,
leads to the disclosure of that most secret of all data, your
telephone number.  Do Tandy employees, in trying to dodge Tandy policy
abuse the process?  Probably.  Can such an abuse lead to the heinous
crime of telephone number disclosure?  Probably so, again.  Would
Tandy take action to correct the matter by disciplining the employee
in question if one complained to the appropriate Tandy officials?  No
probably about it, I am positive they would.  In fact, the individual
in question could easily lose his job.  Of course, it's more fun to
create this tempest in a thimble by posting an account of this heinous
crime with the headline "Radio Shack gives out telephone numbers".

> That was and is wrong.  You (Pat) were wrong to abuse him.
> You should apologize and correct your behaviour.  You are
> a MODERATOR, not a king.  Be moderate.

Perhaps Mr. Levine owes an apology to Tandy for claiming that this was
their *POLICY*.

Tell you what I'm gonna do ... on my next trip to Dallas, I'll make a
detour to Fort Worth and PERSONALLY deliver Mr. Levine's apology to
Tandy Corp.

-> Leonard P. Levine                    e-mail [e-mail]
-> Professor, Computer Science             Office [phone]
-> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee       Home   [phone]
-> Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A.              FAX    [phone]

Hello, Telesleaze, Inc?  Have I gotta a hot number for you!  Yeah,
University Professor in Wisconsin.  Carries on about privacy, but then
posts his home number on an international network, so I am sure he
would love to hear from you.  Whats that?  Oh yeah, I'm sure he'd
buy a reality check ...

Satire mode off.

Come on folks, do you really believe that this is a normal practice?
Do you think that's the instructions RS employees get?  Have you ever
worked in a retail environment?  People make mistakes, people get
sloppy, people cut corners.  It's not a big capitalist conspiracy,
it's just the incompetence of the typical entry level clerk and the
bad design of operational policies.  And quite frankly, more the
former than the latter.

Mr. Levine, I don't mean to poke too much fun at you, but to carry on
so and then post your home number seems a little silly to me.

> [Memo From the King: Now if I were not a benevolent king, your
> message would never have seen the light of day here, would it?
> Pardon me as I giggle, but I always get amused when people from
> Usenet tell me I should apologize for something. As the late Jack
> Benny phrased it, 'Really, Mary'.  PAT]

Hmmm ... Patrick I??? All hail the King!


Ed Hopper

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

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 22:22:06 mdt
From: David Ritchie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers


> [Moderator's Note: What I said was that mail to 60690-1570 reaches me
> as the sole occupant of that code. You'll find its a box at the
> Downtown Station post office.  PAT]

Pat,

  Post Office boxholders physical addresses are a matter of public
record.  I *think* (but am not certain) that this information is
available upon request by sending mail to:

  Postmaster
  City, State, ZIP

and asking that information concerning P.O. Box 1570 (I don't know
your box mumber, but could easily determine it via a ZIP code
directory).


Dave Ritchie   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Indeed, it is 1570 at 60690, as I say from time to
time in the introductory message to this group which is posted monthly
or so in comp.dcom.telecom. And you can do a box inquiry by writing to
Postmaster <zipcode>, Attention Lock Box Supervisor. In your request,
cite section 44.D of the Postal Service Administrative Manual. Request
the name and street address of the boxholder, plus the telephone
number and name(s) of the person(s) authorized to open the box and
sign for mail. But where your scheme falls short is this only applies
to *business* boxes ... not personal boxes; and I believe you need to
include the statement in your request, "the box was used for an
extension of credit and to solicit the public", meaning you should be
certain it was used for those purposes.  When the post office clerk
reviews the application, if the question "will this box be used to
solicit the public?" is answered in the negative, the reply you will
receive is that postal records indicate the box is for personal use,
and therefore the records are not available under the Freedom of
Information Act.  Good try though! Got any other ideas?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Payne)
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 01:56:42 GMT


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

> [Moderator's Note: It is not clear to me what the connection is
> between a RS receipt deliberatly diddled up by a clerk and a photo
> from an ATM machine mis-identified by bank employees. One thing is
> certain though: Soon the man misidentified as a rapist is going to be
> very rich. If it were me, suit would be filed for defamation of
> character against the bank owning the ATM; the City of New York (whose
> employees, the police are instructed by their employer); and where
> they are known by subpoena of 911 logs, the individuals who called to
> turn in my name. The bank and the city would settle handsomly. And if
> a customer of RS is injured by the actions of a dealer's employee,
> they should likewise sue RS and the dealer involved.   PAT]

    Aw come on, Pat!  The solution to the man's problem is *not*
to run off an sue everyone in sight.  Instead, he should approach the
bank and the police and ask that their apology be spread (evening
news, whatever) in the same fashion the wanted report was spread.

    I have no respect for people who feel that you should sue
first and work out the details later.  Lawsuits are a LAST resort, not
a first option that you exercise or lose.  Litigation is expensive,
time consuming, and by many measures, very non-productive.  I'm a big
fan of reasonable, mature, negotiated solutions to problems -- not
court mitigated solutions, unless they are absolutely necessary.

    The courts are overbooked, the lawyers are making a bundle
(I'm not a lawyer basher -- I would be one myself is circumstances
were different), and the insurance companies are making out like
bandits selling insurance to everyone scared to death they are going
to get the pants sued off of them.  I know doctors that can't practice
because they can't afford $100,000 per year in medical malpractice
(you do the path, how much do you have to pay your doctor to cover
his/her insurance?).  I know businesses that can't do business because
someone might misuse their product and sue their pants off.  My wife
is a dental hygienist and I'm scared to death that someone is going to
walk into their office, walk out and sue the pants off of everyone
there.  Then I'm going to have to spend *MY* time defending us against
someone with a chip on their shoulder.

    One of these days I'm going to collect all of the absurd
lawsuits into a book.  Did you hear about the guy who replaces a spark
plug on his lawnmower and forgot to replace the wire to the plug?  He
spilled gas when filling it, and when he pulled the cord the spark was
in the wrong place: he was burnt up between the legs.  Briggs and
Stratton lost to the tune of $8 million or so to Stanley Preiser,
about as high-powered a lawyer as you can get.

    Is this progress?


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


[Moderator's Note: But what you are forgetting is that banks, like
insurance companies, rarely settle anything without getting sued. An
old joke goes, "what is the purpose of paying insurance premiums?",
and the answer is, "that's so when you have a claim, you have legal
standing to sue the insurance company trying to collect." Typically,
the only thing banks understand is getting bashed around. More on this
in a later message.   PAT]

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alice's Restaurant (was Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers)
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1991 20:36:26 -0400


On 16 Aug 91 13:20:27 GMT, [e-mail] (Andy Sherman) said:

> Besides the Alice's Restaurant legend (all you youngsters go ask
> somebody over 35)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> Hey bud, even my youngest sibling who's 28 has heard that Arlo Guthrie
> record.

Hey bud, even *my* youngest sibling who's *12* has heard that Arlo
Guthrie record.


Jamie


[Moderator's Note: I don't think my little nephew -- age 18 months --
who lives with me has heard of it yet.  :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Alice's Restaurant (was Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers)
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 22:47:00 GMT


> Hey bud, even my youngest sibling who's 28 has heard that Arlo Guthrie
> record.

On Sat, 17 Aug 91 17:28:58 -0700, [e-mail] (Brian
Crawford) said:

> You tell 'em!  I'm 28 and I've worn out my Arlo Guthrie album,
> can recite it from memory, and can even play it on the gi-tar!

Of course these days I only listen to rap and rap-related music.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 18:00 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road


Stephanie da Silva <[e-mail]> writes:

> Not to mention the fact that if one has more than three lines hooked
> up to a BBS, Southwestern Bell automatically charges business rates.
> No matter if it's a hobby BBS; they'll assume if you want more lines
> than that, you must be charging your users. That's $40 per line.

FORTY DOLLARS! A business line from Pac*Bell, including rip-off access
charges, taxes, fees, and dealer markup comes in at around $16. Even
if Pac*Bell regraded BBS owners to business, it would not be a real
hardship. But Pac*Bell has no silly restrictions on how many lines a
hobby project is entitled to. You order, you get, you pay.

> I have two lines hooked up to my BBS. I pay $17 per line. (The $12
> basic rate sounds good in theory...)

You already pay more than business lines would cost you with Pac*Bell.


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

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

Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 23:04:29 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Tarl Neustaedter writes:

> Boggle. You don't think 600-800 calls a month is a higher than average
> (perhaps even three times higher than average) use of a residential phone?

But Tarl, that's not the point. Granted, 600-800 calls a month are way
above normal residential usage. However, there is no evidence to
support the idea that 600 local calls cost the telco any more money.
Once the central office is in place *and sized to meet the peak
demand*, there is no reason for local calls to be metered.

All the telcos are trying to do is move service billings from cost
based (which is what monopolistic utilities should be based on), to
"value" based, similar to what movie studios do.

It's just a way of taking more money out of everyone's bank account
while sounding *so* reasonable.


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

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

From: Gary Snow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver Wash, USA.
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 05:16:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax!carroll@
cs.washington.edu> writes:

> Depends on the city. I'd agree that Hillsboro-Portland ought to be a
> local call (at least the part of Hillsboro you're calling from); in
> fact I'm surprised it's not, since we have the same telco, and you
> have to get fairly far away from Seattle (except to the north, where
> there's GTE and a county line) before it's long distance to call
> there. I guess Hillsboro is GTE too, though, huh?

Yes, unfortunately Portland is GTE (I like having US West and I live
just across the river in Vancouver).  From what I hear though all of
Portland's outlying areas will be local calls, starting in November.

Now if they would just make it a local call between Portland and
Vancouver we would be all set.


Gary Snow   uunet!clark!gsnow  or  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (James Cummings)
Subject: Re: Setting Up a Fax Gateway
Date: 18 Aug 91 00:05:38 GMT
Organization: RedRock Development


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

> A word of warning for those of you setting up a fax gateway in your
> UNIX-based PC.

> Some months ago, I checked into doing just that. The consensus was
> that the DigiFAX software (by DigiBoard) was the way to go. It
> supports two modems: Hayes and Brooktrout. I bought the Hayes JT Fax
> 9600.

    Ya-HA!  This must be what caused DigiBoard to buy out PC
Research!  Those of you who might not know ... PC Research is the
company that marketed Jetroff (... hmmm ... would that mean that
Jetroff should be extra compatible with DigiFAX?).  Even used the
Brooktrout equipment, I believe.

> neither company has expressed any desire to fix the problem. There
> is no workaround.

I'll bet Rick wouldn't be real pleased about that one.

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

Subject: Re: Privacy and the Telephone
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 23:08:06 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


I should clarify something with regards to my previous post on this
subject. The telephone records subpoenaed were for all calls to the
WSJ reporter's home phone, not her business office phone.


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

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

Subject: Re: Phast Phood
From: ED HOPPER <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat 17 Aug 91 19:28:16 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575


In article, [e-mail] (John J. DiLeo) writes:

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

>> It will use a 950 number: 950-1430 (gee, that doesn't spell
>> anything on the keypad) to pass the call...

>   Just a thought ... I seem to recall that the guarantee is 30
> minutes or less delivered, *14* minutes or less for pickup.

An article in the {Dallas Morning News} on the subject reports that
Dominoes marketing campaign in the test market area capitalized on the
number thusly:

"For people who work 9 to 5, call the 1 4 30 minute delivery."

You realize of course, that someone is making big bucks for thinking that one
up!

I could see people who have low analytical capabilities might assume
that the number is 925-1430, not 950-1430.


Ed Hopper

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #641
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26919;
          18 Aug 91 6:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19706;
          18 Aug 91 5:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16319;
          18 Aug 91 3:52 CDT
Date:     Sun, 18 Aug 91 3:48:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #642
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Aug 91 03:48:41 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 642

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Lightening Surge Protection [Pat Verner]
    Administrivia: Monitoring Soviet Communications [TELECOM Moderator]
    White House?  No, the Brown House [Carl G. Moore, Jr.]
    GTE Gives Out Unlisted Addresses (was ATT Universal Card) [Randy Gregor]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 19:36:00 PDT
From: Pat Verner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lightning Surge Protection


Hi Pat,

The South African Highveld has one of the highest lightning occurences
in the world, and to operate equipment without protection can be very
costly.  The following article was written a short while ago, and I am
forwarding it to you with the author's permission after seeing several
complaints in your newsgroup!  It is a bit long, and I have shortened
it a little, but you may still find it of general interest!


                  TELEPHONE LINE SURGE ARRESTOR
                     (C) 1990   Tim Jackson

                           P.O. Box 199
                              Cresta, RSA
                                2118

                        Tel: [phone]
                          Fido: 5:7101/1.17


What follows is a bit on why most lightning protection schemes for
modems and other such devices (cordless phones, answering machines,
fax machines etc.) fail at what they were intended to do and how you
can build a circuit yourself that will work as well as any circuit for
the purpose can.

Firstly let me say that the circuit itself is not unique at all.
There are a number of people such as the manufacturers of PABX
equipment and others who use either the same circuit or a variation
thereof.

The important point is that this circuit WORKS! There are others, some
very similar, that don't work nearly as well.

Also it is critically important to understand HOW lightning causes the
damage it does. Once you get this you'll see why most protection
schemes fail and you'll have a good idea of how to avoid damage.

There are schemes for protecting your equipment such as Ken Burke's
patented Spark Gap (R) system. This is a system whereby the modem is
unplugged from the phone line and the modem's telephone jack is left
lying on the desk or floor thus creating a spark gap between itself
and the wall socket of about half a metre.

There is no doubt that this system is very effective although it won't
give much protection against a raving lunatic with a fourteen pound
hammer. Neither will my circuit but I'm working on it ...

The problem with the Spark Gap (R) system is that it is manually
activated and thus subject to Murphy's law. Murphy's law of Spark Gap
(R) systems is that you'll remember to unplug your modem ninety nine
times when there is actually no need to and on the hundredth time,
when you rush out in a helluva hurry and forget to unplug it lightning
will zap the blasted thing.

There was another system written about on this board a while back
which was designed to automatically disconnect your modem from the
line by means of a relay powered by your PC's PSU so that when you
switched off your PC your modem would be automatically disconnected.

This is a good system for those who do switch their PC's off when not
in use provided you follow the instructions carefully regarding
earthing and use a relay with well-spaced contacts.  The details are
available on Golden City Opus (and other boards, I'm sure) under the
name of TRANZORB.ZIP. The problem is that while it does have surge
arrestors in it, these would only give limited protection.  I have
three phone lines (I work from home) which between them have a fax
machine, a modem, an answering machine, a recording unit and several
"fancy" phones connected to them.

Clearly, it would be tedious to unplug this lot every time Annie hid
in the cupboard.

Annie is one of my cats who is scared to death of thunder and hides
away when she detects a rumble five hundred kays away.

A couple of years ago I stayed in Kyalami where the telephone lines
are strung up on poles for miles and miles just inviting lightning to
zap them.

Every time there was a storm I would quickly set up my stuff and
experiment on various methods of "taming" the phone line.

I can honestly say from practical experience and as a result of many
incinerated attempts that the circuit presented here works and works
well.

Before we get to the circuit itself let me squash a few myths and
establish a few facts:

I assume that anyone reading this is at least slightly technical.

There is no difference, for practical purposes, between internal and
external modems when it comes to lightning damage. Most people are
under the impression that if your modem is external the lightning is
somehow contained. Bongggg. You provided a wonderful path right into
your PC when you connected your external modem to your serial port.
The fact that part of the package (the modem) is outside your PC and
part (serial card) is inside means zilch. As far as lightning is
concerned there is no difference.

It is true that SOME external modems have better lightning protection
circuitry than their internal counterparts but that is incidental.

Now for the part that most people (and I'm talking about suppliers
here too) don't realise.

Your phone line consists of a pair of wires across which a fairly wide
voltage range appears depending on exactly what's happening. The
voltage will typically be between about 10 Volts (when you're using
the line) and a maximum peak voltage of around 200 Volts (when it's
ringing).

The voltage ACROSS the line is one thing. The voltage between the line
and earth is another thing altogether.

The problem is that most people provide protection for a voltage surge
across the line, such as the gas arrestor found in SAPO plugs, but
almost no one worries about the voltage between the line and earth and
this is what does the real damage.

In Telcospeak the two wires of a phone line are referred to as the "A"
and "B" wire.

If you are running a bog standard phone (that doesn't mean a bathroom
phone) then protection against surges across A and B is adequate.
Hence the gas arrestor in SAPO telephone plugs.

Problem is, as soon as you connect a device to the phone system that
is also connected to your electrical mains you are introducing a third
"line" and that is EARTH.

Devices in this category include fax machines, modems (internal modems
are connected to mains by virtue of being in your PC), answering
machines, some fancy telephones, cordless phones etc.

What happens is that although the modem (I'm not going to list all the
other devices each time) is not connected directly to 220 Volts it is
fed power via a transformer which IS connected to mains.

Now the transformer has a certain insulation between the primary and
secondary windings but if you force the secondary to a potential a few
thousand Volts higher than earth potential then the insulation will
break down and suddenly your modem IS connected directly to 220 Volts,
even if it's just briefly.

Although your phone line is at earth potential at the exchange end it
is ripped up to several thousand volts at your end if lightning
strikes nearby. This high voltage, although not necessarily between
the A and B wires, is certainly felt between A and B as a unit, and
earth. In other words a high voltage is induced into the line pair
pulling the line way above earth potential.

What happens is that this voltage finds its way through your modem to
earth by one of many possible routes often with catastrophic results.

The way to prevent this happening is to provide a path from your
phoneline to earth for the surge to follow without going via your
modem.

The circuit at the end of this blurb does just that. It uses a chip
from Texas Instruments which was designed for just that purpose. It is
essentially transparent when the line is at normal working voltages
(up to about 200 Volts) but above that voltage it shorts your line to
earth for as long as the surge lasts.

The trick is to install the unit in the line between the telephone
jack and your modem (ie: not too far from the modem, like in another
room) and connect the earth lead from the circuit to the earth pin on
the SAME PLUG that feeds your PC.  You can connect it to the chassis
of your PC if you find that easier.  Just check that the chassis is
connected to earth. I've yet to find a PC where it wasn't but just
check anyway.

          ===============================================

                     10 ohm 5 Watt
      >----------+-----/\/\/\/------------------+------------->
Phone Line A     |                              |
                <=>300V Gas Arrester        ____|_____      To Modem
                 |                          |   A    |
                 |                          |TISP2290|
        |--------+--------------------------|C       |
      Earth      |                          |   B    |
                 |                          ----+-----
                <=>300V Gas Arrester            |
                 |                              |
                 |                              |           To Modem
Phone Line B     |                              |
      >----------+-----/\/\/\/------------------+------------->
                     10 ohm 5 Watt

Circuit drawn as best as possible with ASCII by Pat Verner.

          =============================================


The telephone line enters the circuit on the left of the diagram and
the feed to your modem is on the right of the diagram.

What happens in between is this:

The phone line has a gas arrestor from each leg to earth. In other
words, two gas arrestors. One from A to earth and one from B to earth.

The line then has a resistor in series with each leg (A and B) before
being connected to the TISP2290 (the Texas Instruments chip mentioned
earlier). This chip has three pins. The outer two (A and B in the
diagram) are connected to the resistors while the centre one (C) is
connected to earth. The metal tag of this component is internally
connected to the earth pin (C), just for the record.

The modem is fed from the outer two pins of the TISP2290.

The way the circuit works is as follows.

The bulk of the energy involved in a surge is dissipated by trusted
(and slow as treacle) gas arrestors.

The TISP2290 absorbs the high speed spike that the gas arrestors miss
and is itself protected by the two resistors which provide a little
current limiting.

The modem, being fed from the same point as the TISP2290 is protected
by the whole circuit.

For those who have to know, the TISP2290 works in a manner similar to
a zener array connected between the A and B wire and earth so as to
limit the voltage between any of three points to about 200 Volts. As
you know this is not entirely effective and so if the voltage rises to
290 Volts (hence TISP2*290*) then this crafty critter cuts in triacs
to crowbar the offending points to earth until the surge has passed.

This all happens superfast so as to afford the best possible
protection.

Just a bit about the individual parts.

The Gas arrestors SHOULD be available from most electronics hobbyist
shops.  Anything in the range 250 Volts to 400 Volts will do.

The resistors are 5 Watt wire wound jobbies of 10 Ohms although any
power rating will do (be prepared to change them every lightning
strike if you use quarter watt jobs :-) I recommend you use 5 Watt
wire wounds) and the value of 10 Ohms can actually be anything from 10
to 47 Ohms.

The TISP2290 may be hard to find. It comes in a TO220 package (looks
like a 78 series voltage regulator) in case you have to explain it to
anyone. The agents in JHB are Multikomponent (Tel: [phone]) and
I'm sure they will send you one COD (I'm not sure about this) or tell
you where you can get one if your local electronics shop dude goes
blank when you ask him. I buy directly from them but then I'm in JHB
and you might not be.

Assembling the unit is piece of cake. I have supplied the artwork for
a printed circuit board and, while not essential that you use it, it
makes life easier.


uunet!m2xenix!puddle!5!7101!22.6!Pat.Verner
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Monitoring Soviet Communications
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 16:34:00 GMT


Although I mentioned several days ago about a new file in the Telecom
Archives, apparently the message did not get circulated as well as it
should have, so here goes again:

"Monitoring Soviet Communications" is a new file you will enjoy if you
like shortwave/ham radio things. It is far too large, or I would have
included it here in the Digest. The file is quite detailed and
explains how to tune your radio and set up your equipment to enjoy
listening to some fascinating messages.

The Telecom Archives is accessible using anonymous ftp:

                      lcs.mit.edu

Then when logged in, 'cd telecom-archives'.

I hope you will enjoy this file as much as I did.


PAT

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 20:49:20 -0400
From: Carl G Moore Jr <[e-mail]>
Subject: White House?  No, the Brown House


April 30, 1965 {New York Times} article (page 37 column 8) was about a
Mrs. Brown who lived in Ridgewood area of Queens, NYC, and had the
same number as the White House except for area code (212 at that time
for Queens, and 202 for Washington DC).  A few calls every day came to
Mrs. Brown intended for the White House, and on Friday and Saturday
nights some of those calls were from people who were upset at the
President (Lyndon Johnson at the time) and wanted him to have a piece
of their minds.  Mrs. Brown even got a letter from President Johnson
thanking her for her handling of the wrong-number calls.  (The phone
number is not given; it is 456-1414 today for the White House, as it
probably was then.)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: GTE Gives Out Unlisted Addresses (was ATT Universal Card)
Date: 17 Aug 91 15:16:17 GMT
Organization: Computersmith, Los Angeles


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

>    + I have two unlisted lines, one w/ ATT, one w/ MCI through Amex

>    + I am _very_ strict about who I give my number out.

> So, guess what the one company is that I still get
>    - regular junk mail, and
>    - irregular phone pitches from?
>   ATT

> -- the one company I can't hide my phone numbers from. [...]

Sounds familiar.

I have unlisted service at a certain address with GTE.  About the only
mail I receive at that address is the GTE bill.  This line has no
designated long distance carrier.

The only company who sends junk mail to me (not "Resident") at that
address is AT&T.  The address on their envelope exactly matches that
on my GTE bill for the unlisted number.  The _only_ place AT&T could
have gotten this address from is GTE.

Is it legal, in California, for GTE to give out unlisted phone numbers
and addresses to AT&T for marketing purposes?  (I have used 10288
quite a bit, but this is billed through GTE.)

This is really not a big deal for me, but I always thought that
unlisted numbers and addresses were to be kept confidential.

BTW, AT&T promised to remove me from their mailing list. No dice. I
still get their junk mail.


Randy Gregor       [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: California has nothing to say about it. Most telcos
do not give out non-pub numbers for marketing purposes, but there is
one exception: one of the rules of divestiture is that telco *must*
provide your name, address and telephone number to long distance
carriers on request. If you have *ever* made a long distance call from
that line using AT&T, then they are entitled to know who/where you
are, ostensibly for billing purposes, but once they have the
information in file, having billed you, I presume they can use it for
marketing purposes.  Your pub or non-pub status is irrelevant.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #642
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19043;
          18 Aug 91 15:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04022;
          18 Aug 91 14:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04307;
          18 Aug 91 13:11 CDT
Date:     Sun, 18 Aug 91 12:26:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #643
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Aug 91 12:26:38 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 643

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Survey of E-mail Systems [Donald R. Newcomb]
    Glossary of Telecom Terms [Jerry J. Anderson]
    "CALL ME" Cards and Independent Telcos [Michael Ho]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Donald R Newcomb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Survey of E-mail Systems
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 20:33:43 GMT


I have updated my earlier posting comparing various e-mail services
for personal use. I want to thank everyone who responded and supplied
corrections to my posting. To put some persons' concerns to rest, my
only relationship with any vendor of computer services is as a
customer. In this study, I based my comparisons on the grades of
service which would give the lowest cost for the least use.

I have struggled with finding a good format to present my findings.  I
found that some people did not relate well to the matrix I used in my
first posting. Others did not agree with the basis I was using to make
my comparison. Sort of like, "Why compare the price of the basic sedan
when everyone is going to order A/C and automatic anyway." To
alleviate these concerns I have included a brief discussion based on
my understanding of each system's features and pricing. My information
may be incorrect. Some providers are hard to "pin down" on prices and
features. I encourage you to check with providers yourself before
purchasing a service. If glaring errors remain in my listing, I would
appreciate your corrections. I have tried to provide a phone number or
e-mail address to contact each service for information.

Three types of charges are detailed:

 A. Setup: A one time charge to get your account established.

 B. Annual minimum: What you will be charged even if you don't use
    the system.

 C. Hourly access: What it costs (often a range of costs) to occupy
    a port even if you don't send or receive mail. This is a problem
    area for my analysis. Some systems bundle access via PSN or 800
    number into this figure, some don't.

Other charges for e-mail are assumed to be a function of the number of
characters or messages sent or received. Charges of this type are
indicated by a "$" in the matrix. A problem arises in that "$" does
not indicate "how much." So, while both Omnet and ATT Mail indicate a
"$" to send to Telemail, for Omnet this is about $.06 while for ATT
Mail it is $.40-.85 .

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, Omnet etc.
    3. MCI Mail
    4. Compuserve
    5. GEnie: General Electric's E-Mail
    6. TELEX: Unrestricted World-wide Telex
    6a. Personal Telex number. User has a personal Telex number
        for receiving Telex vs. common Telex number using a code
        in the message to route the message.
    7. Telegram: World-wide delivery.
    8. Paper Mail: Delivery by USPS.
    9. Dialcom: Tymnet E-mail
    10. 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 at least a basic 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 number: 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. Omnet (a source of Telemail)
    2. MCI Mail
    3. ATT Mail
    4. ESL (Western Union EasyLink)
        5. GEnie (Star*Services) (not same as Quickcom)
    6. Pinet (American Institute of Physics)
     7. World (Software Tool & Die, world.std.com)
    8. Portal (Portal Communications)
    9. Netcom (Online Communication Services)
    10. Compuserve
    11. Fidonet


                     Features-Read Down                 Costs ($US)
           |---------------------------------------|------------------
           |I|T|M|C|G|T|P|T|P|D|X|F|P|T|U|B|F|8|R|A| S  | A  | H |
           |n|e|C|o|E|e|e|e|a|i|.|A|a|e|s|i|i|0|e|u| e  | n  | o |
           |t|l|I|m|n|l|r|l|p|a|4|X|c|l|e|n|l|0|c|t| t  | n  | u |
           |e|e| |p|i|e|s|e|e|l|0| |k|n|n|a|e|#|e|o| u  | u  | r |
           |r|m|M|s|e|x|o|g|r|c|0| |e|e|e|r| | |i| | p  | a  |   |
           |n|a|a|e| | |n|a| |o| | |t|t|t|y|S| |p|F|    | l  |   |
           |e|i|i|r| | |a|m|M|m| | | | | | |t| |t|o|    |    |   |
           |t|l|l|v| | |l| |a| | | |N| | |X|o| | |r|    |    |   |
           | | | |e| | | | |i| | | |e| | |f|r| | |w|    |    |   |
           | | | | | | |#| |l| | | |t| | |e|e| | |d|    |    |   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Omnet     |$ $ $ $ ? $ Y N $ $ Y $ S N N $ $ $ Y N 75   180  4-16@
 MCI Mail  |$ $ $ $ N $ Y N $ $ Y $ S N N ? $ Y ? N  0    35   0
 ATT Mail  |$ $ $ $ ? $ Y N $ ? Y $ A N N $ $ Y Y Y  0    30   0
 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 $ $ N $ S 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
 Portal    |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D S N N Y Y ? N Y 15   168   0
 Netcom    |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D N Y Y Y ? N N Y  0   180   0
 Compuserve|$ $ $ $ ? $ ? N $ ? ? $ M N N Y Y $ ? N 40    30   1-12?
 Fidonet   |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D N N N ? ? N N ? 0?    0?   0?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

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
    A=ACUNET Packet Network
    M=Multiple Packet Networks
    ?=Unsure
    *=Minimum sum of usage charges
    @=Includes domestic PSN charges

Note:(*) DASnet is a service that provides systems and individuals
     with a gateways to a variety of incompatible e-mail systems.
     Despite frequent mention of DASnet, this is not an endorsement
     of their service. They can help you get mail to and from many
     networks, but the addressing is often complex (not realy their
     fault). Delivery is not always instantaneous. Six hour delivery
     is not uncommon. Direct DASnet connections are available for
     electronic mail systems and networks. Legal considerations may
     restrict the means of connection.  A monthly charge of $4.75 plus
     usage charges apply to DASnet services for individuals. For
     information contact, ([e-mail]).

More details:

Omnet: There are various ways to obtain GTE Telemail (a.k.a.
    Sprintmail) the one I am most familiar with is Omnet.
    Omnet is popular with oceanographers and meteorologists
    and probably costs more then some other Telemail providers.
    I once could have had a Telemail account for $25.00 setup +
    $15.00 a year + usage, but that opportunity passed. A
    few years ago, connections between Telemail and Internet
    were "iffy" at best; now things are more reliable. Telemail
    has long been tied closely with Telenet. I don't even know
    if it is possible to dial directly into a Telemail host.
    Well developed connections to FAX, Telex etc.
    (/id=service/o=omnet/admd=telemail/c=usa/@sprint.com)

MCI Mail: Provides access to most networks. Private inbound Telex
    number. High use option (Preferred Pricing) available at
    $10.00/month for 40 "domestic electronic messages." No
    charge to access or retrieve mail. Basic communications are
    charged for message origination or forwarding plus a small
    annual fee ($35). Normal access via 800 number or Telenet.
    Seems set to compete with ATT Mail and vice versa.
    ([e-mail] or 800-444-6245)

ATT Mail: Provides access to most networks. Private inbound Telex
    number. Auto-forward supported (even to Telex or FAX).
    Various extra-cost options, but basic communications are
    charged for message origination or forwarding plus a small
    annual fee ($30). No charge to access or retrieve mail. One
    nice extra is message pick-up via 800 number with synthesized
    voice ($.50 per minute). Normal access is 800 number or
    ACUNET packet network. For someone who wants to receive a
    lot but send very little looks quite attractive. No Usenet.
    The gotcha is that ATT's $100+ software is required or you
    get charged an extra $.45+ to create each message online.
    You must have their software to send or receive binary files.
    This charge is not on their price list and is only mentioned
    obliquely in the brochures. It makes me wonder about other
    hidden charges.  In fairness to ATT, I should say that they
    seem to specialize in linking in-house corporate mail systems
    to outside networks. In this application the expense of their
    software would be reasonable.(800-624-5672)

ESL: EasyLink was Western Union's attempt at e-mail. It has recently
    been purchased by ATT but is still separate from ATT Mail. ESL
    can be best described as "virtual Telex." For companies that
    send a lot of Telex, ESL may be a good choice. Charges are
    based on the infamous "Telex minute" (about 400 char) and are
        lower than most other Telex connections. No "account maintenance"
    fee but a monthly minimum applies. There are no connections to
    Internet (except via DASnet). (800-624-5672)

GEnie: I'm not sure GEnie should be described as an e-mail system as
    it does not seem to provide connections to any other system.
    GEnie Star*Services are economical and have many interesting
    features but e-mail is strictly local. (800-638-9636)

Pinet: Pinet is a service of the American Institute of Physics. It is
    primarily intended for use by members of affiliated societies
    (AGU, APS, AAS etc). It is included because I have personal
    experience as a user. Basicly a Gould  UTX/32 host with a
    restrictive mail shell. Normal access via 800 dial-in. Telenet
    access has been recently added and may replace the 800 number.
    Well connected to Telnet but users can't FTP. Access to Telex,
    paper mail, FAX etc. provided by system connection to DASnet.
    Abbreviated Usenet. ([e-mail])

World: Software Tool & Die, Brookline MA. Sun 4 host. Well connected
    to Nearnet and SURAnet for Telnet and FTP but not rest of
    Internet (yet). They pride themselves on having an absurdly
    large number of news feeds (2500+). User has regular shell
    with only restriction being a rather "soft" file space quota
    of about 500 K bytes. Quota can be raised for small charge.
    Sign up for $20/mo and you get 20 hours with $1/hour above
    20. Normal access is via dial-up or Telnet. Compuserve PSN
    access is available for $6.00 per hour surcharge.
    ([e-mail])

Portal: Well known as UUCP & Usenet server. Also provides personal
    accounts. Access via Telenet $2.50-$15.00 per hour surcharge.
    Storage charge of $.04/K/month above 100 K bytes. Not well
    connected for FTP & Telnet. Cupertino, CA. ([e-mail])

Netcom: This was a big surprise. Online Communications Services seems
    (if I am reading their brochure correctly) to provide unlimited
    access to Intermail, Telnet, FTP, archives and more for a flat
    $15.00 per month. Well connected to Internet. 9600 baud
    dial-ups. No packet net or 800 number access. San Jose, CA.
    ([e-mail])

Compuserve: Well known to Joe Public. Provides 1001 services in
    addition to e-mail. Seems to provide FAX, Telex, Intermail,
    commercial mail connections etc. Brochures high on gloss; low
    in facts and prices. (800-457-6245)

Fidonet: Fidonet is a world-wide, store-and-forward network for PCs.
    In theory, it connects BBS users from South Africa to
    Greenland and on all continents. A hierarchal addressing
    system organizes the net into geographic zones and nets
    organized around a local hub. A one-way message may take
    2-3 days to arrive at its destination. FidoNet is gated to
    Internet via the fidonet.org domain. It is possible for a
    FidoNet node to set up a DASnet link for other services, but
    this may not be via Internet or UUCP. No set cost schedule.
    FidoNet nodes in my area are all cost free. No single P.O.C.
    Node list available via FTP on asuvax.eas.asu.edu in
    /stjhmc/nodelist.txt . Also via BITFTP on BITNET.


Donald Newcomb
[e-mail]   (just a customer)

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

From: "Jerry J. Anderson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Glossary of Telecom Terms
Date: 18 Aug 91 05:21:50 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University


I am a newcomer to the telecom field, and am finding an amazing amount
of new T- and FLA's (Three- and Four-Letter-Acronyms) to learn.  To
try to organize what I know, and perhaps reduce the culture shock for
the next person, I am trying to create a glossary of telecom terms.
Right now all I have is a list of acronyms and abbreviations/shorthand.
Eventually, I would like to include much more, perhaps definitions.

Please look over the following list and fill in any blanks you know or
can guess at.  Also, please tell me of any mistakes I have made in the
stuff *I've* guessed at.

Please send your additions/corrections to me, [e-mail],
*not* to this newsgroup.  If I get a good response, I will post the
list to the net.  Also, please send *only* your additions/corrections
 -- not the entire list.  That will make it much easier for me to add
your contribution to the list.  Many thanks.

jerry

10xxx
5ESS        5ESS telephone switch
7D        7 Digits
913-537        Area Code 913, prefix 537
CO        COmpany
COS        Class Of Service
CSMA/CD
DOSS
ELL        Equipment Line Location
EPEC
ESS
G2        Generic-2 telephone switch
IBT
ISDN        Integrated Services Data Network
ISN        Integrated Services Network switch
ISO        International Standards Organization
IXC        Inter-eXchange Carrier
IXO
IXO/TAP
LATA        Local Access and Transport Area
LD        Long Distance
MDR        Message Detail Recording
OPX
PBX        Private Branch eXchange
PUC
REVAC
SMDR        Station Message Detail Recording
T1
TCP/IP        Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol
TelCo        TELephone COmpany
TWO        Telephone Work Order
USOC        Universal Service Order Charge
X.25
X.25/HDLC


[Moderator's Note: Jerry and all other readers are invited to check
out the glossaries on file in the Telecom Archives. We have various
files there which explain/define terms in common use. Check out the
files which begin with the word 'glossary'.  The Telecom Archives is
available by anonymous ftp from lcs.mit.edu, and there is an ftp/mail
service set up especially for telecom readers. Write for information
from [e-mail].    PAT]

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

From: "Tiny Bubbles..." <[e-mail]>
Subject: "CALL ME" Cards and Independent Telcos
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 16:52:21 GMT


I called AT&T (you know, the ones who used to end every phone call
with "Would you agree that I provided you with EXCELLENT service
today?") and asked about getting one of those "CALL ME" calling cards
 -- the ones which work only to the billed phone number and nowhere
else.

They almost gave it to me, but while closing the call, they happened
to ask if I was under US West.  I replied no, I'm under this
independent telco, Lincoln Telephone in Lincoln, Nebraska.

They said oops, we can't issue that, LT&T has to.  So I'll just call
them up and ask for it.  But my question is: WHY?  Is there still a
special relationship of some kind between AT&T and the RBOC's such
that certain kinds of billing can be done only through RBOC's?  No
conspiracy charges here; I'm just curious.

Also, are there any companies besides AT&T which offer such a
billed-number-only calling card?  I'm pretty sure US Sprint doesn't, but I
don't know how to reach any other carriers.  And my call volume
doesn't make a personal 800 number worthwile.


        ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska
Internet: <on vacation>    |  Harry was too homely for Sally.  (I have proof.)
Disclaimer:  Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be
         applied to any university agency.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #643
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19271;
          18 Aug 91 15:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04022;
          18 Aug 91 14:25 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04307;
          18 Aug 91 13:11 CDT
Date:     Sun, 18 Aug 91 13:07:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #644
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Aug 91 13:07:09 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 644

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Phone Book Company Got my Phone Number,<Sniff> [Dan Jacobson]
    900 'Lawyer' Number Comments [Bob Falcon]
    Re: Rapid Repeat Dialing [Bob Falcon]
    Consequences of Posting Your Phone Number in TELECOM Digest [Dan Jacobson]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [William Degnan]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Dan Jacobson]
    Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [William J. Carpenter]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Mike Riddle]
    Re: Wanted: PBX For Home [Julian Macassey]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: The Phone Book Company Got my Phone Number, <Sniff>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 08:22:00 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: California has nothing to say about it. Most telcos
> do not give out non-pub numbers for marketing purposes [...]

It was time to refresh my ChicagoLand "regional" suburban phone book
collection (approximately seven phone books), this time admitting to
myself that I really don't need an upstairs set and a downstairs set
(they're free, you know.)  [Telecom nurd note (in the tone of
television's Monty Python's "the cupcake suffered minor abrasions, but
the tomato was fully intact" bicycle accident sketch): This time
Illinois Bell gave me the 800 number of their phone book publishers,
Donnelley Directory ("a company of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation")
for me to call, instead of playing go-between while I waited on hold.
Must be a new policy, as my seven books per two years order probably
didn't set off their VIP warning light.]

The Donnelley Directory person asked me my name and home phone number,
which I gave, thinking they would just pull my address up out of their
database like Illinois Bell can, but no, the person continued on to
ask me my address.  Donnelley must have refused Illinois Bell's terms
to use the confidential Illinois Bell database. My pulse quickened, I
asked if I was now going to be on some mailing list, "Oh no" they
said.  <Sniff>, the phone book company, of all places, now has my
carefully guarded phone number to sell to the criss-cross directory
dweebs or whatever ... who knows? ..., <sniff>.

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

Subject: 900 'Lawyer' Number Comments
Date: 18 Aug 91 09:26:54 EDT (Sun)
From: Bob Falcon <rescon![e-mail]>


I saw a 'new' 900 number advertisement on one of our local channels
this morning.  It caught my eye (ear?) because it mentioned one of
my 'pet-peeves': LAWYERS!

1-900-976-LAWS, just $39.50 per minute.

Now we all know lawyers (for the most part) are 'sleazy', but this
really is ridiculous. The advertisement goes something like this:

"Talk to a lawyer by phone, pay by the minute, NOT by the hour WITHOUT
ever leaving your home", blah blah blah. It flashes the price at the
end for a few seconds, BUT NOT the company name of who runs this
number. (I see Audio Communications Inc. on a LOT of the 976 / 900
numbers).

Well, THIS made my day, and I almost choked to death on my breakfast
<grin>, what a crock! Now what can a lawyer do for you over the phone?
I sure you can get some 'basic' advice, but a face-to-face with a
lawyer is eventually going to be needed to gets things done, no?

Well, anyway, I thought I'd post this to give a few of you a 'laugh'
[i.e. those who have opinions of lawyers like myself <grin>] and to
give another example of a 'useless' audiotex 'service'.

I wonder what kind of audiotex 'services' the RBOCS are going to come
up with when they get the OK to get into the business? Probably more
of the same useless junk! I don't remember EVER seeing a USEFUL
audiotex 'service' ever advertised, how about you all?

Have a good one,

Catchya later, Bob Falcon [ Co-Sysop : Turbo 386 Remote Access ]
[ 1:273/917 @Fidonet.org ]   UUCP: [e-mail]
     : { cdin-1 || dsinc } !alba2l!rescon!bfalcon


[Moderator's Note: What is the difference between getting legal advice
in this way versus purchasing one of the many books available which
teach you how to fill out your own legal forms, etc? None, really. And
yes, there are worthwhile audiotext services available. What about the
weather forecasts and news headlines, to name a couple? Not all of the
900 stuff is sleaze by any means, although I seldom use it.   PAT]

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

Date: 18 Aug 91 09:28:04 EDT (Sun)
From: Bob Falcon <rescon![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?


[e-mail] (Mr. Pez) writes :

>> 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?).

>> Back in 1988, it was already being sold to telcos in Pennsylvania
>> and a few other middle Atlantic states.

If this were the case in PA. [Philly] I'd have been 'red flagged' to
death <grin>. There are some very hard to get on BBSs that I rapid
redial all the time, as well as using the modem to dial radio stations
(for contests and getting requests on air <grin>).  I never had ANY
problem from the telco about this.

So either they don't care or they don't have it enabled.  I have the
modem set to dial as fast as it can reliably dial, and it seems to
redial every six or seven seconds until it gets through. The Procomm +
communications program will redial continuously until I stop it or
there is a POWER FAILURE <grin>.

Any comments on if I should continue this or to stop if it will cause
problems are appreciated.

Have a good one. and happy dialing <Big Grin>.


Catchya later, Bob Falcon [ Co-Sysop : Turbo 386 Remote Access ]
[ 1:273/917 @Fidonet.org ]  UUCP: [e-mail]
     : { cdin-1 || dsinc } !alba2l!rescon!bfalcon

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Consequences of Posting Your Phone Number in TELECOM Digest
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 10:16:00 GMT


On 18 Aug 91 01:27:48 GMT, [e-mail] (ED HOPPER) said:

> Leonard P. Levine                 e-mail [e-mail]
> Professor, Computer Science          Office [phone]
> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee    Home   [phone]
> Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A.           FAX    [phone]

> Hello, Telesleaze, Inc?  Have I gotta a hot number for you!  Yeah,
> University Professor in Wisconsin.  Carries on about privacy, but then
> posts his home number on an international network.

I get unsolicited resumes sent to my e-mail address.  I get
unsolicited employment agencies' calls when I post my office phone
number here.  They must think I'm a "big telecom daddy" ... if they
only knew ...

[GNU Emacs editor command:] (describe-variable 'mail-vanity-address)
mail-vanity-address's value is "[e-mail]"

Documentation:
*Just like a vanity automobile licence plate.
Masks the current underlying machine addresses, e.g.,
"att!maintenance!washroom_services!bowl_crew!dan" :-) :-)

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

From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Aug 91  17:38:28
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers


On <Aug 16 17:23> John Higdon ([e-mail] ) writes to All:

> When was the last time Radio Shack records were searched by law
> enforcement? Can you document a single case? And if so, was someone
> convicted and sentenced based entirely on that search? If so, let me
> know; I will get involved.

One case, I believe was documented in "CHIEF", biography of NYPD chief
of detectives Robert Seedman.

The bomb was constructed with a 60-minute timer from ... guess where.
They took receipts from all the stores in the area and went through
'em. Narrowed it down to somebody who had purchased a couple of them
from different stores, as I recall.

I know that a name and address on the slip is a management emphasis
item. The managers catch hell for missing one. Therefore the
salespeople catch hell.  There is a tendency to write it up with the
last customer's name, but the "smart" ones do it with an acquantance's
name since the last customer might have been a mystery shopper. RS
people sometimes wake up in cold sweats saying over and over, "can I
have your name and address?".

Ever wonder why you get a flyer some months and not in others? The
computer tracks your average "ticket". I have been told by senior
management types that they compute the average price of that month's
flyer and if you average at least that amount ... you get it. At
Christmas all bets are off. You may get a few.

When I shop the Shack, I often give my phone number as 817 390-3011.
Some will immediately recognize that number as the main LDN for for RS
HQ. I sometimes give the president's name and address, so they'll be
sure to send him a flyer.  Surprising how many sellers don't recognize
their president's name.

Does anybody know the story behind the story on how RS got slammed? I
know that they were pret-ty sore at a three-lettered IXC.


* Origin: Private Line - Stealth Opus in Austin (1:382/39.0)
William Degnan,  Communications Network Solutions
-Independent Consultants in Telecommunications-
P.O. Drawer 9530       | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530  | ![e-mail]  | Voice [phone]


[Moderator's Note: At the RS stores here, they do *not* say 'give me
your phone number'. They say, 'what are the last four digits of your
phone number?' ... big difference. And yes, please do tell us how RS
got slammed. It should an interesting story.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 08:51:00 GMT


TELECOM Moderator noted:

> But where your scheme falls short is this only applies to
> *business* boxes ... not personal boxes; and I believe you need to
> include the statement in your request, "the box was used for an
> extension of credit and to solicit the public", meaning you should
> be certain it was used for those purposes.  When the post office
> clerk reviews the application, if the question "will this box be
> used to solicit the public?" is answered in the negative, the reply
> you will receive is that postal records indicate the box is for
> personal use, and therefore the records are not available under the
> Freedom of Information Act.  Good try though! Got any other ideas?

Uh oh, Pat's depending on the clerk following a policy 100% correctly.
A new clerk might just read the portion of the manual about
businesses.  The perpetrator can keep on trying till they hit an
absent-minded clerk.


[Moderator's Note: Just like an RS clerk may not follow instructions
correctly.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 11:36:00 EDT
From: William J Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>> [My story about misidentified rape suspect in TAM photo]
>  [Moderator's note about lawsuits]

payne> Aw come on, Pat!  The solution to the man's problem is *not*
payne> to run off an sue everyone in sight.  Instead, he should
payne> approach the bank and the police and ask that their apology be
payne> spread (evening news, whatever) in the same fashion the wanted
payne> report was spread.

In case anyone is wondering, the apology was pretty well-publicized.
I don't know if it made the front pages of the papers, but it was on
the TV and radio news.  The cynic in me makes me believe that part of
the size of the media followup was in reporting the police and bank
goofup rather than just trying to make things even for the poor guy.

Someone else posted that you could never be convicted on this kind of
evidence (well, really on Radio Shack receipt kind of evidence).  True
enough.  However, the misidentified man in this case is obviously
having an unpleasant time of it.

(As an incidental note, they really picked an unlucky guy.  He's an
NYC cab driver, so he meets a lot of the public all day in his job.
If anyone wants to turn him in, they have plenty of info, since his
hack license must be displayed so that passengers can read it.)

Finally, the Moderator asks what the connection is to Radio Shack.  I
never said their was one.  I used the story to illustrate that
unlikely scenarios do happen, which had been questioned in earlier
postings.  Before this, I thought that the transaction and photo
matchup at ATM machines was pretty foolproof, and I would have thought
that the bank and police would check extra double careful with whipped
cream and a cherry on top before they would publicize the photo
(because they're already tuned in to the lawsuit angle). Guess not.


Bill Carpenter         att!hos1cad!wjc  or  attmail!bill


[Moderator's Note: Thanks *again* to all who have participated in this
thread, but it really has gotten way (way-way!) off the theme. I have
to stop printing these, and get on with other topics.  Thanks.  PAT]

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

From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 11:51:43 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Higdon)
writes:

[complaint #1 deleted]

> ...  Pac*Bell has no silly restrictions on how many lines a
> hobby project is entitled to. You order, you get, you pay.

>> I have two lines hooked up to my BBS. I pay $17 per line. (The $12
>> basic rate sounds good in theory...)

> You already pay more than business lines would cost you with Pac*Bell.

Note to Immoderator: You must have somebody forging posts with
Higdon's identifier.  Has he /ever/ had anything good to say about Pac
Bell?  Maybe the reason they don't provide service to his perception
of the nationally-expected level is that they don't charge enough to
make it pay?

Apologies in advance to JH, but as Flip Wilson used to say, "the debbil
made me do it!


            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]                  |  Nebraska Inns of Court
[e-mail]           |  [phone]
Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet            |  3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: PBX For Home
Date: 18 Aug 91 12:50:31 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: Xenon Systems News n Mail, Hollywood


In article <[e-mail]> emory!Dixie.Com!pda@gatech.
edu (Paul D. Anderson) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 638, Message 4 of 13

> [e-mail] (Todd Inch) writes:

>> Several of you regular readers have mentioned or recommended some
>> small PBX's appropriate for residential use, including a few models
>> made by Panasonic, if I recall.

> You might watch for bankruptcy sales / foreclosures / etc in the
> business and legal sections of the newspaper.  A friend of mine tells
> me he got a 12 line / 128 extension system with 20 desk sets this way
> for $400.00 (yes, four hundred).

    What you get at bankruptcy auctions can often not be a
bargain, unless you really know what you are doing.

    The people who strip out offices etc are often just grunts.
They do not know what all the parts of the phone system are. You may
get the console and some phones and not the actual CPU. You will
usually not get the connecting cables for the PBX etc. You will almost
never get docs -- they usually throw those away.

    Unless you are familiar with exactly that brand and model, so
know what bits are there, you are better off buying new, or from a
reseller who will satnd behind the gear. At auctions, not only do they
not know what they are selling, they don't want to hear from you if it
is defective either.

    Now, if you know someone is going out of business, you can do
well for both parties if you approach them and make a cash offer for
the gear. This way, the seller gets a fair price. The buyer knows if
it works and exactly what he is getting. The buyer can remove the gear
withou damaging it. The buyer gets to take the backboards, surge
supressors, documents, cables and other bits the auctioneers think you
don't need.

    As a final note. Often access to the dumpster or premises
after the auction is over and the landlord wants access can often
yield all sorts of treasures.


Julian Macassey at xenon. [e-mail] Voice: [phone]
Paper Mail: 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue, Hollywood, California 90046-7142

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #644
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08714;
          18 Aug 91 23:01 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06090;
          18 Aug 91 21:32 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09819;
          18 Aug 91 20:27 CDT
Date:     Sun, 18 Aug 91 19:31:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #645
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Aug 91 19:31:06 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 645

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Monitoring Soviet Communications [[e-mail]]
    Re: Sure-Fire Privacy Protection in Thailand [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [John Higdon]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Randal L. Schwartz]
    Re: "CALL ME" Cards and Independent Telcos [Bill Huttig]
    Re: 950-PIZZA (was Phast Phood) [Mike Shawaluk]
    Call 1-800-TASSELS (was Phast Phood) [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Tour of a CO [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: AT&T Data Network [John C. Fowler]
    Who Needs 900, 976-Weather When You Got USENET, Internet [Dan Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 06:36:28 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Monitoring Soviet Communications
Organization: Dept of Computer Sciences, UTexas, Austin


> The Telecom Archives is accessible using anonymous ftp:

>                       lcs.mit.edu

> Then when logged in, 'cd telecom-archives'.

> I hope you will enjoy this file as much as I did.

Hi Pat,

Thanks for making that file available; you probably forgot to include
the exact name of the file, but it would be nice if you could remember
to indicate the exact filename next time you post a pointer to a file;
I'm sure it would be appreciated by many.

Cheers,

Werner


[Moderator's Note: 'monitor.soviet.xmissions'.    PAT]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sure-Fire Privacy Protection in Thailand
Date: 18 Aug 91 14:09:52 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


[e-mail] (woody) writes:

> I spotted a 1991 Bangkok (English-language) directory in a library
> tonight.

> "...Simply dial your own number
> from an outside line and see who answers. This test is best conducted
> when you are sure no one is home and your house or office is secure.

Getting a telephone line in Bangkok can take up to five years.  So it
is understandable that someone not so graced might want to borrow your
line to RECEIVE calls.


Jim Gottlieb    Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
Fax: [phone]   Voice Mail: [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 10:46 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road


Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]> writes:

> All the telcos are trying to do is move service billings from cost
> based (which is what monopolistic utilities should be based on), to
> "value" based, similar to what movie studios do.

At the risk of sounding uncharacteristically reasonable, there is some
justification for usage-sensitive local calling. I have mixed feelings
about it because I both am hurt by it and benefit from it. It has been
demonstrated by recent exchanges in this forum that the basic cost of
a measured telephone from, say, Pac*Bell is MUCH lower than the basic
cost of an unmeasured line from SWBT. Therefore, there are many who
would pay less if their usage was low to moderate. Some would pay
more, but the pricing does reflect value received from the system.

Your argument is that anyone who wants a phone, whether it be for
heavy use, or only for a sense of security should bear equally the
costs of maintaining the local exchange system. While I personally do
not take issue with that, there are many (particularly in California)
who feel that a gabber should pay more than a grandma who only gets
calls on weekends from her family.

My fear is that metered local calling does indeed open the door to
enhanced revenue by the telcos. I have personally caught Pac*Bell
padding the local call count on my business lines. When I hit a rep
with the evidence, the charges were reduced faster than greased
lightning. Most people do not have the wherewithall to monitor such
things, so Pac*Bell routinely does this sort of thing even now, as it
does on most anything that is a peg count rather than itemized detail.
It routinely happens on my Pac*Bell WATS, which is my main reason for
running an SMDR.

> It's just a way of taking more money out of everyone's bank account
> while sounding *so* reasonable.

If telcos were actually honest about it, it would be a legitimate form
of pricing. However, I would fight it every inch of the way.


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


[Moderator's Note: But John, what keeps the electric, gas or water
utilities from fudging on their meters? What convenient method does
the public have to calibrate or check the accuracy of those meters? Or
do you feel everyone's electric bill should be averaged out with what
BART uses included in the calculations?  IBT provides call detail on
request at no charge for a 'reasonable' number of requests if desired.
One you get ESS you can have it also. Maybe once every six months I
ask for my call detail.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 21:53:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, gsnow@clark (Gary Snow) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax!carroll@
>  cs.washington.edu> writes:

>> Depends on the city. I'd agree that Hillsboro-Portland ought to be a
>> local call (at least the part of Hillsboro you're calling from); in
>> fact I'm surprised it's not, since we have the same telco, and you
>> have to get fairly far away from Seattle (except to the north, where
>> there's GTE and a county line) before it's long distance to call
>> there. I guess Hillsboro is GTE too, though, huh?

> Yes, unfortunately Portland is GTE (I like having US West and I live
> just across the river in Vancouver). From what I hear though all of
> Portland's outlying areas will be local calls, starting in November.

> Now if they would just make it a local call between Portland and
> Vancouver we would be all set.

This is really fuzzy and incorrect.  Here's how it is:

Portland downtown and Portland Eastside (and across the river in
Vancouver) is US West.  The 'burbs west of Portland are generally GTE.

The "local calling area" is mostly a hub-n-spokes sorta thing.  'burbs
on the Westside can call each other, and 'burbs on the east side can,
and both can call downtown Portland, but not from the east to the
west.

Surprisingly, Hillsboro *can* call Portland downtown.  In fact, the
next 'burb even further west (Forest Grove) can call downtown too.  I
don't know why the original poster said they couldn't (but I didn't
say anything here until there was a higher level of disinformation
than I could tolerate).  Howver, maybe what the original poster meant
was that Hillsboro (and even Beaverton, between Hillsboro and
Portland) *cannot* call Gresham, which is to the east of Portland and
distinguishable only on a map of political boundaries. :-)

I don't know enough about what's happening in November to really
comment about it, but if I recall correctly, for a flat fee, I can
increase my calling area in Beaverton to include everywhere that
downtown Portland can call.

At least there's no mandatory measured service.  Sigh.

Just another phone caller,


Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone] ==========
[e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "CALL ME" Cards and Independent Telcos
Date: 18 Aug 91 18:29:13 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <zach![e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


They way things seem to work now is that the LEC issued Call Me cards
are not always restricted when using some IXC's. The AT&T Call Me
cards (the new ones without you phone number) are not restricted for
LEC calls within your LATA. (They will in the future allow more than
one restricted number per card).  The cost of the personal 800 number
from MCI might be worth it even if you have a low call volume since
the calling card calls are surcharged. (Around $.80) I think.  So
there is no Call Me type card that is 100% safe.


Bill

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

From: Mike Shawaluk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 950-PIZZA (was Phast Phood)
Date: 18 Aug 91 12:01:52 GMT
Organization: Milwaukee Information eXchange (Public access Usenet, Email)


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ralph W.
Hyre) writes:

> I don't believe there's anything inherent in the technology that
> limits it to 950 numbers.  (I'm not an expert on it.)  There are
> probably different tarriffs for IntraLATA vs. InterLATA that make 950
> more attractive from a financial point of view than 800 service.

> But there still needs to be a POTS number available to customers,
> somehow.  What if you want to call the manager of a store and
> complain?

Another question related to this is: if I have 900 number blocking on
my phone, will it also prevent me from making 950 calls?  How about
700 number calls (which were discussed in a previous thread that's
gone now, and that I didn't read 'cause I got back from vacation and
had 6000 unread messages and just killed most of them :-( )?


Mike Shawaluk    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: There is no relation whatsoever between 900 calls
and 950 calls, or 700 calls for that matter. Some (most?) telcos now
offer blocking of calls to 900/976, but 950 is never blocked, and what
you get from dialing 700-anything is purely between you and your long
distance carrier.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 19:46 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call 1-800-TASSELS (Was: Phast Phood)


        Jeff Sicherman opened a thread (Digest v11,iss626) about
Domino's Pizza using an AT&T development intended to route your call
to the nearest store for entry and delivery.  Since then, there were
some musings about potential dial network abuse and problems in
routing the calls.

        But Jeff's original post complained about one acronym:

> ...they will be routed to a Transaction Services Store Locator
> Service Node (couldn't they come up with something that has a decent
> acronym?)

        Hmmmmm ... TSSLS, eh? Well, why not simplify the whole thing
and uae INWATS to make the number to call 1-800-TASSELS, or is that
number still in use by the burlesque theater in Chicago?


[Moderator's Note: I just now checked, and 800-827-7357 just rang
somewhere with no answer. I don't ever recall 800-827 being a Chicago
area 800 prefix, at least in the days when we had burlesque shows
downtown. Both the World Playhouse and the Fine Arts went back to G
and R rated films. Then there was the Monroe Theatre: Open 22 hours
per day, (closed from 5-7 AM so the janitor could disinfect the nasty
place!), the Monroe had the same phone number for the sixty years it
stood there as a sanctuary for dirty old men and younger office clerks
with time to kill during the lunch hour: WABash 3111, served from an
ancient stepper switch. Some burlesque shows, but mostly they were
into foreign porn movies with English subscripts which they preferred
to call 'art films'. The Monroe was raided by the police one last time
and torn down about 1968. What theatre were you thinking of?  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 19:48 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tour of a CO


        In article <Digest v11,iss632> Tom Lapp tells about visiting
his local Telco's central office to be:

> ...pretty amazed by both the equipment that they have, and what they
> don't have.

        However, there was one very important item all too many
telephone exchange offices don't have, that this one seems to lack,
too. It shows up in this comment of Tom's:

> One of the highlights was watching my host do a line test on my
> residential line (which is serviced out of that office).  Everything
> (DC, AC, etc) tested well within specs, and I also found out that my
> "pair" from CO to my end-user equipment is 31,800 (+/- 10) feet!  (It
> measured a 65 dB loss for this distance, by the way).  All the testing
> was done via a single terminal console in an office in the CO.

        A subscriber cable pair 31,800 feet long would put your house
about six miles from that building, Tom.  Is that the case?  I query
it because the VAST majority of telephone stations in the US are
within about three miles (15,000 feet) and most are closer than that.

         But here's the real problem, Tom.  31,800 feet of even the
smallest gauge wire used for local subscriber lines, 26 AWG, has a
loss of about 2.8 decibels per mile, or perhaps just under 18 decibels
if your pair really WAS 31,800 feet long.  Beyond that, the loop
rsesistance of 26 AWG runs about 440 Ohms per mile, so your loop
resistance would be about 2600 Ohms.  That's just about twice the loop
resistance that most telephone exchanges can service a telephone set
on.

        If he obtained a reading of 65 decibels loss on your loop, it
would be a circuit just plainly out of business in analog telephony.
In fact, a major part of the objective of dial telephone service is to
keep the loss on your subscriber loop to 8 decibels or so.

        Based on what you were shown, it seems the greatest lacking in
that CO is competent transmission technicians.  But don't feel too
bad.  It's been that way for decades.  What is interesting to see is
that replacing the old electromechanical jocks with computer jocks
hasn't improved that shortage.

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

Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 18:42 GMT
From: "John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network


I just tried dialing 950-1288 from White Rock, New Mexico (U.S. West),
but all I got was the mysterious recording, "We're sorry.  It is not
necessary to dial the digits 950 before dialing your carrier access
code."  Other 950 numbers, like the one given recently for Domino's
Pizza, end up with a generic "number cannot be completed as dialed"
recording.  It looks to me like U.S. West is reserving 950-1288 just
in case AT&T ever decides (or is required) to implement 950 access to
their regular network.


John C. Fowler, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Who Needs 900, 976-WEATHER When You Got USENET, Internet
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 15:01:00 GMT


TELECOM Moderator noted:

> yes, there are worthwhile audiotext services available. What about the
> weather forecasts and news headlines, to name a couple? Not all of the
> 900 stuff is sleaze by any means, although I seldom use it.   PAT]

Weather?  I can look in USENET ("netnews") group chi.weather:

 From: [e-mail] (WA9DNZ)
 Subject: [Sun 10:21] CHICAGO METROPOLITAN FORECAST (CHILFPCHI)

 CHICAGO METROPOLITAN FORECAST
 NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL
 1130 AM CDT SUN AUG 18 1991

 .THIS AFTERNOON... PARTLY SUNNY WITH A 40 PERCENT CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND
THUNDERSTORMS. HIGH IN THE LOWER 80S. WEST WINDS AROUND 10 MPH BECOMING
NORTH TO NORTHEAST TOWARD EVENING. [...]

Nifty no?  Straight from the horse's mouth.  How about a crontab (a
UNIX command) job every few hours that gets the current color national
weather map plus current North American satellite photo via FTP from
vmd.cso.uiuc.edu:phil.515/* (I have seen scripts about this in USENET
group "sci.geo.meteorology".  Please refer to there for any further
information.)  You could then probably automatically have these
updated into your workstation screen's background thus making your
pals think you're cooler that that old chump 5 o'clock TV weather-
person.

Pat also mentions news.  Well with USENET your head will be swimming
with (net)news.  For 5 o'clock news style news, I believe you can get
a "Clarinet feed" into your USENET netnews, but that costs money
(shudder).

In real life of course I would just flip on the radio (at the exact
correct time to avoid all the ads and "WBBM" station ID reminders) to
catch the weather forecast, thus avoiding having to login to USENET,
or pay tolls for 976-WEATHER type calls.  (Or I might tune to 162.55
Mhz weather station if I had that kind of radio.)  And yes, computer
network access does cost money (though often not directly, to say, a
university student.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #645
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08765;
          18 Aug 91 23:05 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06090;
          18 Aug 91 21:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09819;
          18 Aug 91 20:27 CDT
Date:     Sun, 18 Aug 91 20:23:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #646
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Aug 91 20:22:51 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 646

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Sikes Address to Federal Communications Bar Assn. [via Scott Loftesness]
    Re: USOC Standard (Standards??? - ROTFL!) [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Dial-a-Pope [Toronto Star via Rick Broadhead]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Scott Loftesness <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sikes Address to Federal Commuications Bar Association
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 15:22:38 PDT
Organization: Glenbrook Systems, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Pat, I thought the group might find this of interest.

Scott
                   ---------------------------------

August 9, 1991

                  CHAIRMAN SIKES ADDRESSES CHICAGO CHAPTER
                                  OF THE
                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS BAR ASSOCIATION

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Alfred C. Sikes today
addressed members of the newly formed Midwest Chapter of the Federal
Communications Bar Association.

Sikes centered his remarks on the future: reviewing key features of a
blueprint for the future that was developed during his tenure as head
of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(Telecom 2000); assessing key FCC actions; and discussing where
communications and communications policy are headed.

Calling "competition the key recommendation" throughout Telecom 2000,
Sikes noted the report also predicted that "pluralistic markets would
prove the best, the most reliable guarantee of national progress."  He
said, "It is a pluralistic, not simply competitive, communications
which is our policy focus."

Sikes said the goal of FCC initiatives over the last 24 months has
been "to foster both competition and pluralism, and to encourage surer
and more rapid delivery of public benefits."

In conclusion, Sikes reported that "Today, our nation's telecommuni-
cations networks, products and services are on the leading edge
globally."  Looking to the future, he said we will continue to exert
world leadership, "if we assure pluralistic markets and constantly
renew our nation's underlying assets."

        (See below for complete highlights of the Chairman's speech.)

             Highlights of FCC Chairman Alfred C. Sikes' Address
                               before the
        Chicago Chapter of the Federal Communications Bar Association

Previous to becoming FCC Chairman, Sikes headed the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).  During his
tenure a blueprint for future national communications was developed.
The resulting 672-page report was called Telecom 2000.

The word "transformation" was pivotal in the Telecom 2000 blueprint.
Telecommunications then, and now, is fast becoming an essential
ingredient of the transformation that is called the "Information Age."
And, telecommunications is also becoming a primary "economic engine."

The key recommendation throughout Telecom 2000 was "competition," and
the report predicted that pluralistic markets would prove the best,
the most reliable guarantee of national progress.  It is a
pluralistic, not simply competitive, communications market which is
our policy focus.

Pluralistic markets are similar, but they're also quite different.
They're almost always competitive.  Typically, you'll have many
contending commercial players of varying size.  At the same time,
you'll also see -- or hope to see -- a good deal of technological and
commercial change.

In the case of communications, given the Government's role,
pluralistic markets post a number of difficult public policy
challenges.  Such as:

Striking a sound balance between the "hard-market" competition that's
theoretically good, and the practical reality that competitors --
especially small entrepreneurial firms -- are important agents of
change.

Government policymakers confront a continuing challenge: they have to
craft market safeguards that curb discriminatory cost-shifitng or the
manipulation of the telephone network by quasi-monopoly providers; at
the same time, they have to foster an open market environment -- one
that is conducive to all firms of all sizes making a national
contribution.

Compounding the policy challenge in communications is yet another
familiar facet of communications pluralism -- namely rapid technical
change and progress which, in many cases, is due to smaller companies.

Both domestically and internationally, today's communications market
is experiencing the leading edge of competition between wire-based and
spectrum-based technologies and companies.

Government can directly affect both the velocity and direction of
change.  In short, government manipulation of costs and pricing has
the clear potential to compromise the development of world-class
technologies and services.

Telecom 2000 noted that there are aspects to competition in addition
to just price and cost rivalry.  For example: the importance of
innovation and the contribution small entrepreneurial firms have
always made to that critical process.

Telecom 2000 concluded confidently that America would stay on the
leading edge of telecommunications development in an increasingly
competitive world -- if barriers to entry and investment were
eliminated, while government also concomitantly checked the exercise
of "market power."

FCC actions over the last 24 months -- where our goal has been to
foster both competition and pluralism, and to encourage surer and more
rapid delivery of public benefits -- that have affected pluralistic
markets, investments and universality included:

     - "Price caps" or incentive regulation for the Bell companies, GTE,
       and several other major local exchange companies;

     - Changes in the rules governing competition in long-distance
       business services;

     - Rules to accord radio service innovators a "Pioneer's
       Preference" in spectrum allocation;

     - Beginning the process of developing a new, high-technology
       spectrum reserve and working closely with Congress to shift channels
       from the Federal Government's spectrum inventory to the private sector;

     - Review of FCC radio and broadcast television rules;

     - Work on the high-definition television (HDTV) front;

     - Convening a "Regulatory Summit" of all the State commission
       chairs to build and broaden an advanced communications national
       consensus.  A second Federal-State communications conference
       is planned for this October;

     - Conducting an all-day hearing on "Networks of the Future;"

A key element of the Telecom 2000 blueprint is allowing the Bell
companies the chance to compete in "information services."

Today, our nation's telecommunications networks, products and services
are on the leading edge globally.  If we assure pluralistic markets
and constantly renew our nation's underlying assets, we will continue
to exert world leadership.

[end]

    Scott Loftesness, 515 Buena Vista Ave., Redwood City, CA 94061
    Fax: [phone]                  Internet: [e-mail]
    Others:  [e-mail]   -or-   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 19:44 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USOC Standard (Standards??? - ROTFL!)


        In Digest v11,iss621, Joe Stein <sequent!techbook.com!joes@
uunet.uu.net> started a thread dealing with yet another form of The
Lore of The Phone Company, by asking:

> One of the questions I have had for a long time is what is 'USOC' and
> are any references available?

        Our Moderator immediately replied with the standard words we've
all been taught:

> [Moderator's Note: USOC = 'Universal Service Order Codes'... look in the
> USOC book...

        This whetted Joe's appetite, so he asked in Digest v11,iss625:
> Where can one get a copy of the USOC book?  I am curious as to what
> all it covers, and even more so, now.

        Laird Broadfield added <v11,iss628> the usual dead-end people run
into about the mystical document called the "USOC Book":

> Okay, so where do we lay hands on a USOC book?  We've all picked up
> the (everyday) ones from dealing with them for so long ... but where is
> the master reference?  Inquiring minds want to know!  I've looked in
> Bellcore and AT&T catalogs; is USOC qua USOC an obsolete referent?  (BTW,
> why is it *so* difficult to beat the available features out of the local
> reps?  "Can I get BCF/RNA forwarding on a residential line?"  "Ummmm, what?"
> (five minutes of hold later) "Okay, can it go off centrex?"  "Ummmm....
> I dunno."  Pathetic*Bell strikes again (or do the rest of you get this
> too?)

        And there the tale usually ends.  Nobody ever has an answer
for the Joes and Lairds.  It's just taken as a given that since their
name is "Universal," then USOCs must indeed be truly UNIVERSAL,
another "standard" of The Phone Company, The Phone Business, those
emblems of all that`s solid and well-organized and efficient in the
worlds of technology and business, right?  Something you can hang your
hat on, right?

        The truth is, in fact, just like so much of what one keeps
finding about the once-monolithic Bell System and its "independent"
satrapies of the monopoly era, USOCs have never been "universal."
They are only as universal as the vision of the particular Telco
you're talking to.  Worst of all, they use similar or even identical
USOCs to mean different things in different companies.

        It didn't start out being a mass of confusion.  In fact, USOCs
are part of an attempt reaching way back into the monopoly Bell System
to try to get company standards for data processing of the records and
business ov AT&T and its monopolized industry.  The umbrella for all
this was called Bell System Common Language (BSCL).  Having realized
that the whole Bell System's ponderous paper records needed to be
normalized in order to use computers, BSCL was a needed thing.  Some
of its more public elements were Common Language Location Identifiers
(CLLI, often verbalized, "silly" by the people you talk to), Common
Language Equipment Identifiers (CLEI, often verbalized as "klee-eye"
in the field0 and Universal Service Order Codes (USOC, usually
verbalized as "yew-sock").

        It all began as a marvelous national plan, but didn't take
long to founder in expansive confusion.  People began to find out that
there wasn't one uniform nationwide "Bell Way" to do things.  It soon
became apparent that New England Tel's people had found one piece of
Western Electric apparatus to perform a given function, using a
certain set of its options, and that was what New England Tel did with
it.  When you got into Pacific Telephone, they used a DIFFERENT piece
of Western Electric apparatus for the same function ... and in fact,
the Norther California Division's engineers had settled on a different
piece than had the Southern Division.

        There was NOT a national "standard" way or piece of equipment
for performing any given detail function.  (Western Electric didn't
sit in judgment of how the Operating Companies did their jobs; WECo
merely built what they ordered.  In fact, not only were there various
devices used in different parts of different companies, these varied
with time, depending on what kind of switching machine they might be
used with.

        So, OK, we should have had a mass of CLEIs but certainly there
could be a "universal name" for what it did, couldn't there?

        Nope.

        Not after the accountants and lawyers got their fingers into
it.  All they had to do was start raising their usual screens.  You
know them: How the capital investment, depreciation and rate of return
showings for all the different regulators in all the states made it
impossible for the Bell System to have one or even a few USOCs for the
laundry list of products sold by Telcos ... and the Grand Dream of
BSCL turned into not a simplification, but yet another bureaucratic
mire to insure even fuller employment for administrators of the "plan."

        Meantime, the non-Bell satrapies all joined in with their OWN
"common language" plans, creating their own smaller bureaucracies. So,
what was well underway by the time of the Big Bang of 1984 was a nice
mess, just known to be "universal" and a "standard" nationwide.

        Oh, there are some fairly common elements, like 1FR for a
flat-rate private residential dial line, and 1MB for a private
measured business line and such, but it doesn't take long before all
the accessories and blinkers and extras like rotary hunt group
services become VERY different USOCs in different Telcos; even in
different exchanges of the same Telco, as mentioned previously.

        The result: There's been a different USOC book for every telco
for years.  Now, tariffs describe the function of each USOC for the
regulators to approve, and that's the document you, Joe Public, are
supposed to have a copy to read to find out what you are getting for
what price.  Of course, since the Big Bang, many items are not
regulated, and thus are not in the tariff on file ... they are
"proprietary."

        So, in addition to finding there are variations everywhere in
what the USOCs you get billed for mean, you also find that you are not
authorized to have the book to decode them!  Oh, you can ask for a
USOC book, and you'll get told that you ought to have one, but then
you'll find out you never get it ... unless you obtain one by some
sort of "unofficial, don't tell anyone I gave you this" route.
Retirees who set themselves up as consultants usually have one, and
still know someone "on the inside" who will slip them one, so they'll
say it's "no problem."  It isn't, for them.

        AT&T people don't see there's any problem with USOCs, because
the AT&T set has all long been filed with the FCC, and it is uniform
... for AT&T ... nationwide, and readily available.  What most such
AT&T people don't know is that an AT&T USOC for a certain telephone
set might get you a Special Services transformer for some kind of
private line service in a local company.

        Toby Nixon tried to help in a contribution that mentioned the
USOCs the FCC placed in its Part 68 regulations for plugs and jacks,
but those USOCs are for but a small part of the thousands of USOCs for
all the things a telco provides and bills for.  The Part 68-listed
USOCs are msot useful for terminations at the end of a Telco line ...
until you find out your local Telco has some DIFFERENT ones.

        And what's the latest on USOCs?  Well, our favorite folks at
Tinker Bell out in California have dreamed up some new USOCs of their
own for even the nice old RJ-11.  Yep, PacBell seems to have decided
that there's need to define what that jack on the wall is used for in
more detail than the FCC way.  Just a week ago, I got razzed by an
AT&T Circuit Layout Engineer who called me on the phone to tell me
that my order had to be changed; that I had to select between one of
several forms of some new USOC PacBell had come up with.  It was just
too confusing to decide by the fast telephonic description, so I asked
for a fax of the papers she was reading.  The answer: "I don't think I
can do that. These UNIVERSAL Service Order Codes are PROPRIETARY to
PacBell.  You just tell me what you want it to do, and I'll translate
that into whatever you need."  I of course, said, but how will I know
the price of what I'm ordering?

        The answer sounded like an echo from the 1960's: "Don't worry
about that.  We'll take care of you."

        Yeah.  Just like you always did.


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

Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 20:33:36 EDT
From: Rick Broadhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dial-a-Pope


 From the {Toronto Star}, Saturday August 17, 1991.


DIAL-A-POPE CATCHING ON IN THE U.S.

The Vatican is reaching out to the world, but it looks as if Canada
won't be heeding the call.  In the U.S., if you dial a 900 number, you
can get a daily spiritual pick-me-up from Pope John Paul II.  The
multilingual, Vatican-authorized service, affectionately known as
Dial-a-Pope, is officially titled "Christian Messaging From the
Vatican."  A spokesman from Bell Canada says there is no such number
in this country.  But Des Burge, director of communications for the
Archdiocese of Toronto, says he thinks the service, for which U.S.
callers pay a fee, is a good way to help people feel more connected to
the Pope.


Rick Broadhead     [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #646
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22194;
          19 Aug 91 4:12 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05393;
          19 Aug 91 2:45 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad16923;
          19 Aug 91 1:37 CDT
Date:     Mon, 19 Aug 91 1:21:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #647
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 19 Aug 91 01:21:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 647

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Setting Up a Fax Gateway [John R. Levine]
    Re: Long Distance Recommendations [John R. Levine]
    Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [William Degnan]
    Re: Telephony Subscriptions [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Frederick G. M. Roeber]
    Re: 950-PIZZA (was Phast Phood) [David Ash]
    Re: Cable TV Competition [Stan M. Krieger]
    Hurricane Bob Updates on 900 Number (was Who Needs 900, 976) [P. Chisholm]
    Massive Privacy Invasion! [Ed Hopper]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Setting Up a Fax Gateway
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 16 Aug 91 18:28:13 EDT (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <ico.isc.com![e-mail]>


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

> Some months ago, I checked into [Unix fax modem software]. The
> consensus was that the DigiFAX software (by DigiBoard) was the way to
> go. It supports two modems: Hayes and Brooktrout [but the Hayes won't
> work in the same system as an Adaptec SCSI controller.]

I looked into them, too.  Digiboard bought out Rick Richardson's PC
Research, which sold a very nice HP Laserjet back end for troff,
called jetroff, and a related fax package called jetfax.  Support was
great, since Rick answered his own phone.  Digiboard raised the prices
and haven't done a heck of a lot of development.  I'd expect them to
adapt them to Digiboard hardware products, but they haven't, yet.

So instead I got TruFax from COS, Inc., 9 Huron Way, Lawrenceville NJ
08648, phone [phone], fax [phone], email [e-mail].
Their modem is the Everex EverFax 24/96E which attaches to any fast
serial port.  The basic fax send and receive software is very solid,
though the user interface is rather clunky.

Outgoing faxes can either come from existing bitmaps or else there is
an HP Laserjet scan converter which can image pretty much anything you
can send to a laserjet.  I usually use troff and jetroff, as do COS
themselves.  Incoming faxes can be sorted by sender's TSI with mail
messages being sent to the recipient and/or sent to the printer.
Their user interface software is kind of clunky, but I found it no big
deal to write my own shell scripts to send faxes, including making up
cover sheets automatically, multicasting, and other odds and ends.
They store incoming faxes in their own funky format, but I wrote a
seven line script that turns it into PBM format which you can turn
into anything.  (COS will probably pick it up, I sent it to them.)

The software runs under 386 Unix, where it needs a serial port either
on a smart card or with a 16550 buffered UART, and on Suns where any
serial port will do.  Support is good, as again the developer answers
his own phone.

The price for the software and modem were, the last time I checked,
somewhat lower than for Digifax and either of its supported modems.
There is one cool feature that Digifax has that might merit its higher
price: in combination with the very expensive Brooktrout board, you
can put your fax cards on DID lines to which hundreds of numbers are
assigned and give each of your users a separate fax number.  If you
are building a fax gateway to a large network, that might be an
advantage, otherwise I'd go with Trufax.


Regards,

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

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

Subject: Re: Long Distance Recommendations
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 16 Aug 91 17:51:16 EDT (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <ico.isc.com![e-mail]>


I suspect that you will find that for a bill under $100 / month the
difference among the various carriers is down in the noise.  If you
make more than $25 per month of inter-LATA calls, it's worth getting
one of the discount packages such as Reach-out or Sprint Plus.

There are funny little differences in service that may make a
difference to you.  For example, I have two lines at my home in
Massachusetts and two more at my beach cottage in New Jersey.  Sprint
is the only one of the big three that can put all four lines on the
same bill and use the aggregate as the basis for computing my quantity
discount.  MCI says that they can only combine lines in the same
region, and Mass. and N.J. are in different regions.  AT&T still bills
via the local telcos, which means that in Mass. they can't even
combine two residential numbers at the same address.  So I stick with
Sprint.

MCI has a "friends and family" discount plan which gives you an extra
10% off calls to a set of numbers you identify if they all use MCI.
If there are people you call frequently who already use MCI or
wouldn't mind switching, this may be a good deal.  (Be sure they're
willing, or MCI's telemarketers will pester them forever.)

One reason that rates are so close is that in many cases their margins
are razor thin.  The late night long distance rates for all the
carriers are in the vicinity of .105 to .12 per minute, with the
access charges paid to the local telcos taking up about .09 of that.
At that price, there isn't a lot of wiggle room.


Regards,

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

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

From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Aug 91  19:38:38
Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?


On <Aug 18 13:28> Bob Falcon (rescon![e-mail] )
writes to All:

> There are some very hard to get on BBSs that I rapid redial all
> the time...

> Any comments on if I should continue this or to stop if it will
> cause problems are appreciated.

Yeah. Knock it off.

It is a problem but not for the reason you may think. Some BBSs have
end of call processing that may take a minute or several minutes. If
you hammer dial a system, you may cause it to be unavailable to
callers -- including yourself.

I have seen cases where the call is answered toward the end of the
caller's time-out cycle. It waits several seconds, decides it has lost
the caller and resets by which time the caller is back, the call
answered at the end of cycle again. "I can NEVER get on your system",
they say. ("So?", I think.)


* Origin: Private Line - Stealth Opus in Austin (1:382/39.0)
William Degnan,  Communications Network Solutions
-Independent Consultants in Telecommunications-
P.O. Drawer 9530       | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530  | ![e-mail]  | Voice [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 19:40 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephony Subscriptions


        In Digest v11,iss620 Wayne Correia <[e-mail]> posts:

> Telephony is not worth bothering with. It is a content-free management
> journal that provides me of little or no value.

> I subscribed, but not again.

        You may find material more useful in <Telephony's> arch-rival
publication of decades, <Telephone Engineer & Management>, now just
<TE&M> for short.  Even if the content doesn't please you better, the
price is excellent: $0.00.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Date: 18 Aug 91 13:55:20 PST


You guys have it lucky.  It may be long distance across the road, but
it's still domestic.  If I want to call from my home in St. Genis,
France to the LEP control room a couple km away near Prevessin,
France, it's an *international* call, with international rates.  (Why?
The main CERN site is half in Switzerland, and the internal lines --
even for buildings and sites entirely within France -- are all DID
lines off of the Swiss system.)  There's no problem the other way: one
internal prefix for local Swiss calls, another for local French ones.
But for some reason there's no french CERN number.  And France Telecom
is not cheap.  Sigh.


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

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

From: David Ash <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 950-PIZZA (was Phast Phood)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 02:01:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator responds
to Mike Shawaluk <[e-mail]>:

> [Moderator's Note: There is no relation whatsoever between 900 calls
> and 950 calls, or 700 calls for that matter. Some (most?) telcos now
> offer blocking of calls to 900/976, but 950 is never blocked, and what
> you get from dialing 700-anything is purely between you and your long
> distance carrier.   PAT]

For the first couple of months of the Stanford student telephone
system's existence, 900, 976, and 950 were all blocked.  I guess a
number of students made a stink about it, since 950 was made available
fairly soon.  It seems this shows there must be some technological
connection between 900/976 and 950 which makes it easier to block all
three.


David W. Ash              [e-mail]
HOME: [phone]      WORK: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: It is not so much that 900 and 950 are the same
kind of service; they are not. More than likely it was a case of the
Stanford management wanting to greedily keep all the long distance
commissions for themselves. Letting a student go '950' to a carrier of
choice is not a very wise business decision. Ask any COCOT owner!  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 22:10:35 EDT
From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition
Organization: Summit NJ


> With all this discussion of multiple dialtone and cable television
> suppliers in the same territory, I thought it might be interesting to
> describe a specific case history...

> The upstart competitor was Cablevision, bigger, already in many areas
> on Long Island, and 'ready to serve you better.'

Here's a good example of how Cablevision tried to serve their
customers better.  For over 20 years, a cable-only channel, MSG (for
Madison Square Garden), has been available in the NY City area as part
of basic cable service.  Its original purpose was to broadcast events
from Madison Square Garden, primarily all Knicks are Rangers home
games.  While its programming has expanded to include a number of road
games (WWOR- channel 9, became less and less interested in those
games), as well as 75 Yankees games (another 75 are broadcast on WPIX-
channel 11), MSG is still a basic cable channel.  The marketing
decision is for saturation, and to make money from commercials,
instead of as a pay-cable channel, although I believe because of the
big money paid to the Yankees, there is a charge of 50 cents a
customer to each cable system (but the Yankees deal occurred after the
event I'm about to describe).

Well, a few years ago, Cablevision customers were unable to get MSG.
The company that was "ready to serve you better" decided that they
would carry MSG only as a premium channel (this would be in addition
to an existing sports premium channel, SportsChannel, that carries
Islanders, Devils, Nets, and 75 Mets games).  MSG refused such an
arrangement, and complaints to Cablevision were answered with a simple
"we're having contract problems with MSG"; what they didn't say was
that they, and not MSG, were the cause of the "problems".  Cablevision
even refused a truce that would've at least let their customers get
the Knicks and Rangers playoff games.

Cablevision eventually gave up, but it did cause their customers the
loss of a season's worth of games.  So, how can this abuse be stopped?


Stan Krieger   AT&T UNIX System Laboratories
Summit, NJ     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 23:03:45 EDT
From: Paul S R Chisholm <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hurricane Bob Updates on 900 Number (was Who Needs 900, 976)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


According to the Weather Channel, there's a 900 number (run, I think,
by the National Hurricane Center) for updates on Hurricane Bob, which
is in the process of hitting the United States.  The number is
1-900-288-8800; it costs ninety-five cents (U.S.A.) a minute.  (Pat,
sorry if this gets to you too late to reach Digest readers in time,
but I just saw it!)

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

> Weather?  I can look in USENET ("netnews") group chi.weather:

But what group would *this* go in?  (And why does cbnewsl, which is
supposed to serve AT&T employees in New Jersey, have articles in
chi.weather but none in nj.weather?)


Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories, [e-mail]
att!epic!jupiter!psrc, [e-mail], AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.


[Moderator's Note: In Chicago on Chinet, they run it under 'chi.weather'.
It is the same script I hear recited on the phone at 312-976-1212.  PAT]

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

Subject: Massive Privacy Invasion
From: ED HOPPER <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun 18 Aug 91 14:01:43 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575


Well Pat, I have spent the past 24 hours in contemplation of all the
fear and loathing generated by the Radio Shack controversy.  In fact,
I spent that 24 hours cross-legged in the closet, in the dark.  My
mantra was "priiiivvvaaaaccccyyyyy ... priiiivvvaaacccyy".  Then,
after 24 consecutive hours of this, a flash of inspiration struck me
(well, it might have been oxygen deprivation, but I am pretty sure it
was inspiration!).  What Radio Shack is doing is trivial compared to
the privacy rape committed by another set of sexist, racist, specist,
homophobic, politically uncorrect, white male Republicans.  (Damn!
That's enough reason to burn 'em at the stake right there!)

This greedy corporation has managed to amass the names, addresses and
phone numbers of most people in five states.  Then they have promptly
distributed it to all sorts of bad people.  I know for a FACT that
this greedy corporation (We'll call them TGC for short) has
distributed this list to EVERY police agency in the area.  And I KNOW
that the police have USED this information!!  I also know, FOR A FACT,
that most convicted rapists and murders in the area (and we have more
than a few of those) also have access to this list!

In fact, TGC even gives this out to telemarketers.  And they have used
it to, now sit down because this is shocking, they have used it TO
MAKE MONEY!!!  This list has been in paper form for a long time (this
conspiracy has been going on for years!!!!)  But now there's been talk
that, with the cooperation of Other Greedy Corporations (OGC's for
short), this may all go into an online database.  As all good
technophobes know, any information put into electronic form is,
automatically, more dangerous to our privacy.

Now, I also have it on good authority that TGC demands MONEY (that's
right, filthy MONEY!) to keep your name off the list.  Let's add
economic oppressors to that list of condemnations above!

I couldn't rest until I went to USENET with this.  I know it's full of
all sorts of right-thinking individuals who would be willing to slip
on their sandals, pack an organic sandwich and hitch-hike to St Louis,
the headquarters of TGC, to protest this RAPE of our PRIVACY!

Yes, you see, TGC is Southwestern Bell.  And they distribute this
invasion of our privacy in book form, it's called "The Telephone
Directory".


Ed "I have seen the light" Hopper


This message brought to you by the National Committee for Reality in
Usenet.


[Moderator's Note: Thank you, Ed ... may I join your committee?   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #647
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03210;
          20 Aug 91 8:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29740;
          20 Aug 91 2:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02709;
          20 Aug 91 0:53 CDT
Date:     Mon, 19 Aug 91 23:57:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #648
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 19 Aug 91 23:57:36 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 648

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Gordon D Woods]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [H. Peter Anvin]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Tarl Neustaedter]
    Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Charlie Lear]
    Re: AT&T Data Network [John R. Levine]
    Re: AT&T Data Network [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Cable TV Competition [Nick Sayer]
    Re: Cable TV Competition [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Phast Phood [Clay Jackson]
    Re: Phast Phood [Roy M. Silvernail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 10:57:53 EDT
From: Gordon D Woods <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> [Moderator's Note: But John, what keeps the electric, gas or water
> utilities from fudging on their meters? What convenient method does
> the public have to calibrate or check the accuracy of those meters?

People can easily check the calibration of their meters and since they
are permanent installations they don't need to be checked very often.
See misc.consumers.house for calibration details; it seems to come up
every three months.

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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 16:25:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> of comp.dcom.telecom,
[e-mail] writes:

> There's no problem the other way: one internal prefix for local
> Swiss calls, another for local French ones.  But for some reason
> there's no French CERN number.

How come you are not bringing this up with the people responsible at
CERN?  Since they apparently have a prefix for local French calls,
they must have some form of connection to the French side.  Also,
since the CERN site as you point out is half in France, the French PTT
can hardly refuse to connect to a PBX on the French side ... whereafter
CERNs internal network would connect.


P.A.

INTERNET: [e-mail]   ([e-mail] after this summer)
BITNET:   HPA@NUACC           HAM RADIO:  N9ITP, SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/989.4         NeXTMAIL:   [e-mail]
"finger" the Internet address above for more information.

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

From: Tarl Neustaedter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Date: 19 Aug 91 09:53:17 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, wybbs![e-mail].
edu (Ken Jongsma) writes:

> But Tarl, that's not the point. Granted, 600-800 calls a month are way
> above normal residential usage. However, there is no evidence to
> support the idea that 600 local calls cost the telco any more money.
> Once the central office is in place *and sized to meet the peak
> demand*, there is no reason for local calls to be metered.

By that logic, long distance calls should not be metered either, since
once you have the lines in place sized to meet peak demand, there is
no additional cost.

At least in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, utilities like the
phone company are allowed rates on a basis of a predetermined profit
(or loss), and the rates are adjusted to match (it's not that simple,
but that's the theory).  When someone is charged a higher rate (for
whatever reason), everyone else's rates drop by a corresponding
insignificant amount.

There are several reasons to charge based on usage:

1) Keep peak demand down. If you charge people based on number of
calls they make, the really large users will make fewer calls,
reducing peak demand, thus reducing the amount of new hardware needed.

2) Reduce abuse. I see comments in this group about people who do
things like use modems to dial radio stations for contests, and rapid
repeat dialing to get into BBSes. In my area, they get away with that
for free, even though they impose a heavy burden on the system (and
thus require installing more hardware to support their abuse).

3) Equity. If I use my phone three times a month (two incoming calls,
one outgoing), should I really be paying the same amount as the above
mentioned coalition of four people calling 800 times a month? I think
they should be charged at least four times as much as me, since they
are four people to my one.


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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 07:43:02 EDT
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> You guys have it lucky.  It may be long distance across the road, but
> it's still domestic.  If I want to call from my home in St. Genis,
> France to the LEP control room a couple km away near Prevessin,
> France, it's an *international* call, with international rates.  (Why?
> The main CERN site is half in Switzerland, and the internal lines --
> even for buildings and sites entirely within France -- are all DID
> lines off of the Swiss system.)  There's no problem the other way: one
> internal prefix for local Swiss calls, another for local French ones.
> But for some reason there's no french CERN number.  And France Telecom
> is not cheap.  Sigh.

Cross border calling to France in the Geneva area is possible without
dialing the international access number, using the city code 023.  It
seems to me that there should be a similar arrangement from France to
Switzerland.  I don't know about the rate structure.


Herman Silbiger

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

Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing?
Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ
Date: 19 Aug 91 23:17:05 NZT (Mon)
From: [e-mail]


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

> Yeah. Knock it off.
> It is a problem but not for the reason you may think. Some BBSs have
> end of call processing that may take a minute or several minutes. If
> you hammer dial a system, you may cause it to be unavailable to
> callers -- including yourself.

Then don't use brain dead software. If your BBS has more than one
caller you have to assume that someone will dial in immediately when
another person hangs up. You don't need repeat dialing to do that --
ever hung up a phone and had it ring again straight away, or picked it
up to dial out and have someone say, "Sheesh! That was quick answering!"?

If a BBS takes longer than one or two seconds to do end-of-call
housekeeping, it should either keep the modem off hook while it is
doing it or else it should reset the modem when ready to accept
another call.

One of the worst offenders in this regard is Remote Access. I looked
after a RA board for a couple of months and hated it -- not because of
the user interface, but because of the huge hassles caused by the
length of time the damn thing took to reset. Brain Dead Software Inc.

My own system, on the other hand, does all housekeeping and resets in
under two seconds. Every night I see RING appear immediately someone
logs off, yet the system handles it just fine. So does my local CO.
Maybe you should be looking at how you can optimise your system to
keep pace with your telco's.


Charlie "The Bear" Lear | [e-mail] | Kawasaki Z750GT  DoD#0221
The Cave MegaBBS  [phone] V22b | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand

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

Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 17 Aug 91 22:13:45 EDT (Sat)
From: "John R. Levine" <ico.isc.com![e-mail]>


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

> 950-1288 as a national access number [to AT&T data network]
> [Moderator's Note: From 312 ... 950-1288 returns an IBT intercept ...

Here in south Jersey it gets a most peculiar recording: "We're sorry,
it is not necessary to dial the digits 950 before dialing your carrier
access code.  Please hang up and try your call again."  A little
experimentation suggests that 950-1XXX and 950-0XXX give this for most
valid 10XXX codes, except that 950-0222 gives a tone burst that sounds
like they want me to dial something.  It's different from the
recording that NJ Bell gives for a bogus 10XXX code, and from the
recording for a random 950-XXXX.  Dialing 1288 immediately tells me
that my call cannot be completed as dialed.  (Recall that N.J. has
strict NANP dialing, where a leading 1 means that an area code
follows, independent of local/toll or intra/inter-LATA.)


Regards,

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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network
Date: 20 Aug 91 02:30:55 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, wybbs![e-mail].
umich.edu (Ken Jongsma) writes:

> The current {PC Week} has an article about packet data networks
> available to the public. One of the ones they mentioned was an AT&T
> network designed for those that access database vendors without the
> need to go through a gateway such as Compuserve. The number they gave
> in the magazine article was 950-1288 as a national access number. This
> number indeed works from my area.

When I called it from NJ, it answered (at 9600 bps, V.32) with the
message:

Welcome to AT&T Information Access Service

Please Sign-on:

Not having any idea what it was expecting, I tried a carriage return.
It repeated the original message.  I entered a short string of
characters, and it said: "Invalid command" and then repeated the
original message.  It disconnected without further output after about
one minute of inactivity.  I'll let you know at the end of the month
what this call cost!


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

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

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA
Date: 18 Aug 1991 20:50:56 UTC


[e-mail] (Shawn Goodin) writes about silly antenna
restrictions:

> This really bothers me -- especially since an external antenna (with
> rotor) is capable of picking up stations in other markets around North
> Carolina and South Carolina.  Any suggestions?

Quite frankly, I suggest civil disobediance. Put up three wire folded
dipoles: one about 2 1/2 meters long for channels 2-6, one about 3/4
of a meter long for 7-13, and one about a third of a meter long for
UHF. Make them of nice, cheap wire and the worst they can do is climb
up on your roof and rip them out. When they do, put another set up.

A folded dipole, incidently, looks like this:

     +------------------------------+
     +-------------+ +--------------+
               | |

The 'top' is a wire, and the bottom is a wire broken in the center and
each side connected to opposite sides of some 300 ohm twinlead.  At
each end the top and bottom wire are connected together. So the whole
antenna is sort of a squashed loop. The antenna will have an impedance
of 300 ohms or so, hence the 300 ohm twinlead. This sort of antenna is
what they usually include with FM stereo equipment.

By the way, if your house is pre-wired for cable, don't be surprised
if the developer made a deal with the cable company to trade
pre-wiring for antenna restrictions.


Nick Sayer      [e-mail]
N6QQQ           209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 17:19:22 GMT


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

> Only problem is what do you do if you live in an area where you CANNOT
> put up an external antenna?  In my neighborhood, we have the dreaded
> local deed restriction which prohibits external antennas and such on
> roofs, towers, etc.  No satellite dishes either.  While a table-top
> antenna works, it looks tacky on top of a $2,400 TV, and my attic
> doesn't have enough room for hiding the antenna in there.

The following is rumors, and I don't have a strong enough motivation
to track it down and sort it out, but you may ...

When the Reagan administration decided -- as part of the general
strategy to give all the friendly fat cats a license to print money --
encouraged the FCC to deregulate cable TV, they supposedly issued a
regulation voiding all local restrictions on antennas, in order to
nominally make all use of CATV be "voluntary". Does some other reader
have real information about this (such as when this rule was issued,
and possibly a number or other reference for it)?

Here in Santa Barbara, CA, we get only one station off the air, the
local ABC affiliate. The "local" CBS station is 60 miles away in Santa
Maria, behind a mountain range. The NBC station is even further North,
in San Luis Obisbo, behind that same mountain range. The PBS station
is 120 miles away, in Los Angeles. Nevertheless, the cable company has
"proven" to the County that "the average household in the coverage
area can receive six stations off the air", and thus the cable company
does not enjoy a "de facto monopoly", and thus is entitled to be
deregulated.

Of course, this deregulation is one-sided. The part of the franchise
contract that provided for an exclusive license to operate a CATV
system still stands. Only the technical requirements (two-way channels
with data capability, expanded bandwidth, etc) and the rate review
process have been deleted. As could be expected, basic service rates
have doubled in the five or six years since they weaseled out of this
regulation. The only good thing we have gotten in return, has been
CSPAN.

I would be very happy if there was a way to obtain sub-basic service
at less than the current $18.85 per month. It irks me every time I
write that check, but I guess not enough for me to give up PBS and
CSPAN. And not enough to cough up $2000 for a satellite dish.


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

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

From: Clay Jackson <uswnvg![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phast Phood
Date: 19 Aug 91 22:46:03 GMT
Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, Wash.


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

>  It's called the Store Locator Service by AT&T (StoreFinder by
> Domino's) and will replace Domino's current system which uses regional
> telemarketing centers for order taking and distribution. It will use a
> 950 number: 950-1430 (gee, that doesn't spell anything on the keypad)
> to pass the call and ANI data from the local switch to AT&T nearest

Actually, Pizza Hut has something like this now, without the ANI piece.

We had an interesting run-in with it the other nite -- it seems that
whoever added the NPA's to their database didn't bother to tell the
poor clerks what to do when the NPA you give 'em isn't in the
database, and all the data entry software does is beep at the poor
clerk.


Clay Jackson - N7QNM
US WEST NewVector Group, Inc
[e-mail] | ...uunet!uswnvg!cjackso

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

Subject: Re: Phast Phood
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 00:27:23 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

[about Domino's Pizza and AT&T, and Store Locator, after which PAT
adds:]

> [Moderator's Note: Only 49 states? I think there's no Domino Pizza in
> Alaska because that state has a law against driving an old junked-up
> machine faster than 85 miles an hour on municipal streets.  :)

It's not a law, Pat ... it's just that the Anchorage Municipality
expected to use the income from selling Anchorage Telephone Utility to
pave the streets.  (that's the OB telecom content) And anyway, calling
some of those auto-paths "streets" is being entirely too charitable. :) :)

Seriously, I remember Domino's having several Anchorage stores.  But
I'd bet that Alaska is still the holdout, since Anchorage is hardly a
majority of Alaska, and Dominos may not have any other locations in
the state.  (Floyd, care to help me out?)


Roy M. Silvernail |+|  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #648
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22595;
          20 Aug 91 14:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27946;
          20 Aug 91 10:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28908;
          20 Aug 91 9:06 CDT
Date:     Tue, 20 Aug 91 8:09:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #649
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 20 Aug 91 08:08:56 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 649

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Setting Up a Fax Gateway [John R. Levine]
    Re: Lightning Surge Protection [Mike Schuster]
    Re: Who Needs 900, 976-WEATHER When You Got USENET, Internet [David Lemson]
    Re: E-Mail Systems [Ed Hopper]
    Re: Long Distance Recommendations [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Re: Long Distance Recommendations [John R. Levine]
    Re: Alice's Restaurant (was RS Gives Out Phone Number) [John Eaton]
    Re: Massive Privacy Invasion [Ethan Miller]
    Re: Monitoring Soviet Communications [Carl Moore]
    IBT Call Detail Charges [Dave Mausner]
    FAX Machine Message [Tom Lowe]
    Call Management Information [Don Culanag]
    Transport Protocols for Operating Environment platforms [Dan Pezeley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Setting Up a Fax Gateway
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 16 Aug 91 18:28:13 EDT (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <ico.isc.com![e-mail]>


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

> Some months ago, I checked into [Unix fax modem software]. The
> consensus was that the DigiFAX software (by DigiBoard) was the way to
> go. It supports two modems: Hayes and Brooktrout [but the Hayes won't
> work in the same system as an Adaptec SCSI controller.]

I looked into them, too.  Digiboard bought out Rick Richardson's PC
Research, which sold a very nice HP Laserjet back end for troff,
called jetroff, and a related fax package called jetfax.  Support was
great, since Rick answered his own phone.  Digiboard raised the prices
and haven't done a heck of a lot of development.  I'd expect them to
adapt them to Digiboard hardware products, but they haven't, yet.

So instead I got TruFax from COS, Inc., 9 Huron Way, Lawrenceville NJ
08648, phone [phone], fax [phone], email [e-mail].
Their modem is the Everex EverFax 24/96E which attaches to any fast
serial port.  The basic fax send and receive software is very solid,
though the user interface is rather clunky.

Outgoing faxes can either come from existing bitmaps or else there is
an HP Laserjet scan converter which can image pretty much anything you
can send to a laserjet.  I usually use troff and jetroff, as do COS
themselves.  Incoming faxes can be sorted by sender's TSI with mail
messages being sent to the recipient and/or sent to the printer.
Their user interface software is kind of clunky, but I found it no big
deal to write my own shell scripts to send faxes, including making up
cover sheets automatically, multicasting, and other odds and ends.
They store incoming faxes in their own funky format, but I wrote a
seven line script that turns it into PBM format which you can turn
into anything.  (COS will probably pick it up, I sent it to them.)

The software runs under 386 Unix, where it needs a serial port either
on a smart card or with a 16550 buffered UART, and on Suns where any
serial port will do.  Support is good, as again the developer answers
his own phone.

The price for the software and modem were, the last time I checked,
somewhat lower than for Digifax and either of its supported modems.
There is one cool feature that Digifax has that might merit its higher
price: in combination with the very expensive Brooktrout board, you
can put your fax cards on DID lines to which hundreds of numbers are
assigned and give each of your users a separate fax number.  If you
are building a fax gateway to a large network, that might be an
advantage, otherwise I'd go with Trufax.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Lightning Surge Protection
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 15:24:52 PDT


> The circuit at the end of this blurb does just that. It uses a chip
> from Texas Instruments which was designed for just that purpose. It is
> essentially transparent when the line is at normal working voltages
> (up to about 200 Volts) but above that voltage it shorts your line to
> earth for as long as the surge lasts.

> For those who have to know, the TISP2290 works in a manner similar to
> a zener array connected between the A and B wire and earth so as to
> limit the voltage between any of three points to about 200 Volts. As
> you know this is not entirely effective and so if the voltage rises to
> 290 Volts (hence TISP2*290*) then this crafty critter cuts in triacs
> to crowbar the offending points to earth until the surge has passed.

I've looked high and low, and then some. I'vwe searched better than a
dozen parts catalogs and can't find anything even =remotely= similar
to this. Does anyone know of a US source for small quantities of this
part?


Mike Schuster
NY Public Access UNIX: [e-mail]      | [e-mail]
The Portal (R) System: [e-mail] | -MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Needs 900, 976-WEATHER When You Got USENET, Internet
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 03:23:35 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> Nifty no?  Straight from the horse's mouth.  How about a crontab (a
> UNIX command) job every few hours that gets the current color national
> weather map plus current North American satellite photo via FTP from
> vmd.cso.uiuc.edu:phil.515/* (I have seen scripts about this in USENET
> group "sci.geo.meteorology".  Please refer to there for any further
> information.)  You could then probably automatically have these
> updated into your workstation screen's background thus making your
> pals think you're cooler that that old chump 5 o'clock TV weather-
> person.

A programmer here at UIUC has written a package that will display
current weather maps on an X terminal, in color even.  The sources are
in uxc.cso.uiuc.edu:/pub/wxmap-1.13.tar.Z, I don't know what it takes
to set up a server for this. The package is extremely versatile -- you
can display radar, storm watches, temps, winds, and much more (and all
at the same time, even).

> Pat also mentions news.  Well with USENET your head will be swimming
> with (net)news.  For 5 o'clock news style news, I believe you can get
> a "Clarinet feed" into your USENET netnews, but that costs money
> (shudder).

Last night, the news on Gorbachev's coup reached our clari.news.flash
feed within a few (maybe two or three) hours of its happening.  That's
pretty good.


David Lemson   University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant
Internet : [e-mail]         UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson
NeXTMail : [e-mail]      BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD

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

Subject: Re: E-Mail Systems
From: ED HOPPER <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun 18 Aug 91 16:19:55 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575


> ATT Mail: Provides access to most networks. Private inbound Telex
>  (...Stuff deleted)
>         The gotcha is that ATT's $100+ software is required or you
>         get charged an extra $.45+ to create each message online.

UUCP connections also do not pay a message creation fee.

>         You must have their software to send or receive binary files.

Not so.  Issue the command "download ##" where ##=Message number, at
the AT&T Mail command line.  it is, for now, plain old, dumb, XModem
checksum.

The mail header can be easily stripped off with a basic program and
maybe even with a shell script.  I've done it several times.

> ESL: EasyLink was Western Union's attempt at e-mail. It has recently
>         been purchased by ATT but is still separate from ATT Mail. ESL

A friend who works for AT&T Easylink tells me that the merger of the
two services should occur next year.  Right now the same people run
both services.


Ed Hopper

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

Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 07:47:50 EDT
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Recommendations
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> There are funny little differences in service that may make a
> difference to you.  For example, I have two lines at my home in
> Massachusetts and two more at my beach cottage in New Jersey.  Sprint
> is the only one of the big three that can put all four lines on the
> same bill and use the aggregate as the basis for computing my quantity
> discount.

I have three lines into my home in NJ, and on my NJBell bill the AT&T
calls are identified by number (not the NJBell calls), and all get the
Reach Out discounts.


Herman Silbiger

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

Subject: Re: Long Distance Recommendations
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 16 Aug 91 17:51:16 EDT (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <ico.isc.com![e-mail]>


I suspect that you will find that for a bill under $100 / month the
difference among the various carriers is down in the noise.  If you
make more than $25 per month of inter-LATA calls, it's worth getting
one of the discount packages such as Reach-out or Sprint Plus.

There are funny little differences in service that may make a
difference to you.  For example, I have two lines at my home in
Massachusetts and two more at my beach cottage in New Jersey.  Sprint
is the only one of the big three that can put all four lines on the
same bill and use the aggregate as the basis for computing my quantity
discount.  MCI says that they can only combine lines in the same
region, and Mass. and N.J. are in different regions.  AT&T still bills
via the local telcos, which means that in Mass. they can't even
combine two residential numbers at the same address.  So I stick with
Sprint.

MCI has a "friends and family" discount plan which gives you an extra
10% off calls to a set of numbers you identify if they all use MCI.
If there are people you call frequently who already use MCI or
wouldn't mind switching, this may be a good deal.  (Be sure they're
willing, or MCI's telemarketers will pester them forever.)

One reason that rates are so close is that in many cases their margins
are razor thin.  The late night long distance rates for all the
carriers are in the vicinity of .105 to .12 per minute, with the
access charges paid to the local telcos taking up about .09 of that.
At that price, there isn't a lot of wiggle room.


Regards,

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

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

From: John Eaton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alice's Restaurant (was Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers)
Date: 19 Aug 91 15:29:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA


> When the post office
> clerk reviews the application, if the question "will this box be
> used to solicit the public?" is answered in the negative, the reply
> you will receive is that postal records indicate the box is for
> personal use, and therefore the records are not available under the
> Freedom of Information Act.  Good try though! Got any other ideas?

Sure. Place an ad in a local paper offering something for sale and
list the PO Box number as the contact address. Show that paper to the
clerk and they will be happy to give you the physical address.

The fact that Radio Shack does not have an official policy to give out
customers names is meaningless. NASA did not have an official policy
of launching exploding space shuttles but created a system that
allowed it to occur. They should realize that the system is being
abused and correct it.


John Eaton  !hp-vcd!johne


[Moderator's Note: But your technique is fraudulent to say the least,
and would eventually get traced back to you. Looking for a conviction
for mail fraud, are you?   PAT]

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

From: ethan miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Massive Privacy Invasion
Organization: utter chaos
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 22:20:51 GMT


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

> Now, I also have it on good authority that TGC demands MONEY (that's
> right, filthy MONEY!) to keep your name off the list.  Let's add
> economic oppressors to that list of condemnations above!

Why are phone companies allowed to charge for unlisted and
non-published numbers?  In particular, Pacific Bell doesn't charge me
for keeping my modem line unlisted.  The reason?  There's already a
listed number at my address.  Anyone know the rationale behind this?


ethan miller--cs grad student
[e-mail]     #include <std/disclaimer.h>

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

Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 10:16:10 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Monitoring Soviet Communications


So, this notice comes just a day or two before the apparent deposing
of Gorbachev.  It was a breaking story on KYW news- radio between 11
PM and midnight, Eastern Daylight Time, on Sunday 19 August.

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

Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 17:55:02 CDT
From: "Dave Mausner, X4450" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: IBT Call Detail Charges


> [Moderator's Note: IBT provides call detail on request at no
> charge for a 'reasonable' number of requests if desired. When you get
> ESS you can have it also. Maybe once every six months I ask for my
> call detail.  PAT]

IBT charges $3 per month for regular call detailing for private lines.
The reports arrive two months after each billing period closes.


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


[Moderator's Note: But they will give you a couple month's worth for
free if you call with questions about the correctness of their
billing.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Aug 19 13:21:47 EDT 1991
Subject: FAX Machine Message

I recently misdialed a number and received a fax machine.  What was
interesting is that the owner of the fax machine had an announcement
that said something like "You have dialed a fax machine.  If you are
sending a fax, press your start button now.  Otherwise, check your
number and call again".  I called it back again, but from my fax
machine that sends the tones while it calls, and it didn't play the
message.  Apparently the device listens for the tones and plays the
message if it doesn't get the tone.

Has anyone heard of this device?  Or is it part of the fax machine.


Tom Lowe   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 07:36:18 PDT
From: Don Culanag <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Management Information


I have been given the task of locating any available or presently
installed call management database tracking and reporting systems.  We
are an aerospace manufacturing company with about 10,000 users. We
support UNIX/EKS/CRAY mainframes. Our staff is responsible for
handling both hardware and software questions on these platforms. We
would like to see a system which is X-based or SunView graphic user
interfaces accessible from a variety of terminals and workstations.
Thanks in advance for any help.

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

From: Dan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Transport Protocols for Operating Environment platforms
Organization: R+D Cowboys -- HITLab, Seattle
Date: 19 Aug 91 04:41:04


I'd like some feed-back from those knowledgeable and experienced in
network protocol design and implementations, hence the broad list of
cross-postings.

For Tele-presence/Operating Environment platforms, we need a rugged
transport protocol like in the IP suite since we don't know all of the
network types we'll be running on.  That is, we would like one
transport protocol for LANs and WANs at a wide range of speeds and
signal-to-noise ratios.

Here's what I had in mind.  A lot of thought went into the IP suite
and it was changed as necessary -- a sort of maturation.  That seems
to be a good place to start, considering my lab is not a networking
research lab.  (However, I would like to deeply persue such research
in grad school or industry in about a year...)

My idea -- probably not new:

The protocol at the transport level is a cross between datagrams and
connection-oriented communications models.

It's datagrams with configurable options:
 - toggle acknowledgements on/off
   and when on, specify the ACK- count size for sequencing;
 - variable time-outs lengths defaulting to the `slow-start' technique;
 - variable retransmission attempt counts.

Thus, straight datagrams and full connection-oriented models will be
supported with the same protocol.  Has this been attempted before?

Initial implementations will be built on top of UDP/IP for its existing
header fields.

The application layer protocols are simply messages, but these
messages may be larger than one packet, of course.

Yes, an everything protocol might be nice but could be a nightmare, but
while I'm at it:

Synchronization may become a necessary feature for the applications, so
working NTP into the picture would be nice.


I'm just looking for some quick feedback.  (follow-up to comp.protocols.misc)

Thanks.

Dan P.

ps - this would be interesting to specify in Estelle and to simulate with
GROPE.  Gee, I'm not doing too much this week...  :)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #649
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00398;
          21 Aug 91 2:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13047;
          21 Aug 91 1:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29965;
          21 Aug 91 0:26 CDT
Date:     Tue, 20 Aug 91 23:41:47 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #650
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 20 Aug 91 23:41:28 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 650

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AppleLink in Space [Info-Mac via Tom Coradeschi]
    Calling Card Access Numbers [Bill Huttig]
    NY Tel Ringmate Problems [Michael Brown]
    AT&T Merlin 820 KSU For Sale [Wayne D. Correia]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 10:14:36 EDT
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: AppleLink in Space
Organization:  Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ


Forwarded from Info-Mac...

                tom coradeschi    <+>    [e-mail]

  Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 14:19:28 +0000
  From: [e-mail]
  Subject: AppleLink in Space

[Yes, yes, not counting packet radio.]

The very first electronic mail message from space was sent by the crew
of the space shuttle mission STS-43 last Friday, August 9, using a
Macintosh Portable and specially configured AppleLink software:

   Hello Earth !  Greetings from the STS-43 Crew.  This is the first
Applelink From space.  Having a __GREAT__ time, wish you were here,...
send cryo, and RCS!

Have a nice day...... Hasta la vista, baby,... we'll be back!

editor's note:
    cryo = cryogenics (meaning, send more fuel for life support--air, etc.)
    RCS = Reaction Control System (meaning, send more fuel for
    maneuvering/control) In other words, they wanted to stay up there!

                               ---------

The primary mission of STS-43 was to deploy a fourth TDRS satellite
(Tracking and Data Relay Satellite).  The shuttle was launched at
11:02 AM EST on Friday August 2, and landed at about 8:30 AM EST on
Sunday August 11.

The shuttle carried a Macintosh Portable on board.  It was used for
four primary purposes:

1) Testing four cursor control devices:
    a) the Mac Portable`s built-in trackball
    b) a modified aircraft control stick fitted with a thumb ball at top
    c) a 2-inch trackball
    d) an optical mouse

2) Connecting to AppleLink and sending mail and disk files

3) Recording LBNP (lower body negative pressure) medical results along
with other mission notes and provided procedures for doing medical
experiments.

4) Shuttle flight path tracking using an application called MacSpOC
(Shuttle Portable Computer).  MacSpOC presents a real-time display of
the shuttle`s orbital position against a world map along with with day
and night cycles, tracking stations, and emergency reentry
information.

In addition, the Macintosh acted as an alarm clock (in tandem with the
WristMac") alerting the crew when it is time to do certain experiments,
etc.


o THE CREW:
 ----------
John Blaha    (commander)
Mike Baker    (pilot)
Shannon Lucid (mission specialist)
G. David Low  (mission specialist)
Jim Adamson   (mission specialist)


o THE MAC IN SPACE TEAM:
 -----------------------
NASA
    Debra Muratore -- Project Manager
    Pat Wilson -- Hardware flight qualification guy (lead)
    Mark Gersh -- NASA headquarters project monitor
Apple Computer, Inc.
    Byron Han -- lead programmer, data forwarder application
                 general technical support, all-around great guy
    James Beninghaus -- programmer, data forwarder application
                 general technical support, got to watch the launch live
    Michael Elliot Silver -- AppleLink resource management,
                 technical support, CCL support, host support,
                 security operations, plethora of prolific prose
    Claire Marguerite Silver -- Brilliant Security Magic
    Bruce Gee -- resource management, technical support
    Dan Eakin -- JSC (Johnson Space Center) federal systems sales
Eagle Technical Services
    Shari Matzner -- Programmer (LBNP and crewnotes)
McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company
    Nancy Leonard -- Programmer (wristmac/smart alarm integration)
Dan Adamo -- Programmer (MacSpOC)
Rockwell
    Mark Dean -- Advisor (electronic flight data file)
Lockheed
    Dr. Kritina Holden -- cursor control device experiment
    Dr. Mihriban Whitmore  -- cursor control device experiment
    Robert Wilmington -- cursor control device experiment
    Benjamin Beberness -- cursor control device experiment
    Kit Chow -- Hardware flight qualification guy

Many, many people pulled together to make this project happen.  We
learned as much from our failures as we did from our successes.  It
has provided us with much information which is crucial to future
missions, and to space station Freedom.  I greatly look forward to
working with this outstanding team again.

Michael Elliot Silver

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Card Access Numbers
Date: 20 Aug 91 01:48:16 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I am putting together a calling card access list. I have done FL and
will be doing the MCI/US Sprint/AT&T/Allnet/ATC numbers for overseas
countries soon.

Please send me any additional list information that you might have.

031 - ATC/Telus/Teltec
      can use numbers indicated 628 (ATC/Telus integrated the North American
          Telephone numbers into the Teltec numbers)
      800 service and local dialup same card number

222 - MCI

333 - US Sprint

444 - Allnet

488 - MetroMedia/ITT

628 - ATC/Telus/NAT
      can use numbers indicated 031

789 - ATC/MicroTel/Transcall America
      800 service and local dialup different cards
          East/West Cost Florida

United States
   Nation Wide (031) ATC/Telus ................. 800 330-9090
               (222) MCI ........................... 950-1022
               (222) MCI ....................... 800 950-1022
               (333) US Sprint ................. 800 877-8000
               (444) Allnet .................... 800 783-1444
               (789) ATC/MicroTel .............. 800 741-2255
               (862) ATC/SouthTel .............. 800 950-1862

   Florida
      State Wide
                (031) ATC/Telus .................... 950-1031
                (628) ATC/North American Telephone . [phone]
                (628) ATC/North American Telephone [phone]
                (789) ATC/MicroTel ................. 950-0789
                (789) ATC/MicroTel ............... 1 950-0789
                (862) ATC/SouthTel ................. 950-1862

      Bartow <813>
                (628) .............................. 665-5538
      Boca Raton
                (031) .............................. 395-2710
                (789) .............................. 392-2866
      Bradenton {see also Sarasota}
                (031) .............................. 747-5592
      Brooksville <904>
                (628) .............................. 799-8989
      Broward County
                (031) .............................. 524-7400
      Clearwater <813> {see also Pinellas County}
                (031) .............................. 441-9677
                (628) .............................. 461-1064
                (789) .............................. 799-4082
      Cocoa {see also Melbourne}
                (031) .............................. 639-3000
                (789) .............................. 639-0950
      Dade County {see also Miami}
                (031) .............................. 624-7878
      Daytona
                (628) .............................. 252-0105
                (031) .............................. 252-1730
      Daytona Beach
                (789) .............................. 253-0294
      East Lakeland <813>
                (628) .............................. 665-5538
      Ft. Lauderdale {see also Broward County}
                (789) .............................. 467-6720
      Ft. Myers
                (789) ............................ 1 950-0789
      Ft. Pierce
                (031) .............................. 466-1660
                (789) .............................. 464-3788
      Gainesville <904>
                (031) .............................. 378-0419
                (628) .............................. 378-2255
      Hudson <813>
                (628) .............................. 845-0051
      Jacksonville
                (031) .............................. 354-1039
                (628) .............................. 356-5800
                (789) .............................. 358-7119
      Kissimmee
                (031) .............................. 847-9805
      Lakeland <813>
                (031) .............................. 682-8189
                (628) .............................. 688-1075
                (789) .............................. 666-2195
      Lake Wales <813>
                (628) .............................. 696-1350
      Melbourne <see also Cocoa>
                (031) .............................. 950-1862
                (031) .............................. 984-0025
                (789) .............................. 768-0101
      Miami <305>
                (031) .............................. 381-8410
      New Pt. Richey <813>
                (628) .............................. 845-0051
                (789) .............................. 845-7676
                (789) .............................. 847-1809
      Orlando
                (031) .............................. 843-6707
                (628) .............................. 839-1400
                (789) .............................. 422-2763
      Palm Beach County
                (031) .............................. 833-7702
      Panama City
                (031) .............................. 265-0405
      Pensacola
                (031) .............................. 477-4005
      Pinellas County {see also Clearwater}
                (031) .............................. 441-9677
                (031) .............................. 461-1064
      Plant City {see Lakeland}
      Sanford
                (031) .............................. 740-7791
      Sarasota {see also Bradenton}
                (789) .............................. 951-6086
                (789) .............................. 377-2986
      St. Augustine <904>
                (031) .............................. 824-0679
                (628) .............................. 797-2490
                (789) .............................. 829-2540
      St. Petersburgh <813>
           {see also Pinellas County & Clearwater}
                (628) .............................. 823-1181
      Stuart
                (031) .............................. 288-0300
                (789) .............................. 286-6300
      Talahassee <904>
                (031) .............................. 681-9325
                (789) .............................. 681-6884
      Tampa
                (031) .............................. 222-0654
                (628) .............................. 229-0096
                (789) .............................. 237-5555
      Tarpan Springs <813>
           {see Pinellas County & Clearwater}
      Venice <813>
                (628) .............................. 493-8005
      Vero Beach
                (031) .............................. 778-1440
                (789) .............................. 569-8400
      West Palm Beach
                (789) .............................. 832-1133
      Winter Haven <813>
                (628) .............................. 293-1825
      Winter Park <407>
                (031) .............................. 843-6707
      Zephyrhills <813>
                (628) .............................. 973-0280

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

Subject: NY Tel Ringmate Problems
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 12:44:49 EDT
From: Michael Brown <[e-mail]>


I had Ringmate service installed on one of my lines (718-968-XXXX)
when it first became available. I was given two additional numbers
both 718-251-XXXX.  No problem for the first few months, but I started
noticing collect and third party long distance calls billed to one of
the Ringmate numbers. I had the charges removed, after explaining to
NY Tel's billing center that this was a Ringmate number, and that I
would never call anyone in that particular area (the calls were billed
to rural North Carolina), that I don't use the LD company that the
calls were billed by, that I most certainly would not accept any
collect calls from persons unknown to me, and finally, that I was out
of town on several of the days in question and that no one had access
to the line to my knowledge.

The charges were removed, cheerfully the first time, and somewhat
begrudgingly the next time. By the third bill that these charges were
showing up on, I began to suspect fraud. I decided to dial the
Ringmate number in question, to see what would happen. Lo and behold,
my answering machine did not pick up, but a person unknown to me did!
I called NY Tel, and informed them that they had assigned my Ringmate
number to another customer. This was greeted with disbelief, but a few
days later I received a phone call confirming this, and with a weak
apology an offer of another Ringmate number. I accepted, and wrote the
episode off.

The next month, I started to continuously receive calls asking for a
person unknown to me. A few days later I got a call from someone
asking if this number was indeed 251-XXXX. I said, "Yes it is, but
it's a Ringmate number".  NY Tel had goofed again, and assigned the
other Ringmate number to a new subscriber. Fortunately, the gentlemen
in question worked for NY Tel, and we both reported the problem. He
received a new number, and I was "allowed" to keep the number in
question. I called NY Tel to complain, and I received a weak
explanation that the problem was known and that it was being worked
on.

Yet another bill with bogus LD charges showed up again the next month
(June '91). At this point, I was tired of spending two hours on the
phone with the various business and repair offices of NY Tel every
time my phone bill came in, and I called the "President's Hotline". I
complained very loudly to the flak-catcher, inquiring why, if I had
brought this problem to their attention so long ago, hadn't they done
something about it? The flak-catcher said that nothing could be done
about the problem, but that they would "monitor" my account every
month to make sure that this problem didn't have to concern me. I
found this to be an entirely unsatisfactory answer and filed a
complaint with the New York State Public Service Commission.

Amazingly, the PSC got results within hours. I received a call from NY
Tel that was extremely apologetic. The -critter explained that the
root of the problem was that Ringmate numbers show up as unused
numbers in NY Tel's database, and that there is no way that they can
be flagged as being used by Ringmate (Sarcasm on: YEAH, RIGHT. Sarcasm
off.) The -critter said that she would "personally monitor" my account
every month and make sure that this problem did not occur again. Sure
enough, the July bill was right on the money -- no problems.

Then again, I was away for two weeks during July. I just got the
August bill and there are more bogus calls listed, during the two
weeks that I was away!

I guess it's back to the Public Service Commission.


Michael Brown   [e-mail] or uunet!murphy!jpradley!vtssys!mike
VTS Systems            718-968-1971
871 East 55th Street   Brooklyn, NY 11234


[Moderator's Note: It is rather incredible the teleco has no way to
show these numbers assigned to someone else. I've had the same service
from IBT for many months now and it works fine. They even fixed all my
numbers to automatically block collect and third number calls at my
request.  PAT]

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

From: "wayne d. correia" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Merlin 820 KSU For Sale
Date: 20 Aug 91 09:10:40 GMT
Organization: apple computer, inc. - mac system s/w


Merlin 820 KSU, fully loaded (8 lines, 20 stations) including "Feature
Package 2/v1".

Note -- this is KSU only -- no phones. This was taken out of service
and replaced with a larger Merlin KSU.

$500 o.b.o + 1/2 shipping costs (if any.)


Replies to [e-mail]

Thanks!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #650
******************************