Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss701-750

Internet Message Format | 1991-09-20 | 861KB

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21290;
          5 Sep 91 2:28 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22869;
          5 Sep 91 1:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29484;
          4 Sep 91 23:55 CDT
Date:     Wed, 4 Sep 91 23:35:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #701
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 4 Sep 91 23:35:23 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 701

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: 2647 New Messages! [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? [Andy Sherman]
    Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? [Arthur S. Kamlet]
    Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? [David B. Whiteman]
    Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? [Harold G. Peach, Jr.]
    Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? [Kevin Kadow]
    Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [Justin Leavens]
    Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Phone Rates Across the USA [Andy Brager]
    Re: Fake 'Extension' Numbers [Steve Forrette]
    900 Number Joke [Steve W.York]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 23:21:05 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: 2647 New Messages!


Today in the telecom mail queue I received 2647 (yes, *two thousand,
six hundred forty-seven*) 'new messages', all from 'olemiss.edu' which
somehow got into a loop with my autoreply versus its mail daemon. The
mail here got trashed something awful in the process of getting rid of
all that stuff.

What you see in this issue (plus the earlier issue Wednesday night)
cleans out my queue. I know for a fact maybe a dozen messages got
accidentally dumped out with the core, including 'conversation with a
long distance operator', and others.

If you got a reciept from me prior to about 11:00 PM Wednesday night
and your article was not printed Wednesday night (or you otherwise did
not get a rejection note from me) please resubmit it and accept my
apologies.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets?
Date: 4 Sep 91 16:23:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator responded
to [e-mail] (Gordon D Woods):

> [Moderator's Note: The Morris County NJ prosecutor needs to litigate
> this with a good defense attorney who will slow him down a little. We
> do not make legal-to-own things illegal in the USA because they 'can
> be used' for some illegal activity. After all, cigarette lighters 'can
> be used' to burn down people's houses, and automobiles 'can be used'
> to make the commission of many crimes more feasable for the person who
> needs to get away afterward. I think Morris County would lose on
> appeal, if it got that far.  PAT]

Several states have laws that make it a crime to sell or possess drug
paraphernalia.  Some seemingly innocuous objects, like cigarette
papers, can wind up in this category, just because they may be used in
the commission of the crime of rolling a joint.

A friend of mine whose husband is an electronics type got intensively
searched at customs because her husband threw some alligator clips
into an otherwise pristine ash tray.  ("Trust me, that's *NOT* a roach
clip.  I'm just a bit-brain.")


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: Wed,  4 Sep 91 12:55:59 EDT
From: Arthur S Kamlet <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio


In article <[e-mail]> cbmvax!.UUCP!robert@uunet.
uu.net (Robert L. Oliver) writes:

>> We do not make legal-to-own things illegal in the USA because they 'can
>> be used' for some illegal activity. After all, cigarette lighters 'can
>> be used' to burn down people's houses, and automobiles 'can be used'
>> to make the commission of many crimes more feasable for the person who
>> needs to get away afterward. I think Morris County would lose on
>> appeal, if it got that far.  PAT]

> I don't believe this is a true statement.  I believe it is illegal to
> own locksmithing (lockpicking) items without being a licensed
> locksmith, at least in Pennsylvania.  And there's the constant debate
> about making the possession of various guns illegal.  It's already
> illegal to own fully automatic weapons, isn't it?  And there are
> people that want to make all guns illegal.  Get the right people in
> place/convinced, and you have a law.  Whether it's constitutional or
> not is another question.  So then it's amendment time!

In fact courts have held that, under the right (or wrong)
circumstances, many common objects can be burglar tools: screwdrivers,
pliers, crowbars, paper clips, ...

The question of whether something is or is not a burglar tool is a
fact to be determined by a court or jury, and so depends on the
circumstances.

Juries can and have decided that someone caught at a door with a
crowbar or screwdriver inserted in the door in a way which would force
it open, is in posession of burglar tools.

Or even if they could be used as burglar tools, as when a person is
found inside a store at night with crowbar or other ordinary tools in
his possesion, even if nothing has yet been broken into.

How about dangerous weapons?  Juries have agreed that, under the right
circumstances, ordinary tools, flashlights, tree limbs, baseball bats,
and other otherwise innocent onjects are indeed dangerous weapons.

The circumstances are part of the facts which a jury considers in
order to determine if otherwise ordinary objects are weapons or
burglar tools.  If there's no reasonable doubt by the jury that the
crowbar or screwdriver or butt set were, under the circumstances,
criminal tools, they can and should decide that they are.

So I would expect that a butt set carried by a telco maintenance
person on the job, or coming to or going from the job, would be tools
of the trade, but the same butt set carried by someone not ordinarily
needing it for business, in addition to other evidence that this
person has been making illegal phone calls which a butt set would be
useful for, could be presented as evidence which a jury could then
consider.

Disclaimer:  I'm not a lawyer and of course these are just
my personal opinions,

Art Kamlet  [e-mail]  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus


[Moderator's Note: This has all been very fascinating, but really it
needs to be moved to misc.legal after one last comment, below.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David B. Whiteman)
Subject: Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets?
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1991 01:35:38 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David B.
Whiteman) writes:

> While in a shopping center in West Hills, a suburb of Los Angeles, I
> found a store selling telephones and other communication equipment.
> They had three butt sets on display and for sale.

I don't know whether it is a coincidence, but that phone store I
refered to is no longer in the shopping center, and there is a
Marshal's eviction notice, and an IRS seizure notice on the door.


[Moderator's Note: So the guy owed on taxes (sales and payroll taxes
probably), and more than likely he stiffed the landlord in the
process. But I doubt it had anything to do with the butt sets.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors?
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 12:14:02 EDT


Clay Jackson's [former] situation with a McCaw cell site and his
conversation with a McCaw attorney has brought to mind a series of
circumstances that I hadn't otherwise previously imagined.  What if
you are getting UNWANTED cellular reception on a "home appliance" like
a cordless phone or baby monitor?  Legally, one IS breaking the
provision in the ECPA about listening to or receiving cellular calls!
It all comes down to a matter of intent.  Then there are the
unmentionable methods by which a person with a cellular phone and some
knowledge of how they work can do the same thing and no one would be
the wiser.  After all, a cellular phone _is_ intended for the
reception cellular transmissions.

Just another stupid, bad law, IMHO that tries to protect stupid people
from their own stupidity.  People who really need security should
encrypt, use a landline, or meet face-to-face.


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

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

From: Peach <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors?
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1991 14:15:45 GMT


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

> Pactel Cellular is proposing to construct a cellular tower (150-200
> feet tall) on top of a hill adjacent to our subdivision.  It would be
> within 300-500 feet of some of the homes.  Since I'm the president of
> the homeowners association, several residents are looking to me for
> guidance on what, if anything, we should do about it.

A very good article about this subject appeared in {QST}, the journal
of the American Radio Relay League about two years ago.  It was
written by an M.D. in layman's terms, is short and objective.  Anyone
interested should check:

Shulman, I. A. (October, 1989). Is amateur radio hazardous to our health?
     QST, 73/10, pp. 31-33, 38.


Harold G. Peach, Jr.  N4FLZ ><> [phone]  [e-mail]

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

From: Kevin Kadow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors?
Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 17:35:45 GMT


A friend of mine lives next to a cellular tower (it`s about ten0 feet
from the side off his building). The only trouble he`s had with it was
when it was hit by lightning.

ALL the devices which where even remotely connected to his phone lines
were zapped ... answering machine, computer, cordless base unit, etc.


[e-mail]                           kadokev@iitvax (bitnet)
                         My Employer Disagrees.

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

From: Justin Leavens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers
Date: 4 Sep 91 17:13:53 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


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

> Regarding running out of phone numbers, is there any reason to
> assign multiple numbers to multiple lines that go to the same place
> just to get "rotary" or "hunting" or whatever it's called when my
> second line rings when the first line is busy?  Seems like a lot of
> numbers could be freed up by assigning these numbers that are rarely
> called.

Our phone system here at USC works like this: We have a department
phone number which has a certain number of "occurences" on the phone
(a AT&T ISDN 7505).  So there can be as many lines as we need with
just one number used.  We've also got our own 5ESS switch for our
campus, so maybe that makes a difference. It's a nice step up from the
Pac*Bell Centrex service we used to use. Now if only they'd put the
voicemail in ...


Justin T. Leavens
University of Southern California     :Mail to: [e-mail]
Student Health and Counseling Services:         [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 02:54:13 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)


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

> [Moderator's Note: Perhaps what you are suggesting is telco should
> make more use of circuits without dialable numbers assigned to them.
> We have quite a few of those in Chicago. A business has X incoming
> lines, but only one actual number. It is impossible to dial direct
> into any of the back lines.

About five years ago, I worked for a company in Oakland which had
dedicated Pacific Bell WATS lines that were used only to place
intra-LATA toll calls.  They were outgoing only.  If you called the
ANI readback number, you got a seven digit number, with the first
digit being a "1"!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 21:53:53 -0400
From: Andy Brager <decwrl!uunet.UU.NET!wndrsvr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Rates Across the USA


In article <[e-mail]> rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert
L. McMillin) writes:

> Dave Niebuhr <[e-mail]> requests info on how basic phone
> bills stack up across the country.  Things aren't that different in
> Los Angeles.  I get GTE service, as do most people near the beach, San
> Pedro and the harbor area being a notable exception.

Here's my stats:

I'm also in Torrance, though my prefix is Redondo Beach.  For some
reason, I still get the Torrance City tax.

Monthly service                                   $ 9.75
Inside wire maintenance contract                  $  .95
Interstate subscriber line charge                 $ 3.50
GTE communications devices fund for the deaf      $  .45
Funding to support the PUC                        $  .16
Universal lifeline telephone surcharge            $ 4.14
Temporary surcharge as allowed by the PUC         $ 3.43
FET                                               $ 4.96
911 tax                                           $ 1.12
Torrance City Tax                                 $10.75
Frequent Caller/Circle Calling Monthly Rate       $ 4.75

I do not have any special features other than "community/circle calling."


Andy

If I bounce, please send a copy of the *whole* message including
the headers, to [e-mail].  Thank you.

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

Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 03:32:32 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fake 'Extension' Numbers
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)


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

> [Moderator's Note: The use of 'department numbers' has long been a
> very good way to detirmine *where* someone saw your ad, or on what
> radio station they listened to your message.   PAT]

But as with all things, some take this too seriously.  Once I had the
need to call Prodigy customer service (to cancel), and did not have
the customer service number handy, and the software was already gone
from my machine.  So I called 800 Directory, and got the number.
Here's the approximate dialog:


Prodigy:  "Thank you for calling Prodigy.  What extension number are you trying
       to reach?"
Me:      "I don't know.  I guess I need Customer Service."
Prodigy:  "Sir, I cannot process your call without the extension number."
Me:      "I got the number from Directory Assistance."
Prodigy:  "I need to have an extension number."
Me:       "But I don't have one!  Do you know how Directory Assistance works?
       They only give you the phone number, not the extension."
Prodigy:  "Uh, hold on."

He put me on hold, apparently got permission from someone to do the
unthinkable -- take a call without an extension number!  He had me
explain exactly what I wanted to do, then knew right away where to
direct the call, so apparently the only thing he lacked at first was
the authority!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Sigh ... my favorite line with ignoramuses like
that is to demand, "put someone on the phone who has been trained to
answer calls and handle customer inquiries"; and when the supervisor
comes on I always ask why they would leave someone 'like that' on the
phone answering calls. Lesson from yesterday repeated today: learn to
take control of phone conversations from the beginning. Your time is
valuable and there is no reason you should have to repeat yourself
two, three or more times to people in the middle.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 900 Number Joke
Date: Tue,  3 Sep 91 23:32:41 PDT


PAT,

    I stumbled on this joke when going through a few years of
accumulated garbage near the computer.  It seems apropos to recent
discussion.

    I believe it is stolen from a comedian named Tamayo Otsuki who
used it on an episode of Comic Strip Live on the Fox network.

"I was horny, so I called a 900 number.  I talked fifteen minutes and
the charged me eighty two dollars.  When I call Japon, I talk fifteen
minutes and they charge me seventeen dollars.  Where do these people

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #701
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08096;
          5 Sep 91 11:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11772;
          5 Sep 91 9:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28669;
          5 Sep 91 8:06 CDT
Date:     Thu, 5 Sep 91 8:00:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #702
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 5 Sep 91 08:00:29 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 702

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Comments From a Provider [John Higdon]
    CO Broadcasting [Jeff Sicherman]
    Looking For a Way to Internet From Tacoma, WA [David Watola]
    Any SL-100 or DMS-100 CO People Out There? [Steve Chafe]
    International Toll-Free Numbers? [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: 510 Split: "Need Cure For Phone Sag?" [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1991 14:42:06 PDT
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Comments From a Provider


The following is an e-mail that fell into my hands some time ago. I
have been trying all this time to get publication clearance from the
author and have finally succeeded. While it is not exactly timely, it
is the only response to the Hollings and Pac*Bell thread from a real
live service bureau owner. If there is a way to fit it into
publication, please feel free to do so.

The following is from Marc O'krent <[e-mail]>

On Jun 9 at 1:14, [e-mail] (Charlie
Mingo) writes:

> It must be remembered that antitrust law generally (and the Bell
> divestiture in particular) was designed to benefit *consumers* not
> competitors.  "Predatory pricing," for example, is defined as selling
> a product *below the cost of production* for the purpose of eventually
> monopolizing a market. Mr. Higdon provides no evidence that Pac*Bell
> has priced its voicemail service below the cost of providing it; on

I'll help John out here with a small insight.  I was going to stay out
of this, but after reading your reply, I couldn't resist. Your reply
reminds me of a class on anti-trust, but ignores the reality of the
market place and Pac*Bell's positioning.

As I service bureau provider, I can shed some light here.
Specifically on the issue above, many of us feel that Pac*Bell *IS*
providing the service below cost, and offer the following as evidence:

Pac*Bell locates their Voice Mail equipment at one location in each
LATA (they used to have a machine in each office, but that was not
cost effective, even for them-what with reductions of CO manpower,
etc.).  They then run FX Voice circuits from each CO where they want
to offer service back to their "Voice Mail Point-Of-Presence", if you
will.  The same is true with their SMDI links which provide the MWI
(AKA "stutter dial tone" and various typs of call forwarding
connections): they remote these from the CO's where they want to offer
service back to their Voice Mail POP.

Now let's take LATA 5 for example.  The CEI rules require Pac*Bell to
pay the same rates for services as everyone else, me for example.  FX
DID trunks from non-continguous CO's cost $580.00 each to install +
mileage (at something like $1.60/quarter mile).  The monthly service
charges are also mileage based and can reach into the hundreds of
dollars per month *each* depending on distance. Let's say that
Pac*Bell's Voice Mail POP is in the Gardena Tandem (doesn't really
matter where it is since no point is equidistant from all points in
the LATA, especially LATA's 1 & 5).

If Pac*Bell is truly paying what they are required by law, it is
impossible, given the number of trunks and SMDI connections required
in the LATA, to assert that the cost of providing Voice Mail service
for subscribers in Agoura ( a point in the LATA very far form the VM
POP) is the same as the cost of providing the service from Torrance (a
point in the LATA very near the VM POP).

We've done the math here and we could never provide the same service
at the same cost if we had to pay for FX connections even small
distances away.  But this is exactly what Pac*Bell is doing: everybody
pays the same rate.  Yet, we know that Pac*Bell's cost of providing
the service is not equal with respect to all subscribers.

This is a perfect example of what John was saying.  Because Pac*Bell
has the revenue base of the local subscribers, they can afford to lose
money on much of their Voice Mail subscribers just to gobble up market
share and wipe out smaller providers like us.  Because of their
revenue base, they can withstand the hugh losses incurred by their
deployment of Voice Mail while they hope that they get enough
subscribers in each area to cover their costs.  And if they don't,
well who suffers but the rate payers?

This is preditory because Pac*Bell is selling the service *below their
cost* in many areas.  This is the standard IBM product introduction
philosophy used to eliminate or discourage competition: take a new
product with which you have 0% share and price it as if you had 50%
share even though you don't have the economies of scale yet to be
pricing at that level.  If you can withstand the losses eventuall you
*will* have 50% share and everything will be in line again.

Further, Pac*Bell engages in the illegal act of using rate payer
dollars to subsidize their Voice Mail operations with giving private
providers the same benefit.  For their Voice Mail product, you can
call 611 for help.  People working at repair work for the *regulated
subsidiary* of Pac*Bell.  Their salaries and benefits are paid by the
rate payers.  Yet the Voice Mail product is an unregulated product.
In addition, the people who maintain the Voice Mail system are part of
the *regulated* company.

By not having to bear the true burden of these repair and maintainence
people as a direct cost of running their Voice Mail company, Pac*Bell
unfairly takes advantage of their monopoly position.

If Pac*Bell's Voice Mail company is to be allowed to benefit from rate
payer dollars, who have NO SAY in how their dollars are used, then ALL
VOICE MAIL SERVICE BURREAUS SHOULD RECEIVE THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE
OF RATE PAYER DOLLARS TO PAY FOR THE SAME SERVICES THAT BENEFIT
PACIFIC.

Failing that, Pacific should be required to have a *separate* repair
bureau (not 611) and *separate* maintainence people.  (This is similar
to the AmVox case challenging the use of the 811 number for marketing
Voice Mail.  I note that Pacific has opted to use an 800 number now
instead of offering all their copetitors an 811 number).

> the contrary, he himself shows that Pac*Bell's size and credit rating
> give it easier access to capital, which lowers its cost of providing
> the service. This is a natural advantage which large, established
> companies have over smaller ones; pricing one's goods to reflect one's
> lower cost structure is neither anticompetative nor "unfair."

This, of course, is absurd.  They have no "natural advantage" other
than the misuse of rate payer dollars to subsidise their costs of
providing uniform Voice Mail service throughout the LATA as mentioned
above.  If they are following CEI (which is a whole other matter that
ought to be looked into), they have no "lower costs."

You confuse this with other industries where the true competitive
model thrives: this market has an entrant that is by definition a
monopoly and can exert monopoly economic power.  Independent providers
have been acting like a true competitive market for years, but when
you though a monopoly into the pool, fair competition ends.

> Mr. Higdon also writes that "[w]hen the field has been thinned out
> sufficiently, then the price can be whatever [Pac*Bell] wants." It
> should be clear that Pac*Bell cannot raise the price of voicemail in
> the future above what independent providers currently charge, without
> allowing the competition to reestablish itself.  Given this
> limitation, any such "predatory pricing" strategy would be decidedly
> unprofitable.

If there are no independent providers with significant enough market
share left, then their strategy works perfectly.  Similiarly, if there
are few providers left then their would be a hugh barrier to entry: no
investor nor any bank would want to invest in "reestablishing" an
independent provider because of Pacific's behavior.

> Likewise, his argument that Pac*Bell should be prevented from
> offering voicemail, because it alone is in a technical position to
> provide special services (such as "stutter" dialtone and free call
> forwarding), is similarly flawed. Consumers would not be better off by
> making these desirable features unavailable merely to protect
> inefficient competition. (Of course, if it is possible to extend these
> feature to competitors' services, Pac*Bell should be required to.)
> The key concept here should be service to consumers, and not
> "fairness" to competitors.

Actually, I almost agree with you here.  Consumers should have these
services available to them.  Pac*Bell should not be allowed to provide
them below cost, however.  Pac*Bell would be acting totally
differently if they had to charge what it really costs them to run
SMDI links all over the LATA.  My guess is they would do what SW Bell
did: provide one line that allows "inter-machine" SMDI signaling.
That service truly benefits the consumer because it allows the
consumer to have *MORE than ONE* choice for providers who can give
them stutter dial tone, for example.

Right now, in CA, there is only ONE provider who can (and is ) provide
stutter dial tone to all subscribers: GUESS WHO?  And it's not because
their "cost" to provide it is lower than mine.  It's because they
don't have to provide their service based on their cost.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 01:07:12 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: CO Broadcasting
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  On the news last night there was a story about one of the Los
Anageles County municipalities creating an alert network for the city
using phones.  The was very little detail but I imagine it will use
autodialers to call the residents. It's a small, mostly industrial
town - i.e. few residents for its area so this may be practical on
that scale.

  It started me wondering about the phone system as a whole and the
probable impracticality of doing this in a larger, densely populated
area. The number of calls and the time required would be a major
problem.  This arises, however, because the phone network is used as a
point-to-point communication medium. Is it (theoretically) possible,
with software changes for central office switching equipment, to
operate in a broadcast mode where several numbers are dialed at once,
in parallel, connected to a single caller if answered, and the same
message played in parallel.

  Of course such a feature would have to be restricted to authorized
govt agencies (don't want telesleaze getting ahold of this) and use
only part of a switches capacity (don't want to shutdown/take over the
network) but is there a technical reason, inherent to the network,
that it wouldn't be possible ?

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

From: David Watola <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For a Way to Internet From Tacoma, WA
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 23:51:17 GMT-5632:48


Hi all,

I am temporarily in Tacoma (Parkland) Washington for the next few
months and desperately need a way to get internet access with a local
dialup. Phone calls to Seattle or Olympia are going to break me.  Can
anyone help?  It doesn't have to be free ... I need a way to internet,
to the UW Micom switch, or the WSU switch.  Note that Seattle numbers
for the UW or WSU switch are not any more helpful than what I have
now.  Please send email to:

[e-mail]      or
[e-mail]

Thanks much!!!

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

From: Steve Chafe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Any SL-100 or DMS-100 CO pPople Out There?
Date: 5 Sep 91 07:40:54 GMT
Reply-To: Steve Chafe <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Davis


Hello,

Are there any other SL-100 or DMS-100 CO techs on this net besides me?
Just curious, as it is always helpful to have extra ways to try and
contact people for problem solving!  If there are any, please send me
a message!


Thanks,

Steve Chafe    [e-mail]

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 04 Sep 91 21:04:21
Subject: International Toll-free Numbers?


I recently called a Macintosh mail-order house that uses an 800
number, to ask for their POTS number so an overseas friend could place
an order.

    While they eventually gave it to me, they suggested he use a funny
international toll free number, which was unlike anything I've seen
before.

    The number is [phone] (that's right: country code "95";
the place is in Texas).

    Has anyone ever heard of using pseudo country codes?  I'd try the
number myself, but it doesn't work from North America ("Your call
cannot be completed as dialed; 202-2T").

    Is there any adventurous overseas reader willing to try this?
Probably the best time to call would be between 9 and 5 Central Time
(GMT - 5).

    *I cannot guarantee that the call is really toll-free -- that's
just what the salescritter told me.*

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1991 09:54:27 PDT
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: 510 Split: "Need Cure For Phone Sag?"


Linc Madison <[e-mail]> writes:

> {Oakland Tribune}, Monday, September 2, 1991, front page]

> The Eastbay gets its very own area code today, so you can sneer "my
> code's bigger than your code" to your neighbors across the bay.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that the San Francisco Bay Area is
my home and I love it dearly. But sometimes the provinciality is
overwhelming.

Back in the 1950s, as Pacific Telephone was installing dial service in
the Bay Area hinterlands, the switch of choice was 5XB and it came
fully equipped with DDD. As I pointed out once, the 5XB working in my
exchange at this very moment had DDD in 1956.

San Francisco, on the other hand, was equipped with the panel switches
from the thirties and forties. There was no DDD until the mid-sixties,
when it was clumsily glued into the panel equipment. What the isolated
San Franciscans missed was the 415/408 area code split that occured in
the very early sixties. Why? They did not really know much what an
area code was and what it was used for.

When DDD was first introduced in San Francisco proper, it had been
around in a number of San Jose prefixes for ten years. But the
SF-based media made it sound as though it was the latest cutting-edge
technology. San Francisco was really on top of things.

But interestingly enough, when the 415/408 split took place, there
were few enough phones in the Bay Area capable of actually dialing an
area code that Pacific Telephone was very careful to not duplicate
prefixes in the metro area so that it was not necessary to use an area
code when dialing across the 415/408 border until 1981. In that year,
when duplication became necessary, Pacific Telephone announced that it
would be required to use the area code when dialing from San Francisco
to San Jose and visaversa. By this time, DDD was universal. But the SF
media went nuts again. There was all this "area code envy" and
snobbery, even though the reality was that the 408 area code had been
created around 1961, twenty years earlier.

Then, a few years ago, "informal" prefixes were introduced into 415
requiring a '1' to be used for ten-digit long distance. Again, SF
people went crazy, acting as though no one else had ever heard of
dialing one. People would give me phone numbers, written very
carefully: '1-415-', etc. Never mind that to this day, I still do not
dial a '1' to call a ten digit number.

And now we have 510. I know a number of people who live in the east
bay that have always felt a little superior by having a 415 area code
(rather than the scummy 408 area code). Now it has been taken away and
even the newspapers have been filled with stories about how peoples'
"idendity" is going to suffer. Or that people will become hopelessly
confused. There have even been some "conspiracy" theories about the
split.

I really love living here, but sometimes I have to admit that
outsiders' "fruits and nuts" perceptions are justified.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #702
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07253;
          6 Sep 91 13:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06305;
          6 Sep 91 2:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19780;
          6 Sep 91 1:21 CDT
Date:     Fri, 6 Sep 91 0:34:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #703
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Sep 91 00:33:55 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 703

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Bad Fact in FAQ List: Touchtones [Gordon D. Woods]
    Re: Bad Fact in FAQ List: Touchtones [Bob Clements]
    Re: Bad Fact in FAQ List: Touchtones [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: International Toll-free Numbers? [John Slater]
    Re: International Toll-free Numbers? [Justin Leavens]
    Re: International Toll-free Numbers? [Niall Gallagher]
    Re: International Toll-free Numbers? [John R. Covert]
    Re: International Toll-free Numbers? [Carl Moore]
    Re: International Toll-free Numbers? [Peter Thurston]
    Re: International Toll-free Numbers? [John R. Levine]
    Re: Phone Color Boxes [Stan Brown]
    Re: Phone Rates Across the USA [Stan Brown]
    Re: ATT and Soviet Birds [Wolf Paul]
    Re: Re: Wiring Questions For New Home [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: 800 Number Abuse (was AT&T Blocks Calls From Arkansas) [Barton Bruce]
    Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? [Dan Jacobson]
    Re: 900 Number Joke [David W. Tamkin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu,  5 Sep 91 09:49:08 EDT
From: Gordon D Woods <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bad Fact in FAQ List: Touchtones
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail].
edu (Harold Hallikainen):

> Has anyone tried putting a band split filter and a couple
> comparators or schmitt triggers in front of a single chip
> microcontroller and then done touch tone detection in software?
> ... it seems the whole product could be a quad op amp and a
> microcontroller.

I built just such a system in about 1975 using an F8 micro.  (I think
these micros were later called 3870s).  The most difficult spec to
meet was "talk off" which refers to the ability of the receiver to
reject voice as a valid Dual Tone Multi-Frequency (DTMF. Touch Tone is
some type of "mark" owned by the RBOCs.) signal. We used a special
tape of recorded telephone conversations to test the receiver. This
tape was the same one used in the development of the original DTMF
system. The conversations were of Bell Labs employees (Who knew they
were being recorded!) that took part in an experiment to get voice
characteristics for the DTMF project.  The conversations were all
chopped up and spliced into a long tape so that individuals and
specific conversations could not be identified, e.g. 5 or 10 words of
one call, then 5 or 10 from the next call, etc.

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

Subject: Re: Bad Fact in FAQ List: Touchtones
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 91 09:58:58 -0400
From: [e-mail]


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

> Has anyone tried putting a band split filter and a couple
> comparators or schmitt triggers in front of a single chip
> microcontroller and then done touch tone detection in software?

Sure. The original Zoom Telephonics "Demon Dialer" did exactly that.


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 10:24:25 -0700
From: Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bad Fact in FAQ List: Touchtones


    Thanks for the speedy reply!  I guess the Zoom Demon Dialer
did ok using that technique of DTMF detection.  Again, if we can build
something with one less part, I'll go for it!

    At this time, I don't really have any application for DTMF
detection in a single chip micro, though I do want to do DTMF
detection with a fax card or voice mail card.  I want to be able to
answer a line, detect DTMF, do ascii to speech conversion to send the
requested data, and also be able to send reports to fax machines.
Some day!

    Again, thanks for the reply!

Harold

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Toll-free Numbers?
Date: 5 Sep 91 16:53:25 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems


[e-mail] (Charlie Mingo) writes:

> The number is [phone] (that's right: country code "95";
> the place is in Texas).

Country code 95 is in Burma, so I doubt that that's right. Calling
from the UK (before I checked the country code list!) gives "equipment
engaged" tone -- like number engaged, but alternate beeps are louder.


John Slater   Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: Justin Leavens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Toll-free Numbers?
Date: 5 Sep 91 17:14:50 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


In article <[e-mail]> Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.
n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) writes:

> I recently called a Macintosh mail-order house that uses an 800
> number, to ask for their POTS number so an overseas friend could place
> an order.

Last time I checked (I haven't been out of the country in about a year
and a half) the only company that would accept 800 calls from out of
the country was American Express. That's what the international
operator told me, anyways.  Of course, I was trying to reach my Visa
company at the time.


Justin T. Leavens
University of Southern California     :Mail to: [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Sep 91 15:40:00 EDT
From: Niall (N.)Gallagher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Toll-free Numbers?


Charlie Mingo gave an "international toll-free number" in Telecom
issue 702:

>  The number is [phone] (that's right: country code "95";
>  the place is in Texas).

Well, I tried the number and ... the call went through. I got a fast
busy 400Hz tone with lots of echo and static on the line. I checked
the list of country codes in the phone book. There was no 95 listed so
I called my operator (Bell Canada) and asked where country 95 was. It
turns out to be the country code for Myanmar (used to be called
Burma?)  and can be dialled direct for about $4/minute.

Now, that's a long way from Texas!


Niall Gallagher, Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 17:45:41 PDT
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Toll-free Numbers?


> international toll free number, which was unlike anything I've seen
> before.  The number is [phone] (that's right: country code
> "95"; the place is in Texas).

Impossible.  +95 is the country code for Myanmar (Burma).

To get an idea of how a company sets up international toll-free
numbers, simply take a look at the USA DIRECT list.  The full list is
in the archives, but I present a few examples here:

Argentina 001-800-200-1111
Aruba 800-1011
Australia 0014 881 011
Czechoslovakia 00-420-00101
Germany 0130 0010
Switzerland 155 0011 (formerly 046 05 0011)
U.K. 0800 89 00 11
Zimbabwe 110899

As you can see, international toll-free service is provided by using
different numbers in each country, as assigned by each country from
which service is desired.


john

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 10:51:02 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Toll-free Numbers?


+95 is the country code for Myanmar, formerly called Burma.

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

From: Peter Thurston <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 17:27:27 +0100
Subject: International Toll-free Numbers?


Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]> writes:

> The number is [phone] (that's right: country code "95";
> the place is in Texas).

Well, from the UK - using British Telecom I receive tones that I have
never heard before. They repeat the sequence: beep beep beep beeeeep.
Mercury rejects the number straight away.


Peter Thurston

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

Subject: Re: International Toll-free Numbers?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 5 Sep 91 15:33:19 EDT (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


Country code 95 is assigned to Burma, also called Myanmar by its
current government, which is not dialable from the U.S.  I doubt if
there are any order processing companies there.

I have heard proposals that the currently unused country code 800 be
assigned to global toll-free numbers, with the actual country code
where the call is directed after the 800, but the last I heard the
CCITT hadn't yet made up their minds.

If this number is good at all, it's probably a national toll free
number in some European country or, perhaps, Mexico.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 15:27:54 -0400
From: Stan Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Color Boxes
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)


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

> Recently, I have seen plans and kits advertised for telephone color
> boxes (blue boxes, silver boxes, etc.).  I was wondering the legality

I've heard of 'blue boxes': I think they're devices that let you make
long-distance calls without paying for them.  But what are silver
boxes?


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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 15:40:59 -0400
From: Stan Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Rates Across the USA
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)


In article <[e-mail]> rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert
L. McMillin) writes:

> Dave Niebuhr <[e-mail]> requests info on how basic phone
> bills stack up across the country.

For another data point, here's the situation in suburban Cleveland
(RBOC = "Ohio Bell, An Ameritech Company").  The local calling area is
basically Cuyahoga County plus adjacent suburbs in adjoining counties;
say approx 2.5 million persons (I don't know how many telephones).

I have a residence line and a business line.  Since they're at the
same address, Ohio Bell tariffs say that the residence line must be
limited service, 30 calls per month and $0.08/call after that.  There
is no "message unit" system (yet).

RESIDENCE:  Touch-Tone service            $ 1.80
            Access charge per FCC order     3.50
            911 service                      .12
            local access line               6.70
            call plan 30                    2.90 (i.e., first 30 calls)
            Federal tax                      .45
            total                         $15.47

BUSINESS:   Touch-tone service            $ 3.25
            Access charge per FCC order     3.50 (more if you have multilines)
            911 service                      .12 (ditto, I believe)
            Local access line              20.00
            Message business line           6.15 (i.e., first 73 calls)
            Federal tax                     1.02
            total                         $35.16
             plus $0.08 for every call over 73.


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

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

From: Wolf Paul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATT and Soviet Birds
Organization: Alcatel Austria - ELIN Research Center G.m.b.H.
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1991 09:29:14 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> Tonight I heard on the radio that AT&T had started using some Soviet
> Satel for international calls to the USSR.  Does anyone have any
> further information on this?  Is this the first time that a private
> company has contracted with a communist launched and owned satelite?

It seems to have escaped your notice that the Soviet Union has banned
the Communist Party, and has certainly removed it from power. It is
therefore inappropriate to speak of a "communist owned satellite".

And it was launched by a Soviet state agency, with the fact that the
government at the time was communist being immaterial, just as the
particular affiliation of a U.S. administration is immaterial to the
satellites launched by NASA. They are not "Republican launched and
owned" either.


Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center
Alcatel Austria - Elin Research Center, Ruthnergasse 1, A-1210 Vienna-Austria
E-Mail: [e-mail]     Phone: [phone] (h) [phone] (w)

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

Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 23:39:14 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wiring Questions For New Home


Bill Mayhew <[e-mail]> writes:

> I am pretty sure thin Ethernet, and for that matter, thick ethernet
> run on coaxial cables of 52 ohm characteristic impedance.  For thin
> Ethernet, you'd probably want to use RG-58/U.  This has a stranded
> center conductor with urethane foam insulation, 95% coverage braided
> shield.

I believe true IEEE 802.3 thick or thin Ethernet cable differs from
standard RG-58/U.  Regardless, I have seen Ethernet use 52, 75 and 93
ohm cable with a 52 ohm termination resistor.  I sure this affects the
range somewhat, but this is a trivial problem in a condo.  I would
stay away from the cheaper grades of the cables, for example Belden
sells a RG-58/U cable with only 78% shielding (9201) for about
$.10/foot.

I pretty sure RG-58/U is always a solid conductor, 58A/U or 58 may be
stranded.

> For television, signals are usually distributed on cables of 75 ohm
> charactersitic impedance.  RG-59 has a solid steel Copperweld (tm)
> copper clad center conductor that facilitates use of crimp on "F"
> style TV connectors.  RG-59 is *not* recommended for high performance
> applications such as cable TV where you want to prevent radiation
> and/or direct pick-up of off-air signals on the same channels.  RG-6
> cable is recommended.  If you go to your friendly Radio Shark store to
> check to see if they have your address in their computer, you'll see
> that their reels of RG-59 cable are stamped "NOT FOR CABLE TV USE"
> right on the cable.  Note that the center holes in the crimp-on "F"
> connectors are different for RG-6 and RG-59; make sure you get the
> right connectors.

RG-59 can be lossy especially at UHF frequencies, but it is commonly
used for CATV applications.  This may be changing as the increase in
the number of channels carried by CATV requires the plant to carry
higher frequencies.  There are some lower-loss cables available.  Not
all of the 59 family of cables use copperclad center conductors
although the steel conductor is an advantage when F connectors are
used.

I believe the satellite uplink here at AU uses RG-59 cable with F
connectors for patch cables.


Pat Turner  KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Number Abuse (was AT&T Blocks Calls From Arkansas)
Date: 5 Sep 91 18:36:14 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Mikel Manitius) writes:

> From what I hear 800 number abuse is fairly common. Here at the
> American Automobile Association we have an 800 number that members can

If it is an AT&T provided 800 numbr and comes in on ISDN PRIs, you can
get the calling number. If this guy is calling from the same number,
you block it yourself (don't answer it), or complete it to a suitable
intercept message designed to cleverly but gently discourage/stop his
calls.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors?
Date: Thu,  5 Sep 91 20:06:00 GMT


On 4 Sep 91 16:14:02 GMT, [e-mail] said:

> What if you are getting UNWANTED cellular reception on a "home
> appliance" like a cordless phone or baby monitor?  Legally, one
> IS breaking the provision in the ECPA about listening to or
> receiving cellular calls!  It all comes down to a matter of
> intent.

I can see it now: "Grandma was picking up the President's air phone
conversations in the filling in her wisdom tooth.  The radio waves
were ricocheting off the crown of her second molar and that must have
been breaking the secret code.  We'd invite the whole family over for
hours of laughs."

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

From: "David W. Tamkin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Number Joke
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 11:04:31 CDT


Steve,

Yes, that was Tamayo Otsuki all right.  I sent that joke into Telecom
(with the subject line "Maybe Under Rocks") last spring, when her CSL
appearance aired.


David W. Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines, Illinois  60018-7002  [phone]
[e-mail]   GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN  CIS:73720,1570  MCI Mail:426-1818

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #703
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07698;
          6 Sep 91 13:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06305;
          6 Sep 91 2:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac19780;
          6 Sep 91 1:21 CDT
Date:     Fri, 6 Sep 91 1:10:40 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #704
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Sep 91 01:10:32 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 704

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Shawn Nunley]
    Re: NASA Severs Connection on Email Linkup [Adam M. Gaffin]
    Re: Cellphones and 911 [John R. Covert]
    Re: CO Broadcasting [David Strickland]
    Re: Problem Reaching AT&T Mail [Bob Halloran]
    Re: Problem Reaching AT&T Mail [[e-mail]]
    Re: Problem Reaching AT&T Mail [Max J. Rochlin]
    Re: US and Canadian Telex Numbers; Some Secrets Revealed [Dan Sahlin]
    Re: Phone Gall [Andy Sherman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Shawn Nunley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls
Reply-To: Shawn Nunley <[e-mail]>
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Ca
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1991 21:58:14 GMT


Regarding the ease of misrepresentation of cost for 900 and 976
services, the following types of ads have begun to appear on local
stations.

It's a new twist on the dial-a-porn type services. You know:

Hi! (sexy voice) Call me. I'm waiting. (pictures of obviously horny
women who would luuuvv to talk dirty to you) ...

In tiny little (very tiny) letters at the bottom of the screen:

"$3.00 per min/12 min. minimum"

At the end of the commercial, male voice you don't want to hear anyway
says:

"threedollarperminutetwelveminuteminimum"

but only faster.

So, If I were to sell you a Coke, and say "50 cents per ounce, 12
ounce minimum", how many people would fall for it?

This is a new level of sleazyness.


Internet: [e-mail]   UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,mtxinu,cae780,sco}
        !novell!shawn    Shawn Nunley    Tel: [phone]

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

From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NASA Severs Connection on Email Linkup
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1991 22:00:37 GMT


The Atlantis mailbox wasn't the only e-mail connection NASA has shut
of late:

{Middlesex News}, Framingham, Mass., 9/5/91

NASA cut Soviet computer link
Security a concern during coup; but shutdown miffs one researcher

By Adam Gaffin
NEWS STAFF WRITER

     As Soviet researchers were using computer networks to tell the
West what was happening during the aborted coup, one link fell silent.

     It was Americans, not the Soviets, who cut the connection.

     Acting on a request from the National Security Council, NASA
severed a computer link opened in July between Soviet space
researchers and the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

     Goddard received a memo from the council on Wednesday, Aug. 21 to
shut the Soviet connection to a Vax computer made by Digital Equipment
Corp., Goddard spokeswoman Dolores Beasley said. The council was
concerned about the security of the link under what seemed to be the
USSR's new government, she said, adding it was turned back on after it
became clear that the coup had failed.

     But one Soviet researcher questioned the move.

     ``We are a scientific organization,'' Igor Yastrzhembsky, a
researcher at the Inter Kosmos Institute in Moscow said in a message
distributed on the Bitnet international computer network. ``We have
nothing to do with military. There is no danger that can come from us,
not to say that a coup cannot be transferred via computer links. This
is a good example that bureaucrats do not want any cooperation between
us and the States. During the coup they were not interested in what is
going on here in Moscow. NASA was not interested at all about what
will happen to the Soviet scientists, etc.''

     But a number of NASA researchers were active participants in a
conference set up on the international Usenet network to discuss
Soviet affairs. Soviet researchers used this conference to disseminate
declarations of the anti-coup Russian government, news and
first-person accounts of opposition activities.

     Usenet and other computer links to the Soviet Union stayed open
throughout the coup attempt. The difference, however, is that the
Goddard link is possibly the only one allowing the Soviets direct
access to a powerful western computer. The other connections all
consist of electronic-mail hookups that essentially allow only the
passage of messages.

     Yastrzhembsky said the Soviets used the Goddard connection for
electronic mail between themselves and Goddard researchers as well as
for access to several space-related databases.

     ``There were no real connections between this machine and any
other computer,'' he said, adding it took a year of negotiations just
to set up the link.

     The Soviets have long been barred from the more advanced features
of the Internet, an international research network linking
universities, high-tech companies and government agencies. Usenet,
essentially an international bulletin board, grew out of Internet and
its predecessors.

     Western Internet users can do such things as log into computers
around the world to download files, use databases and, in some cases,
even use the computing power of remote machines.

     The Soviets were not allowed access to this network in large part
to longstanding enmity between the U.S. and the Soviet Union -- the
government did not want Soviets roaming through government computers.
But until recently, the Soviets simply did not have the networking
capacity or ability to take advantage of such links. The Soviets have
had access to the Usenet system, through a Finnish connection, for
barely one year.


Adam Gaffin
Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass.
[e-mail]
Voice: [phone]. Fred the Middlesex News Computer: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 18:12:11 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  05-Sep-1991 1402" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellphones and 911


> When you dial 911 in California from a cellphone you get the local CHP
> (Highway Patrol) dispatcher.

I suspect what happens depends on which carrier you are using and
which area you are in.  It's my understanding that in the L.A. area,
there is a special cellular 911 operator who asks you where you are
and then connects you.

In other areas, different things may happen.

In the NYNEX New England system, 911 will get you the Massachusetts
State Police, probably even if you are in Rhode Island or New
Hampshire.  The call is sent to the nationwide standard number (for
those states that have it) 800 525-5555.  Since this type of call is
currently always placed from Boston, even if you're in another state,
you get Massachusetts.

In the GTE/Contel system in Nashua/Manchester, New Hampshire, 911 gets
you a recording: "911 calls can not be made from a mobile telephone.
Please call the number for the appropriate emergency agency, or call
the operator."  I think it used to go to the Nashua police, even if
you were in Manchester.

The Cellular One JHP Partnership system in Nashua/Manchester used to
send the calls to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's office, and may
still do so.  However, it also resulted in a call to a regular
seven-digit number charged to your bill.

In the Cellular One Southwestern Bell system, we were a few blocks
from the capitol building when burglar alarms started going off.  We
tried to report that using 911, but got the Montgomery County,
Maryland 911 system.

Among the many problems with providing 911 service to cellular phones
is the fact that people travelling outside their home area may not
know what is considered a legitimate 911 call in the area they are in.
For example, in Los Angeles, 911 is supposed to be used _only_ in
urgent life-and-death situations, whereas in Alaska there are signs
telling you to call 911 to report litterbugs.  So, when you see that
vehicle stopped on the side of the road, do you help them out with a
call to 911 or not?  Or when a traffic light isn't working, do you
call 911?  It might not be a emergency now, but a traffic light out at
a bad intersection could result in a serious accident.


john


[Moderator's Note: Do you feel the problem is of knowing what type of
call is appropriate or more one of not knowing which jurisdiction will
receive and process the call versus the actual location of the calling
party?  Here in the Chicago area, there is a *lot* of politics and
bickering between the suburbs over who will handle 911 calls for the
others, etc.   PAT]

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

From: David Strickland <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CO Broadcasting
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson, Tx
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1991 23:18:04 GMT


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

>  On the news last night there was a story about one of the Los
> Angeles County municipalities creating an alert network for the city
> using phones.

> ... . Is it (theoretically) possible,
> with software changes for central office switching equipment, to
> operate in a broadcast mode where several numbers are dialed at once,
> in parallel, connected to a single caller if answered, and the same
> message played in parallel.

Yes, it is possible in software, given that the CO hardware has
broadcast capability; however, some consideration must be given to how
the message should be played.

Called subscribers will answer at different times.  If the called
subscriber is just connected to the message whenever the call is
answered, then the subscriber may hear the last part of a message and
the message may be misunderstood.  If the connection is delayed until
the start of the message, then the length of the message should be
limited so the called subscriber won't hang up when nobody responds or
the CO should also broadcast some tone while the CO is waiting for the
start of the message.


David Strickland
Email: [e-mail]  RSCS: exudbs at rchn  MEMO: eus.exudbs

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

From: d1![e-mail]
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 08:26 EDT
Subject: Re: Problem Reaching AT&T Mail
Organization: AT&T Universal Card Services, Jacksonville FL


> Please report problems to [e-mail] and we will look into
> them.  We heard about the mail to TELECOM from an AT&T employee who
> reads it.

> [Moderator's Note: Thanks for your help with this. The only thing is,
> mail to attmail.com was falling in a hole somewhere. If other users
> were receiving nothing how would the postmaster have gotten mail?  PAT]

Pat,

    I was the TD reader who nudged Mark about the gateway problem
after reading the posting yesterday.  If you notice, Mark is saying to
mail to ATT.com, not attmail.com.  The two are very much distinct; one
is the Internet gateway to the company's R&D network, the other is the
commercial service available to anyone with dollars in hand.  About
the same as the difference between ibm.com and Prodigy (except ATTMail
CAN talk to the Internet....)

    If it confused you so much, others might be confused also; you
might want to post a clarification....


Bob Halloran    AT&T Universal Card   Jacksonville FL  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 10:23:19 EDT
Subject: Re: Problem Reaching AT&T Mail


Pat - also please note that [e-mail] is handled
specially and would have been seen even if other mail was failing.
And, of course, you can always telephone: the 800 number for AT&T Mail
(1-800-MAIL-672) is listed at the NIC under "whois attmail.com".


Mark

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

From: "Max J. Rochlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problem Reaching AT&T Mail
Organization: QueerNet=
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 13:18:18 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Thanks for your help with this. The only thing is,
> mail to attmail.com was falling in a hole somewhere. If other users
> were receiving nothing how would the postmaster have gotten mail?  PAT]

Because, Pat, we've been asked to send mail to [e-mail] and
not [e-mail].  Two different addresses at two different
machines.


[e-mail]  |   Max J. Rochlin   |  {uunet,mips,decwrl}!unpc!max

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

From: Dan Sahlin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US and Canadian Telex Numbers; Some Secrets Revealed
Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1991 16:08:30 GMT


I earlier asked the following question:

> What is the secret on how to decode US and Canadian Telex numbers?

> According to my (Swedish) Telex directory there are several Telex
> networks (or networks reachable from Telex) in the US and Canada.
> Each of them is assigned a "country number" as follows.  Some are also
> assigned a two letter country code.

Since, I have found out the following:

               initial     number   country   country
Canada                 digit(s)    length   number    code
  TWX                  610          10       26
  others               01-07         ?       21

USA except Alaska,
  Hawaii and the TWX network                 23
  CCI                   ?           ?        23
  FTCC                  82          5-6      23
  Graphnet              3           7        23      UB
  ITT                   4           6-7      23      UI
  ITT (DTS)                         7        23
  RCA                   2           6        23      UR
  TRT                   1           -9       23      UT
  WUI/MCI               6           5-7,10   23      UW
  WUTCO                 any         5-8      230     UD
  Teletex               ?           ?     2306 or 256
  TWX      310,410,510,710,810,910  10       25      UQ

As you can see from the above table, only three country codes are
involved in the US when sending a telex: 23, 230 and 25. (I was
misinformed in my previous posting where each net had a different
country number.) The main problem seems to be able to distinguish
between a WUTCO number and the other networks.

But maybe there is something I have misunderstood; I was incapable of
sending a telex to Elsevier in New York (telex number 420643) although
I tried both 23 and 230!

Any further information is greatly appreciated.

Also, I am curious to get in touch with Teletex subscribers abroad.
I'm told there are 21,000 of them in Germany.


Dan Sahlin, SICS, Sweden
email: [e-mail]   phone: [phone]   fax: [phone]
telex: 8126154       teletex: 2401-8126154

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 14:45:32 EDT
Subject: Re: Phone Gall
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


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

> A different standard of care exists amongst some computer
> manufacturers.  Picking Sun Microsystems as an example, they take
> pains to make security fixes for SunOS available to registered
> customers.  They make them ftpable on CERT's machine (and others.)

Ahem.  I assume you have no history here, or you wouldn't cite this
case.  Sun was *famous* for sitting on its hands doing nothing about
security holes.  This glastnost about security fixes is relatively
recent.

> While a company may not be legally liable for a security breach made
> possible by its product, it isn't good business sense to just do
> nothing (or, nothing but present a bill for the unauthorized services
> used during the breach.)  It can be a PR liability ... but some
> companies are decades and thousands of lobbyists beyond having to
> worry about what they do looking bad.

We are not talking about a security bug in a particular manufacturer's
equipment here.  What we are talking about is failure to administer
the system properly, leaving a back door for unauthorized use.  The
most common cause is the failure to require passwords when granting
outside lines to incoming callers.  Tell me, do you hold Sun
responsible when somebody loses data or money because they failed to
put a password on root?

I don't think that AT&T is the only manufacturer of equipment involved
in this issue, although it is probably the only one that is also in
the long distance business.  I'm sure our corporate PR people care a
whole lot how things look.  However, would you like the management of
a company in which you owned stock to just blithely write off millions
of dollars worth of revenue when the fraud was somebody else's fault?
I thought not.  Well AT&T *is* a publically held corporation ....

> Are computer manufacturers that different from telephone equipment
> makers?

No.  But if you're big enough you're an easier target for cheap shots.


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 #704
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16682;
          6 Sep 91 20:44 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id an12448; 6 Sep 91 19:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06467;
          6 Sep 91 3:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac06305;
          6 Sep 91 2:33 CDT
Date:     Fri, 6 Sep 91 2:11:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #705
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Sep 91 02:10:59 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 705

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Security and Privacy at the Message Center [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Re: PC Based Answering Machine Cards - Opinions Wanted [Phydeaux]
    Re: ATC Caught Padding Bills [Bill Huttig]
    Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Phone Fraud Articles From comp.risks [Joe Talbot]
    Re: Disconnect Timing (was Telephone Line Status Lights) [David E A Wilson]
    Re: International Toll-free Numbers? [B. Rozenberg]
    Re: 510 Split: Not Visible in Urbana, IL [John Bruner]
    Re: 510 Split: "Need Cure For Phone Sag?" [John R. Levine]
    Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers  [James Deibele]
    Bad Voicemail Systems (was Area Code 510 (Better Early) [Darren Griffiths]
    Voicemail (was We're Sorry, But the Country ...) [Sean Williams]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Security and Privacy at the Message Center
Date: 5 Sep 91 20:44:05 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


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

> Can government agencies request access to stored messages, with or
> without a search warrant?  Could they get permission to listen to
> large numbers of messages looking for particular conversations,
> targetting particular persons or topics?

Recent events in Cincinnati make this a critical issue.  Procter &
Gamble, a large consumer products firm, asked Cincinnati police for
help in finding a leak in their organization.  (Their justification
for getting police involved was an Ohio law against disclosing trade
secrets.  {Too bad individuals don't have the same privacy protections
as corporations -- I'd like to see my SSN and other 'private'
information similarly protected against direct marketing firms.})

Cincinnati Bell was happy to cooperate with the police, since they had
a subpaeona.  Getting call records is one thing.  Imagine if content
were as easily available (Cincinnati Bell offers a voice mail
service), then it may have been possible to get enough evidence to
convict.

BTW, P&G has expressed regret over the incident in a memo to employees
(that also made its way into the press.)


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. (N3FGW, [e-mail])
Alternate e-mail: [e-mail]   Phone: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Actually Ralph, you beat me to my main story for
tomorrow in the Digest, so I will summarize it now instead. P&G issued
an apology to their employees, saying they (the company) acted
improperly. They did not, however, extend the same apology to the
other people in the area whose records were also checked. This was in
the {Chicago Tribune} 9-5-91.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 10:10:56 PDT
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PC Based Answering Machine Cards - Opinions Wanted


I've got the one from the Complete PC (CAM) ... it's pretty good, but
there's no way I've found to modify their software or get into it.  I
haven't called them to ask about this, but the documentation lists
*nothing* relating to running it in any way other than their standard
TSR program.  I think it will record for up to 999 seconds.  It does
sound pretty good.  I got it used for $50.  If I had to buy a new one
I'd probably go for a Watson board.  I've heard lots of good things
about it -- particularly about people customizing the software
configuration to recognize caller-ID, etc.


reb
-- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365
w:reb ASK/Ingres 10255 West Higgins  Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATC Caught Padding Bills
Date: 5 Sep 91 18:43:27 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> wybbs![e-mail].
edu (Ken Jongsma) writes:

> It appears that ATC was billing for call setup time in addition to the
> actual call. A cost recovery firm caught them at it and sued them for

Both MCI and Sprint did this (before and after the merger with US
Telcom) and had to pay people some very very small amount like 39
cents or something per year of service unless you could itemize all
the one minute calls that you questioned.

ATC is really a whole bunch of companies and ATC is not necessarily at
fault I am not sure which company/companies that are now owned by ATC
is at fault ... I assume that it was Teltec which became TELUS when
the merged with North American Telephone which was the problem. I used
Teltec and TELUS on two short occasions and the billing always had a
lot of one minute calls in error. On the other hand the part of the
company in Boca (MicroTel) which installed fiber all over Florida
ocassionally would bill on unanswered calls but only to very very
small towns.

Check your ATC bills (Boca office) for calls to Boca Raton on 5/31/91
if you called customer service. They somehow managed to bill for calls
to the 800 number but give you immediate credit.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 06:18:20 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad?


In article <[e-mail]>:

> [Moderator's Note: "They" makes lots of phones with numbers only. Not
> AT&T of course, not that I've seen of theirs, but many of the other
> manufacturers of phones choose to put numbers only on a few of their
> models.  One had numbers only on the keys, and a little chart on the
> bottom of the phone which translated the letters to numbers.    PAT]

I wonder: If you were at one of these "numbers-only" phones and had to
dial a number that was given with letters, would the operator help you
out?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The operator will help anyone dial, at the rate for
operator-assisted calls. If you are asking would they do it at dial
rates, why should they? It is not telco's concern what phone you use,
and subscriber-assigned letters are not authorized anyway.    PAT]

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

From: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Fraud Articles From comp.risks
Date: 5 Sep 91 18:22:40 GMT
Reply-To: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


I have some quick observations about this whole DISA/Extender scam
that's getting everyone all riled up. First, the reason that hackers
are using voicemail and DISA (direct inward system access) is because
these are the easiest ways to penetrate system "security" and are
quite powerful. Most of these arrangements have gaping security holes
and embarrassing implementations. It MAY indicate that fraud through
carriers is NO LONGER the easiest/"safest" hack.

These companies complaining to carriers and the FCC is pitiful. I do
have some sympathy for companies who "have somebody else take care of"
thier communications needs, as these people think they're safe in the
hands of "experts". Nope. Sorry folks, you must know about YOUR
system.  Nobody cares as much as you do about your money.

Some popular PBX's have default passwords of 1234 and seem to keep
them for years. Do you have a DISA? Do you need it? What is the
passcode?  Who has it? When was it changed last? This is all obvious
stuff but people ignore it for months and let all thier trunks get
used 24 hours a day for calls to Pakistan. Doesn't your attendant
notice trunks up for days?

I think if AT&T is your PBX vendor, and the passcode for your DISA is
1234, and you don't even know you have a DISA, there may be grounds
for you to say they share in the responsibility; but if you haven't
checked, YOU are an idiot. Who is responsible for locking the door at
night?


[Moderator's Note: Several years ago when the Dimension PBX was first
being installed, *even most of the AT&T service reps* did not know it
had a DISA. One IBT subscriber, Northwest Industries, a/k/a the
Chicago and Northwestern Railroad had a DISA unknown to them, and the
local phreaks really took them for a ride on the railroad. Apparently
all the Dimension PBXs of that era (circa 1975-1983) came from the
Western Electric factory with the DISA password defaulted to '1111',
but no one told anybody at AT&T or Illinois Bell. The VP-Telecom at
the railroad got the thrill of a lifetime when he saw a bill for over
two hundred thousand dollars one month. IBT Security was chasing
around all over the midwest trying to round up phreaks on that one.  I
don't think they ever did catch anyone.  PAT]

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Disconnect Timing (was Telephone Line Status Lights)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 23:24:59 GMT


[e-mail] (Jim Rees) writes:

> Every CO I've used will keep the connection up for a
> minute or two on incoming calls.  This is by design, so that you can
> hang up and then pick up a different phone.  Is this universal or have
> I just been lucky?

Here in Australia on LM Ericsson ARF Crossbar switches Line Lock Out
occurs if:

1) Subscriber fails to complete dialling within 45 sec of dialtone.
2) Congestion occurs in any switching stage.
3) Called subscriber tests busy.
4) Called subscriber is free but fails to answer within 90 sec (this
   time limitation is removed on calls to step-by-step exchanges.)
5) When the called subscriber only replaces his receiver after a call
   (90 second delay).

It does look as though the feature you describe is might well be
universal.  I will have to experiment with this feature on my LME AXE
provided service to see if the 90 second delay is still in use.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (B. Rozenberg)
Subject: Re: International Toll-free Numbers?
Organization: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1991 19:23:54 GMT


Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]> writes:

> The number is [phone] (that's right: country code "95";
> the place is in Texas).

I've tried it from the Netherlands but got a 'wrong country code'
recording.


Complaints? EMail:  Largest ST BBS in Europe: STER BBS
       Holland [phone]  SterUID: SYSOP.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 09:08:53 CDT
From: John Bruner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 510 split: Not Visible in Urbana, IL


Yesterday I tried dialing a number in the East Bay from my office
phone at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) and was treated
to an intercept recording.  Uh, oh, the local switch wasn't
reprogrammed.  Illinois Bell told me I'd have to call AT&T.  AT&T told
me that, yes, the problem was the local switch, and they'd refer it to
Illinois Bell.

(510 still fails today.)


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

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

Subject: Re: 510 Split: "Need Cure For Phone Sag?"
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 5 Sep 91 15:27:05 EDT (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> I really love living here, but sometimes I have to admit that
> outsiders' "fruits and nuts" perceptions are justified.

There are fruits and nuts everywhere.  When 508 was split off from
617, people in Marblehead and Dover, two rather pricey suburbs north
and south respectively of Boston, threatened suit if they were stuck
out in 508 with the farmers.  Marblehead was put back in 617, Dover
wasn't.


Regards,

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

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

From: James Deibele <sequent!techbook.com![e-mail]>
Subject: "Out of phone numbers"
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1991 19:01:26 GMT


If the country is indeed running out of phone numbers, I wouldn't mind
at all having an eight digit added if it were a check digit on the
first seven.  This is what is done with the International Standard
Book Number -- the first nine digits are summed (10 * 1st digit, 9 *
2nd, ... 2 * the 9th) and the last character (X is used to represent
11) is modulo 11.

The routine for completing the tenth digit is trivial, and I think it
could be easily be built into most "smart" phones to complete an eight
digit phone number based on the current seven digit phone number.  So
if you'd memorized a phone number, you could just punch the "complete"
button that was sitting alongside the redial button.

This wouldn't prevent cases where a valid (but wrong) phone number is
entered, but it would prevent many cases where a number has been
transposed.  Or if you've ever had to figure out whether that was a
"1" or a "7", you might want to buy a smarter phone which could figure
out which it had to be, based on the other seven characters.


Public Access UNIX at [phone] (1200/2400) Voice: [phone]
TECHbooks offers many technical books at discounted prices.  E-mail to
[e-mail] for details, [e-mail] for mailing list.

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

From: Darren Alx Griffiths <unisoft![e-mail]>
Subject: Bad Voicemail Systems (was Area Code 510 Better Early ...)
Date: 5 Sep 91 22:49:27 GMT
Reply-To: Darren Alex Griffiths <unisoft![e-mail]>
Organization: Open Systems Solutions, Inc. -- UNIX R Us.


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

> In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> Gosh, Darren, *I've* hardly ever had any problem with your voice-mail
> system, and I use it several times a week.  Of course, I only *leave*
> messages ... ;-)

On the day in question you wouldn't have been able to do even, it was
down completely.  On other days people have tried to send or receive
messages just to be greeted by this friendly voice saying something
like "Disk error in drive C colon".  Even when it does work you only
get one chance to save messages in a personal mailbox, and that comes
after you have been forced to listen to all of your messages, hang up
and you're screwed.  If someone calls me I'm in the habit of picking
up the phone, counting for three FULL seconds and then saying hello.

The waiting period seems to be the time it takes the voice mail system
to get out of your way.  If someone leaves a message the little light
on the phone that has the words "messages waiting" next to it is
ignored, instead the system calls you every 30 minutes , 24 hours a
day, and waits for you to pick up and then it announces that yoou have
a message and asks if you want to listen to it.  Of-course, if you
don't want to listen to it, or you are working in someone elses office
for some reason, you have to put up with the phone ringing off the
hook every half hour.

Gee ... I could go on for ever about how not to design a phone system.
Maybe it would be better to simple say don't use PCs for anything,
ever, no matter what. (OK -- just possibly that's taking it a little
far, but you should try using this voice mail system and you'd go
nuts quick, thank God for E-Mail).


Darren Alex Griffiths   [e-mail] (for now)   [e-mail] (RSN)

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

From: "WILLIAMS, SX" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voicemail (was We're Sorry, But the Country ...)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date:  5 SEP 91 14:01:25


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Justin Leavens) writes...

> We've also got our own 5ESS switch for our campus, so maybe that
> makes a difference. It's a nice step up from the Pac*Bell Centrex
> service we used to use. Now if only they'd put the voicemail in ...

I wish RIT would get some voicemail in, or at least let us forward out
calls off campus to be handled by Rochester Tel's voicemail.  I'm
really beginning to miss my United Telephone MessageLine (being so far
away from it makes it expensive to use!)

On this note, do any colleges have on-campus voicemail?  Or are just a
few of us lucky enough to be left out ...


Sean E. Williams   Rochester Institute of Technology   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #705
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18156;
          7 Sep 91 0:21 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09751;
          6 Sep 91 22:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03787;
          6 Sep 91 21:50 CDT
Date:     Fri, 6 Sep 91 21:11:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #706
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Sep 91 21:11:08 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 706

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    P&G Chairman Apologizes for Telephone-Records Search [Stuart L. Labovitz]
    Telephone Line Interfacing to Digital Circuits [Steve Chafe]
    Unix on Switches [Charles Hoequist]
    Questions About Wire Maintainence Plan [Phydeaux]
    Long Distance Question 700-555-4141 [Phydeaux]
    Communications Center of the World [John R. Levine]
    Same Day Service [John Higdon]
    A School Which Teaches Telemarketing [Donald Ekman]
    Can Anyone Identify This Equipment? [Rich Padula]
    List Wanted of General Areas of 900 Services [William Daul]
    Selective Ringing on Party Lines [mission![e-mail]]
    Technical Info Wanted on RJ's [John Adams]
    900/976/540/Whatever Calling/Blocking [Robert M. Hamer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: P&G Chairman Apologizes for Telephone-Records Search
From: Stuart L Labovitz <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 91 09:15:58 EDT
Organization: What? Organized??


The following article appeared in the {Dayton Daily News}, Sept 5,
1991. As many of the issues associated with this case have been
previously discussed in this forum, I thought that people would be
interested in the fact that P&G will _not_ be prosecuting anyone as a
result of their records search.  (However, they still appear to have
the records provided to them by Cincinnati Bell.)

"P&G Chairman Apologizes For Telephone-Record Search"

  Cincinnati (AP) --- Procer & Gamble Co.'s chairman said in a letter
to employees Wednesday that the company made an error in judgment by
asking authorities to search telephone records to trace news leaks.

  "This has been an embarrassing experience for the company and a
difficult time for our employees," Edwin L. Artzt wrote.  "We made an
error in judgment.  We thought we were doing the right thing because
we had a clear legal right to seek the assistance of the authorities
to investigate potential damaging leaks of confidential company
information."

  The company had asked police to investigate possible violations of
an Ohio law against revealing trade secrets after a series of leaked
stories ran in such publications as {The Wall Street Journal}.

  Police subpoenaed Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co.'s long-distance
telephone records to check for calls to the {Journal's} Pittsburgh
office and to the Pittsburgh home of {Journal} reporter Alecia Swasy,
who covers P&G.

  P&G has said the investigation has not turned up sufficient evidence
to prosecute.


Stuart L Labovitz            Internet:  [e-mail]
  (insert standard disclaimer here)    UUCP:   dayvb!valinor!stu

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

From: Steve Chafe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Line Interfacing to Digital Circuits
Date: 5 Sep 91 07:46:45 GMT
Reply-To: Steve Chafe <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Davis


Does anyone know of any good books that describe interface circuits
that a person can build for telephone lines?  I need to build a
circuit that will give me a TTL logic signal from a line cutoff
interval (that time when, after a call is complete, the line card cuts
off current to the loop to signal a disconnect.)  Any suggestions
would be appreciated!


Steve Chafe   [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Sep 91 09:31:00 EDT
From: Charles (C.A.)Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unix on Switches


Brian Crowley asks:

> I understand that modern CO switches run a software program called a
> generic which is based on the UNIX system.  Just how different is the
> kernel the switch runs from the kernel which is running my
> workstation?  What sort of interface does the CO technician have to
> the switch (dumb terminal, graphics terminal, etc.)?  Is it possible
> to bring up a shell on a CO switch?  What type of filesystem is
> typically used?

I can't say anything about switches other than DMSs; I would guess
that AT&T binds Unix closely to its stuff (Andy? you out there?).  The
DMS operating system is proprietary and definitely _not_ Unix or
Unix-based.  However, peripherals do indeed run Unix, on graphics
terminals, with all the trimmings.

If there is a Unix kernel out there running an average urban CO,
though, I'll bet it's got a lot more muscle than anything sitting in a
workstation. I doubt that a garden-variety kernel could handle the
demands of a CO switch, particularly the multitasking and real-time
scheduler needs.


Charles Hoequist   [e-mail]    BNR Inc.    919-991-8642
PO Box 13478   Research Triangle Park   North Carolina 27709-3478, USA

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 12:29:42 PDT
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions About Wire Maintainence Plan


I do not subscribe to a wire maintenance plan.  I've discovered that
my modem noise problems are due to the internal wiring in my apartment
building.  If I subscribed to Illinois Bell's wire maintenance plan
would they come and fix it?  We're talking about a 2400 baud modem
here, nothing too fancy or fast (I remember when I was glad to have
300 vs.  110 ;-) I've tried using different pairs in the six pair that's
in the walls, but none of them is clean.

It seems the problem is worst when other people are likely to be on
the telephone (ie almost no noise at 3am)

My main question is this.  When you purchase the maintenance plan does
that cover *any* problem with the wire (not instrument)?


reb
-- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365
w:reb ASK/Ingres 10255 West Higgins  Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 12:42:30 PDT
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Question 700-555-4141


When dialing 00 I get an MCI operator so I decided to try and see what
LD we've got here at the office.  A while back it was ITT.  Here's
what I found.  Anyone know why 1+700-555-4141 doesn't work on MCI?


      1+700-555-4141 got "call can not be completed as dialed"
      0+700-555-4141 got an MCI <bong> followed by an operator
10222+1+700-555-4141 got "call can not be completed as dialed"
10222+0+700-555-4141 got an MCI <bong> followed by an operator
10288+1+700-555-4141 got a "Welcome to AT&T" message
10333+1+700-555-4141 got a "Welcome to  US Sprint" message


reb
   *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365
w:reb ASK/Ingres 10255 West Higgins  Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500


[Moderator's Note: Your home is served from Chicago-Lakeview, no? And
your slave quarters are off of Centel's switch (I assume, but maybe
Chicago-Newcastle; I get so confused out there by the airport). It
must be some kind of fluke in that office; I just now tried
10222+1+700-555-1212 and got the 'welcome to MCI' message. On the
other hand, when I zero plussed it (10222+0+700-555-4141) I got the
same results as yourself, basically a request to enter an MCI card
number. I am on the Rogers Park CO.  PAT]

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

Subject: Communications Center of the World
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 5 Sep 91 15:24:39 EDT (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> Years and years ago on another tour, they gave us a brochure titled
> "San Luis Obispo, Communications Center of the World" or something
> like that.

Oh, that's silly.  I'm in the Communications Center of the World right
here on Long Beach Island, New Jersey.  A block south of me TAT-9 and
the Bermuda B Cable cross the island here at Harvey Cedars, across the
bay from the terminus in Manahawkin, and head out across the Atlantic.
You can tell because AT&T has large signs at each end of the street
and a sticker on every phone pole saying not even to consider digging
until AT&T is physically on site.  A few miles south, TAT-4, TAT-7,
and TAT-8 cross at Beach Haven, across from the terminus at Tuckerton.
Out my window I can see the masts of WOO, the old VLF ship-to-shore
radio station.  In an impressive waste of money, WOO has a display ad
in the local Ocean County yellow pages touting their ship-to-shore
service, just in case someone wants to call a friend on an ocean liner
to say what a nice day it is here at the shore.

It's all so exciting that I've been known to swoon from the thrill and
fall off my sailboard.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 16:10 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Same Day Service


It looks as though, after long last, that service changes on phone
lines that simply require a programming change at the CO are now done
immediately. I ordered Call Waiting on a line at 11:00 this morning.
The rep said that the feature would be working by 5:00 this afternoon.
It already is working at 4:00.

It used to be most irritating to have to wait three to five days to
get some feature or another turned on. Apparently, someone woke up.


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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 21:53:24 PDT
From: Donald Ekman <[e-mail]>
Subject: A School Which Teaches Telemarketing


This morning, while driving to work, I heard the local ABC affiliate
state that 200 unsolicited telemarketing calls are made every second
in the U.S.  Later today I found in my mail a brochure from San Jose
State University, offering "Professional Growth and Personal
Development Courses," among which was "Professional Telemarketing
Strategies."  The description began:

"Would you like to increases your sales productivity with the
telephone?  Would you like more money in your pockets?  In this course
you will learn how to qualify a buyer within two minutes and move
toward a close without being aggressive.  You will learn numerous
strategies for being assertive and closing more sales and getting
qualified leads.  You will learn little-known specific strategies for
most selling situations on the telephone, and you will learn about
telephone scripts; when to use them, how to use them, and when to
avoid using scripts."

Don't we have enough telemarketers now without a publicy supported
university helping to train more of them?


Donald E. Ekman, Space  Systems/Loral, Palo Alto, CA [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 22:55:22 -0400
From: Rich Padula <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can Anyone Identify This Equipment?


I'm posting this for a friend who was given an unknown piece of
telecom equipment.

The unit in question is the ACCESS 2000-02 made by BFI Communications
Systems Inc. It has slots for four cards and he has three. Each card
has a 6802 processor, Teltone 957, several 567's, a TCM5089 and an
RJ31X jack on the front. The chips are all circa 1983 or 84.

Has anyone had any experiences with this beast? Does BFI still exist?
And where can we find a manual?


Thanks,

Rich Padula

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

From: William Daul <infmx![e-mail]>
Subject: List Wanted of General Areas of 900 Services
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 07:01:38 GMT


Does a list of general 900 service exist?  Something like:
   astrology
   sports scores
   wakeup
   naughty stuff
   stocks
   etc

If anyone has a list or knows where to look, please send me a note.


Thanks,

Bill     uunet!infmx!cheetah!billd

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

From: mission![e-mail]
Subject: Selective Ringing on Party Lines
Date: Thu Sep  5 17:33:15 1991


The ESS Feature Book (AT&T) mentions "Selective Ringing" for
multi-party lines (up to four I think), in which only one phone rings.
How can only one phone of a multi-party line be rung?  (It also
mentions "Semi-Selective Ringing," in which no more than two phones
are run, with distinctive ringing).


[Moderator's Note: From time to time we get inquiries about ringing on
party lines. Basically it involves switching the tip and ring on the
bells, moving the ground wire around, etc. Maybe someone will send you
copies of old messages on this.  We've had plenty of them.   PAT]

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

From: john adams <[e-mail]>
Date:  6 Sep 1991  15:21 EDT
Subject: Re: Some USOC RJ-Codes From the Good Old Days


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Dave Mausner; Datalogics, Inc; Chicago) writes:

> A few telecom readers have asked about the RJ codes. I have an old
> USOC book from IBT here on my lap. It lists the order code and tariff
> reference number for many familiar jacks in the "RJ" series.

Bellcore currently provides a number of the "old" Bell System Tech Pubs
and Tech References among which are:

PUB 47101  Standard Plugs and Jacks, Sept. 1979 and Addendum, March 1983
    $11.75

PUB 47102  Miniature Plugs and Jacks, December 1982  $18.75

If your local library doesn't have a copy of these, they can be
obtained from Bellcore via:

    1 (800) 521-CORE [2673] or 1 [phone]
            -or-
    1 [phone] (Facsimile)
            -or-
    Bellcore Customer Service
    60 New England Avenue
    Piscataway, NJ  08854-4196


Jack (John) Adams        Bellcore RRC 4A-253
[phone] {Voice}        [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 08:56 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900/976/540/Whatever Calling/Blocking


We've all seen the traffic in telecom lately on 900/976/etc numbers,
so I won't quote it, but opinions range from "They should be illegal
and abolished" to "It's your phone, your responsibility, too bad."  I
have a proposal.  Not being a lawyer, or even close to one, I have no
idea about the legality of the existing system nor any proposed
systems, but my sort of informal moral position is as follows:

1.  When I ordered telephone service, that's just what I ordered.  A
telephone, local service, acces to long distance service.  (Assume
that I am either a little old lady whose knowledge of telephony is
limited, or I ordered my service back in 1955 and haven't moved
since.)  My expectation at the time I ordered it, (and I think Bell's
position in 1955) was that the only thing that would show up on my
phone bill was the phone calls.  (I know about telegrams, but let's
ignore that for the moment to keep things simple.)

2.  My position is that I authorized telco to charge me for the cost,
according to some reasonable authorized charging schedule, of the
phone call.  Not for "information providing," contributions to the
local charity, etc.

3.  Telco has now changed the rules.  All of a sudden, charges for
lots of things can show up on my phone bill, looking like phone calls.
As far as I'm concerned, that's like a store doing its billing by
adding its charges to my phone bill.  I never authorized that.  While,
being a Telecom reader, am rather more sophisticated than the general
telephone user (although not as sophisticated as John Higdon), I still
view what they've done as changing the rules after I agreed to the old
rules.

4.  So my proposal is that all telephone numbers should default to
blocking of 900/976/540/whatever, until the person who receives the
bill for the telephone calls made from that number authorizes in
writing telco to allow other things to be billed to that number.
(Perhaps we might modify things so that for service ordered after a
certain date, telco is required to get authorization when you order
service in order to unblock it, rather than do it separately.)  But in
any case, access to 900/etc numbers would have to be explicitly
authorized.


[Moderator's Note: Telco could argue that since they have acted as
collection agents for Western Union (telegrams by phone billed to your
phone bill) for eighty years, they cannot discriminate against other
'communications-related' services which require the use of the phone
to provide their service.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #706
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19137;
          7 Sep 91 2:25 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19923;
          7 Sep 91 1:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19529;
          6 Sep 91 23:56 CDT
Date:     Fri, 6 Sep 91 22:57:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #707
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Sep 91 22:56:41 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 707

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [Linc Madison]
    Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [Jack Dominey]
    Re: Phone Gall [Brent Chapman]
    Re: Phone Gall [John Higdon]
    Re: Wiring Questions For New Home [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: Wiring Questions For New Home [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Telephones in Elevators [Steve Forrette]
    Re: NET's Call Answering Service [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Definitions Wanted For RJ-11 / RJ-14 [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Telecommunications in France - Summary [Jean-Michel Rosset]
    Re: NASA Severs Connection on Email Linkup [Mikel Manitius]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 02:14:13 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> If the country is indeed running out of phone numbers, I wouldn't mind
> at all having an eight digit added if it were a check digit on the
> first seven.

Adding a check digit doesn't help at all with the supply of available
phone numbers -- you're still limited to less than 800,000 local
numbers.  The only way that adding an eighth digit helps is if
NXX-XXXX-1 and NXX-XXXX-2 are distinct valid phone numbers.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Sep  6 09:15:41 EDT 1991
Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers


In Digest V11 #705, James Deibele <sequent!techbook.com!jamesd@
uunet.uu.net> writes:

> If the country is indeed running out of phone numbers, I wouldn't mind at
> all having an eight digit added if it were a check digit on the first seven.

But this wouldn't make any new numbers available, would it?  Ideally,
adding a digit should increase the total supply by a power of 10.  For
every existing number 123-4567, we would have ten numbers 123-4567x,
where x could be 0-9.  But if the last digit is only a check, then
there's only one valid x (which I'm too lazy to compute right now).
So we've succeeded in making numbers longer without allowing any new
ones possible.


Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA
[phone] AT&T Mail: !dominey or !bsga05!jdominey


[Moderator's Note: The one good thing about a check-digit would be
that most wrong numbers (which ring someone and disturb them as
opposed to merely going to intercept) would be virtually eliminated.
The probability of transposing digits in such a way as to reach a
wrong -- but working -- number would be slight. You'd still have the
calls from people who dialed 'correctly' looking for the former owner
of the number, etc.   PAT]

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

From: Brent Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Gall
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1991 17:58:48 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> We are not talking about a security bug in a particular manufacturer's
> equipment here.  What we are talking about is failure to administer
> the system properly, leaving a back door for unauthorized use.  The
> most common cause is the failure to require passwords when granting
> outside lines to incoming callers.  Tell me, do you hold Sun
> responsible when somebody loses data or money because they failed to
> put a password on root?

While it might not be a "bug", I'd certainly believe that there are
design limitations that contribute to these problems.  For instance,
at a past job I ran the phone system, which was an AT&T system (I
don't recall the model, but it served about 60 people).  The system
had a feature called "direct inward system access" (DISA, for short).
If DISA was enabled on an incoming line, callers to that line would be
presented with an "intercom" dial-tone, at which point (depending on
how things were configured) they could either dial an intercom number,
or dial 9 to get an outside line.

Since our system had 60 extensions hidden behind one main number and
an operator (in other words, not DID), we wanted to use the DISA
feature so that frequent callers (our off-site sales reps, or peoples'
friends and family, for instance) could bypass the operator
(particularly after hours, when there _wasn't_ an operator).

There were four configuration variables that I could control: whether
or not to activate DISA at all on a given incoming line, whether or not
a DISA caller could dial intercom numbers, whether or not a DISA caller
could get an outside line, and whether or not the DISA system was password
protected.  Note that our only option for password protection was for
the WHOLE DISA setup; there was no way to say that "intercom calls don't
require a password, but outgoing lines do", which seems like a _real_
obvious way to want to do things ...

So, in order to preserve the primary functionality that I desired
(people able to call in to intercom numbers, bypassing the operator),
I had two choices: either enable outgoing calls from the DISA port,
and hope nobody who wasn't supposed to found out about it, or disable
outgoing calls, and deprive our off-site folks of what could have been
a useful feature (the ability to get an outside line from our system
while off-site).  I chose the latter.

My point is: the design of these systems contributes strongly to their
security or insecurity, and the design of many of them STINKS.


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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 12:56 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Phone Gall


[e-mail] writes:

> However, would you like the management of
> a company in which you owned stock to just blithely write off millions
> of dollars worth of revenue when the fraud was somebody else's fault?

Some apparently would. These are the same people who feel that 900
service providers should just forgive thousands of dollars worth of
usage because the callers were ignorant, stupid, or simply children
out of control. Many perfectly legitimate 900 providers operate on the
edge, and NOT being paid for services can be a real hardship.

Oh, yes, I forgot. Some 900 services strike these people as being
sleazy, so all 900 providers deserve anything they get (or don't get).
The justification for cheating (yes, it is cheating) 900 providers out
of their just revenue is to simply, with a wave of the hand, write off
the entire industry as "worthless".

So what is the justification for demanding that AT&T forgive its
legitimate revenue? Let me guess: AT&T is a big, filthy rich corporation
that can afford to show compassion to its negligent customers. Feel
free to correct me if I missed it somewhere.

But please answer this question: What ever happened to taking
responsibility for one's own actions?

> No.  But if you're big enough you're an easier target for cheap shots.

Don't you know? It is always the Big Corporations (tm) that are "doing
it to us". We have no control over our own lives, our possessions, our
services, or our destinies. And it is up to the Big Corporations to
look out for us at all times. Or is it the Government? Sometimes I
forget.


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

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wiring Questions For New Home
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 06:43:47 GMT


[e-mail] (Patton M. Turner) writes:

> I believe true IEEE 802.3 thick or thin Ethernet cable differs from
> standard RG-58/U.

All the documentation I have seen indicates that only RG-58A/U or
RG-58C/U can be used. From a catalog to hand:

            | Attenuation (dB/100m)             |   % c pF/m
Type    Nom Imp    Out Dia    50MHz    100MHz    200MHz    400MHz    1GHz    vel cap  Vrms
RG-58/U    53.5    4.95mm    10.2    14.8    22.3    32.8    55.8    66  93.5 1900
RG-58A/U 50    "    10.8    16.1    23.9    37.7    70.5    "   101  "
RG-58C/U 50    "    "    "    "    "    "    "   "    "

Why they ever came up with such a confusion of cable numbers I will
never know.


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

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wiring Questions For New Home
Date: 6 Sep 91 20:51:50 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> The 50 conductor cable used for 1A2 isn't twisted pair cable, although
> the color codes do pair certain wire together.

It certainly is twisted, but may not seem tightly twisted to you.
There would be lots of problems were it not twisted. That cable is
used for a lot more than just key systems, but needs the twists in a
1A2 system, also.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 02:08:33 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones in Elevators
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)


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

> I got a chance to use a phone in an elevator today. Most of us have
> seen the little door above the elevator buttons, opened it and saw the
> phone or intercom inside ... but fortunatly the need to use it is
> rare.

One of my friends worked the "night audit" shift at a local hotel a
few years ago.  The property had three floors, and two elevators.  The
phones in the elevators were configured as ring-downs to the front
desk.  Every so often, some wise guy would lift the receiver, and try
to order room service.  Since the front desk console displayed the
originating extension, my friend would reply "Okay, what floor will
you be on in 15 minutes?"  The usual response was "uh, oh, <click>" as
the person realized that they had been caught red-handed.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 02:27:49 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NET's Call Answering Service
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)


Regarding RBOC voicemail and toll-saver, why is this not possible?
Certainly, the switch could be programmed to vary the number of rings
for no-answer transfer based upon the status of the stutter dialtone.
For folks with stutter dialtone, the switch already knows if you have
messages waiting.  I guess the big question is if the switch
manufacturers have not put this in the software (if not, they should),
or if the RBOC chooses not to implement it for fear that it would make
too much sense (in which case, they should).

As for Pacific Bell and Message Center, I am amused by how they show
the typical ineptness that is ther trademark.  They were advertising a
special 800 number that goes right to a special Message Center
business office, separate from the regular business office, who are
supposedly experts in voice messageing.  When it first came out, I
called and asked if it had toll-saver.  The response was "what's
toll-saver?"  This from the supposed voice messaging expert.  The
concept of toll-saver is something that common folk with no more
expertise than experience with their answering machine are familiar
with, but the Pacific Bell "expert" has never even heard of it. :-(


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 02:42:45 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Definitions Wanted For RJ-11 / RJ-14
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)


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

> Can someone please tell me where I could find a definitive answer to
> exactly what RJ-11 and RJ-14 are.

> All I know is that if I go to Radio Shack and ask them to give me a
> RJ-11 connector they give me the ones with six tracks (the larger one
> that is in the back of your phone), and if I ask for RJ-14 connector I
> get the smaller one (used in the handset cord).

I always thought that RJ-14 referred to the arrangement where you have
a standard modular jack, but with a second line on the normally-unused
outer pair.  At least I've always used this terminology with telco
(and Radio Shack), and have never been corrected or misunderstood.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: Jean-Michel ROSSET <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecommunications in France - Summary
Date: 2 Sep 91 08:23:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, GND


In article <[e-mail]> rls![e-mail]
(Randall L. Smith) writes:

> Not too long ago I posted the request relating to the subject line
> above and I received several very interesting replies.  In general it
> seems Teletel (a French public initiative) has a modern, successful
> and active system called Minitel.  Minitel offers 13,000 different
> information services to the average French household and businesses.

> While I received a warm fuzzy regarding its success and usefulness,
> not too many tangables were provided.  All in all, most felt it was

I had brief exposure to a public Minitel terminal a couple of years
ago in Paris. It took me five or ten francs to figure out how to place
a call (although I thought I understood what the terminal was telling
me, my French is pretty limited), and I spent another fifteen or
twenty francs, walking away with precious little in the way of useful
information (I think I was after train schedules, or something like
that).

On the basis of my brief encounter, I'd say that Minitel is slightly
more difficult to operate than my videocassette recorder, with some
hefty user interface problems.

The interface problem you found was not due to the Minitel itself but
to the service provider (apparently the SNCF, the national train
company).  The Minitel is only the medium, each service provider must
design its own user interface. (Anyway, even the natives have hard
times trying to understand SNCF's schedules either on electronic or
paper).

> My understanding is that Minitel was heavily subsidized and
> slow to take off, with much of the early use being the equivalent of
> our phone sex traffic. Has this situation really changed significantly
> in the average French home?

Most people I know in France have Minitel. It was subsidized in the
sense that terminals were free. France telecom is now coming back on
this policy since the new generation of terminals is not free anymore
(about 20FF a month).  It's getting harder to find free terminals.

Minitel traffic accounts for half of Transpac (national X.25 network)
traffic.  Applications I use most are:

Electronic directory: This service is provided by France Telecom, it
is free the first three minutes and it is much more convenient that a
paper directory: You can find somebody with an approximate name or
location; the research is nation-wide.

Home banking: Most banks provide an access to bank accounts, most of
the usual bank operations can be done from the terminal.

Other local information services like wheather report, traffic jams,
movie programs ...

It is true that sexual traffic is still important (they call it
"messagerie rose") but business services are now developping faster.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 17:31:46 EDT
From: Mikel Manitius <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NASA Severs Connection on Email Linkup


This brings up an interesting thought about virus programs. Keeping in
mind the Internet "sendmail" virus of a few years ago, I wonder what
type of software NASA was using with Applelink ...

"And in today's news, Engineers at NASA are trying to figure out how
to cure a computer virus that has apparently taken over the Space
Shuttle Atlantis' main navigation computers. Apparently the virus
managed to make it's way into the shuttle's systems through a national
electronic mail network ..."

Hmm...


Mikel Manitius   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #707
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19853;
          7 Sep 91 3:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30005;
          7 Sep 91 2:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19923;
          7 Sep 91 1:02 CDT
Date:     Fri, 6 Sep 91 23:56:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #708
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Sep 91 23:56:12 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 708

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CO Broadcasting [Charles Hoequist]
    Re: CO Broadcasting [Tom Gray]
    Re: International Toll-free Numbers [Jack Dominey]
    Re: International Toll-free Numbers? [Alan Toscano]
    Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Linc Madison]
    Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad? [Linc Madison]
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes [mission![e-mail]]
    Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [Richard Miller]
    Re: Baudot?? I'll Ask My Mom [Bruce Albrecht]
    Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Mark Miller]
    Re: Voicemail [Steve Kass]
    New AT&T Card [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 91 08:17:00 EDT
From: Charles (C.A.)Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CO Broadcasting


Not only is CO broadcasting theoretically possible, a mockup of it has
been set up by a BNR Inc. group at Research Triangle Park, NC. I'm not
privy to all the details, but I have the impression that NT is
plugging this as a service, and could have it running fairly soon, if
the telcos want it and the PUC allows it.

(Getting the message out to a couple of thousand people picking up
their handsets at different times isn't a serious problem; send
pointers scurrying through the digitized file at close intervals and
attach each subscriber to the pointer nearest the start of the file. I
don't know if that's what the mockup does, but it would work.)


Charles Hoequist    [e-mail]   BNR Inc.
PO Box 13478        Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27709-3478, USA   919-991-8642

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CO Broadcasting
Date: 6 Sep 91 19:03:07 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> On the news last night there was a story about one of the Los
> Angeles County municipalities creating an alert network for the city
> using phones.  The was very little detail but I imagine it will use
  ...
> network) but is there a technical reason, inherent to the network,
> that it wouldn't be possible ?

Such systems as described above do exist. They are widely used for
emergency service. For example the dispatcher for a volunteer fire
department can with one access dial all members of the department. As
the dialed parties answer, they are connected to a conference. The
feature requires knowledge only that a called party has answered and
so only the originating CO is required to have the software capability
of this service.

The Mitel GX5000 CDO has just such an emergency alerting feature.


Tom Gray


[Moderator's Note: To avoid confusion among subscribers who would pick
up their phone midway through the announcement, one solution would be
to have an introductory announcement of only a few seconds in length
which advises the subscriber to remain on the line; i.e. "This is a
recorded message from the XYZ Police Department. An emergency
announcement is being made to all residents of Podunk. In just a few
seconds, you'll be connected to the emergency announcement which may
be in progress. Please listen to the complete announcement, it will
repeat itself from the beginning. Listen as long as desired until you
understand it completely" ... <click> ... main message.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Sep  6 15:49:34 EDT 1991
Subject: Re: International Toll-free Numbers


According to a source here in my branch, the dialing sequence
95-800-xxx-xxxx is used to dial toll-free into the United States *from
Mexico*.  Note that this is not a method for dialing U.S. 800
numbers; although the format is the same, the digits themselves will
be different.  The receiver of the calls must specifically arrange
(and pay!) for toll-free service from Mexico.


Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA
[phone] AT&T Mail: !dominey or !bsga05!jdominey

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Sep  6 16:25:22 CDT 1991
Subject: Re: International Toll-free Numbers?


In <telecom11.702.5>, Charlie Mingo <Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.
fidonet.org> writes:

>     While they eventually gave it to me, they suggested he use a funny
> international toll free number, which was unlike anything I've seen
> before.

>     The number is [phone] (that's right: country code "95";
> the place is in Texas).

+95 would be Burma, if it's actually a country code.

Instead, this sounds like a Mexican toll free number for calls to the
US.  "95" is the access code used in Mexico for international calling.
Normally, the "95" is followed by a country code, but "800" is a
special case for toll-free calling. I'm aware of several Texas
companies with 95-800 numbers for use by Mexican customers. Because
the "800" is used in place of a country code, rather than as a city
code, you couldn't route an international call into Mexico (+52), and
then out again. I think this number is useless outside of Mexico.


A Alan Toscano             Voice:  [phone]     AT&T Mail:  atoscano
<[e-mail]>     Telex (UT):   156232556     CIS:       73300,217

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 02:54:01 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)


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

> Of course each "hop" would cause signal loss, I would suspect 2 or 3
> hops would be about the practical maximum.

Is this necessarily true in a digital switch, especially if its
connections to other switches is over digital carrier?

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

> NJ Bell has offered remote call forwarding, under tariff, for a number
> of years.  The service consists of a phone number, anywhere in New
> Jersey, with no physical line or phone associated.  The number is
> forwarded to the number of the paying subscriber, somewhere else in
> the state.  There is a small monthly charge, and each forwarded call
> is charged the normal direct-dial rate (as if there were a physical
> line with forwarding in effect).

Pacific Bell has the same service, but it costs $18 a month.  It is
available in either residential or business class-of-service, with the
only difference being the installation price.  The residence version
is always measured rate, even thought real residence lines can be
either measured or unmeasured.

The really silly thing is why it costs $18/month on top of message
units.  If you have a location where you can park a local loop, you
can order a regular line with call forwarding.  And for the greatly
increased cost of instaslling and maintaining the local loop, they
will *deduct* several dollars a month!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 02:04:51 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> Regarding the ease of misrepresentation of cost for 900 and 976
> services, the following types of ads have begun to appear on local
> stations.

> In tiny little (very tiny) letters ... "$3.00 per min/12 min. minimum"

The other ones that really get my goat are the "FREE!!!" 900 numbers,
specifically the ones that advertise as "America's most popular
Fifteen Dollar Love line, with the first minute FREE!!!  Try it
FREE!!!!"  The numbers are all advertised as 1-900-nxx-FREE.  The fine
print is that the first minute is indeed free, but then you get hit
for $15 for the sixty-first second.  Now, does that include call
setup?  What about the little "hang up now and you won't be charged"
spiel?  Is that part of your FREE minute?


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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 02:09:45 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> [Steve Forrette:]

>> I wonder: If you were at one of these "numbers-only" phones and had to
>> dial a number that was given with letters, would the operator help you
>> out?

> [Moderator's Note: The operator will help anyone dial, at the rate for
> operator-assisted calls. If you are asking would they do it at dial
> rates, why should they? It is not telco's concern what phone you use,
> and subscriber-assigned letters are not authorized anyway.    PAT]

Ah, but what if the number in question is 1-800-PAC-BELL?

It's an actual number, advertised in that format.  I'd be willing to
bet that my local operator would be *real* happy to help me complete a
call to that number if I couldn't figure out 18007222355.

I forget what that particular number is for.  Please don't call it
just to ask them, or if you do, don't tell them I sent you.


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

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

From: mission![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes
Date: Thu Sep  5 17:36:46 1991


A recent post (sorry for not quoting, I read and post on different
systems) mentioned an article on the low supply of area codes, which
indicated that the new plan (using area codes and prefixes that look
alike) may require some people to always dial an area code, even their
own.  Why would this ever be needed?  The only thing I can imagine is
if toll calls had to be dialed as 1+ area code, or if they didn't have
1+ dialing.  But everyone will have 1+ soon, won't they?

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

From: "Richard H. Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers
Date: 6 Sep 1991 19:52:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, sequent!techbook.com!jamesd@
uunet.uu.net (James Deibele) writes:

> If the country is indeed running out of phone numbers, I wouldn't mind
> at all having an eight digit added if it were a check digit on the
> first seven.  This is what is done with the International Standard
> Book Number -- the first nine digits are summed (10 * 1st digit, 9 *
> 2nd, ... 2 * the 9th) and the last character (X is used to represent
> 11) is modulo 11.

It's a nice idea but I don't see how it gets us anywhere as far as
increasing the number of available numbers. You still have the problem
of running out of assignable seven digit numbers since the check-digit is
burned as far as providing an additional nine numbers. [i.e. if my eight
digit number is nnn-nnnn-c then there cannot be any numbers of the
form nnn-nnnn-x (where x is any digit but c).

As far as adding digits are concerned, my days as a business systems
analyst makes my blood turn cold when thinking about the idea of
adding another digit.  The amount of reprogramming that would be
required to add an eight digit to phone numbers would make the amount
of reprogramming required by telecom providers to implement nnn area
codes looks like a gnat next to an elephant.  The example of ZIP + 4
has been brought out as a counter example but several facts need to be
kept in mind before you use this example:

1) The primary fact is that ZIP + 4 was and still is voluntary. The
USPS does not require modifications to be made to all application
systems which use a ZIP code since the five digit ZIP code will still
work. Thus a company has the option of choosing which applications
should be converted to ZIP + 4 and which databases or master files
need conversion. They also may choose to implement ZIP + 4 over time.
[We chose to implement ZIP + 4 as we rewrote systems.] Adding a digit
to the phone system will be mandatory and will require redesign of any
application systems which deal with phone numbers. Seven digit phone
numbers will not work [assumption here] after a cutover date. Thus
everything will have to be converted [did you remember to convert all
of your auto-dial scripts]. Screens will have to be redesigned,
databases changed or redesigned and additional storage may be
required. Special programs will have to be written and tested to
convert all of the data.

2) Because applications are being changed, it will involve probably
even more work as the user's tell you that 'since you are modifying
the program anyway, why don't you just [insert request] also.'

3) You aren't avoiding any telecom programming anyway since all of the
switches would have to be reprogrammed to handle the additional digit.

4) We [the US] have never had to increase a mandatory field size as
embedded as a phone number. The last change of this type was going
from the zone code to ZIP code which occurred before computers had as
large a penetration as they do now.


Richard H. Miller                 Email: [e-mail]
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: [phone]
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030


[Moderator's Note: When *did* we start the <Z>one <I>mprovement <P>lan?
It seems to me I remember zip codes in 1963 ... the existing zones
were kept and prepended by 606 in our case.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1991 22:59:20 -0500
From: Bruce Albrecht <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Baudot?? I'll Ask My Mom


Marty the Droid <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> In my early days of computing we used a model 33 teletype to
>> communicate with an HP2000B machine.

A responder stated:

> Now wait a minute ... I expect that we have some facts crossed.

> Model 33's were ASCII devices.  Model 28's and 32's were Baudot.  The
> 32 was made in the same case as the model 33.
   ...

> Marty, perhaps you can shed some light in a followup posting.  I'm
> interested in how this worked.

I'm curious too, since the model 33 teletypes I used to communicate
with HP2000B's were definitely 8 bit ASCII.  We used to read the tapes
too, since it was often the only way to steal someone's password!


[e-mail]

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

From: Mark Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 12:09:00 EDT


It's been about a month since several of you ordered this phone, and I
was wondering if any of you have received it, and if you did receive
it would you put together a review for the Digest?


Thanks.

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


[Moderator's Note: I have not received it yet, nor has my credit card
been charged. Neither have I been charged for the 900 demo line call
which was advertised with it. I wonder what's going on?    PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1991 08:52 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Voicemail


In TELECOM Digest 11:705, Sean Williams <[e-mail]>
writes:

> On this note, do any colleges have on-campus voicemail?  Or are just a
> few of us lucky enough to be left out ...

Drew University has ASPEN voicemail for all faculty, staff and
students, together with asynchronous data-voice communications to
every office and dormitory room.  I think we are unusual in this
respect.  It's probably an expensive service to provide, but it's
extremely well-used, much more so than e-mail, which is also available
to everyone (each incoming student gets a PC -- currently a 286 laptop
with hard drive).


Steve Kass/ Math&CS Dept/ Drew U/ Madison, NJ 07940
[e-mail]/ 201-408-3614 (voicemail)

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 13:19:37 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: New AT&T Card


I have seen some notice in the Digest about new AT&T cards which no
longer use your phone number with four-digit ID tacked on.  Now you
have a different 14-digit number on such card instead.  I recently got
such a card, and found that it is valid for the AT&T VoiceMark service
(800-562-6275) where my old card was not.  Also, when is the "full
cutover" for such new AT&T card (i.e., your old AT&T card number would
no longer work)?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #708
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24995;
          7 Sep 91 13:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02299;
          7 Sep 91 12:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04866;
          7 Sep 91 11:10 CDT
Date:     Sat, 7 Sep 91 11:06:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #709
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Sep 91 11:06:32 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 709

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite? [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Unix on Switches [Russ Nelson]
    Re: Problem Reaching AT&T Mail [Dave Niebuhr]
    Re: Problem Reaching AT&T Mail [Dave Kurtiak]
    Re: Phone Rates Across the USA [Stephanie da Silva]
    Re: Phone Rates Across the USA [Dave Niebuhr]
    Re: More on US West and 976 IPs [Steve Forrette]
    Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Michael A. Covington]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite?
Date: 4 Sep 91 00:52:13 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> In article <[e-mail]> hayes![e-mail]
> (Toby Nixon) writes:

>> I'm very surprised, though, that you would hear this at all on a call
>> from Illinois to New York; you normally encounter it only on
>> international connections.  Virtually all US calls are carried as
>> duplex PCM 64kbps channels, with no TASI, ADPCM, DCME/PCME, or other
>> multiplication equipment involved.  Which long distance carrier are
>> you using?  Is it sensitive to time of day or other factors?  Has it
>> always been this way, or is this a new (hopefully temporary)
>> phenomenon?

> I've had connections like this from Nevada City, CA to Melbourne, FL
> on MCI.  I don't recall the time of day.

Back in the early days of Sprint, I used to get calls like this. When
I succeeded in getting through to Sprint customer service (quite a
feat in itself in those days), a surprisingly well-informed person
told me that my problem was due to the fact that my calls were being
carried via leased FDM trunk to the satellite uplink in San Francisco
(God knows how many miles of FDM trunk it traveled through on the
other end from the downlink to my parents in rural Indiana).

Incredibly, I stayed with Sprint. (It was a lot cheaper then.) If MCI
were doing this to me in 1991, though, I wouldn't stand it for a week.


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors?
Date: 4 Sep 91 17:54:53 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Michael A. Covington) writes:

> I would think the risk of radio or TV interference from a cellular
> tower is minimal.  Interference is almost always on frequencies
> *higher* than that of the transmitter.  This means that, for instance,
> a CB on 27 MHz might interfere with TV reception in the 50-88 MHz
> range, but a cellular transmitter on 850 MHz is very unlikely to
> interfere with anything below 850 MHz.  This puts it well above all
> radio and TV broadcasts.

The mathematics of interference in superheterodyne receivers is
simple, but not quite that simple. A counterexample which comes to
mind is the interference which is generated in the HF bands of my
shortwave receiver as mixing of the strong FM broadcast signals in my
neighborhood with the second harmonic of the local oscillator, which
just happens to fall in the shortwave bands.

What you say would be true if everyone's LO was nice and clean, and
all we had to worry about was harmonics of broadcast stations. But
with the frequent colocation of multiple FM and TV transmitters these
days, subtle intermodulation can occur between colocated transmitters
as well as between the radiated fields and your receiver's
oscillators.

Basically, any frequency which is a solution to the expression

          af  +bf
            RF   LO

for small integers a and b and for any strong emitter at frequency fRF
is a good candidate for intermodulation interference.

There are cases (such as the AWACS AEW system) in which the number of
colocated radio sets is so large that the aid of a computer is needed
in selecting usable frequencies.

In any case, radiated power from a cell site is so low that interference
shouldn't be a problem.

> The radiation hazard is also minimal because cellular towers use quite
> low power.  (I don't know exactly, but based on my ham radio
> experience I'd think a cellular tower would work fine emitting five
> watts.)  That's the same as a CB radio or a police walkie-talkie, but
> of course the cellular tower is much farther from human beings.

Cell sites radiate between 20 and 100 W ERP, spread over all channels
served by the site. The power spectral density in Toby's neighborhood,
allowing for the difference in path loss, should be considerably less
than that of a (legal) CB transmitter in the same location, and at
frequencies that are unlikely to cause significant interference.


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

From: Russ Nelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches
Reply-To: "aka [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Crynwr Software, guest account at Clarkson
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1991 13:04:14 GMT


Brian Crowley asks:

> I understand that modern CO switches run a software program called a
> generic which is based on the UNIX system.  Just how different is the
> kernel the switch runs from the kernel which is running my
> workstation?  What sort of interface does the CO technician have to
> the switch (dumb terminal, graphics terminal, etc.)?  Is it possible
> to bring up a shell on a CO switch?  What type of filesystem is
> typically used?

These answers are based on 1.5 days of work on a #5ESS: The interface
to the switch is a dumb terminal.  Cursor positioning is used for some
tasks, others use it like it was a printing terminal.  Amazing that it
doesn't have a DMD (Blit), especially considering how much you pay for
the switch.  Yes, you can bring up a shell.  The filesystem seems to
be a normal Unix filesystem.

By the way, does anyone know if AT&T has an email address for #5ESS
questions?


russ <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1991 9:25:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Niebuhr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problem Reaching AT&T MAIL


Someone recently made mention of the fact that there are two different
addresses for AT&T for mail purposes: ATTMAIL.COM and ATT.COM.  It was
also mentioned that one is internal and the other is for those who
want to pay for access to the Internet as an outsider.

Please enlighten me; which is which?


Thanks,

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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Sep  6 13:53:08 EDT 1991
Subject: Re: Problem Reaching AT&T Mail


Our Moderator writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: Thanks for your help with this. The only thing is,
>> mail to attmail.com was falling in a hole somewhere. If other users
>> were receiving nothing how would the postmaster have gotten mail?  PAT]

To which Bob Halloran responds:

> [...] If you notice, Mark is saying to
> mail to ATT.com, not attmail.com.  The two are very much distinct; one
> is the Internet gateway to the company's R&D network, [...]

> If it confused you so much, others might be confused also; you
> might want to post a clarification....

Mark pursued the internet <-> ATTmail problems from the internet side
probably at the same time that I had been trying to convince ATTMail
that inbound internet mail isn't working.  Since outbound mail was not
affected, it wasn't easy to clearly locate if, and where a problem
existed.

The way I understand it, after several calls to AT&T Mail and speaking
with one of their network techs, is that the machine 'att.com' splits
off all incoming Internet mail destined for 'attmail.com'.
Apparently, the pipe to attmail somehow became confused/broken, and
all mail from the internet was trashed (the spool file was overwritten
each time?? or something to that effect ...)

Since the "Gateway Project" and AT&TMail are very separate
departments, AT&T Mail had no way of knowing that there even was a
problem since it was on the "other side" of the gateway.  According to
the tech I spoke with, they [the AT&T Mail management], were *quite*
concerned about this, and that it was out for just about a full week.
Somebody, somewhere, is certain to be hearing more about this ... to
prevent a reoccurrence of a similar situation in the future, AT&T Mail
is working to develop better communications between the two
departments.

I do not work for ATT_Mail_, nor do I speak for them.  Any inaccuracies
in my posting are probably due to my own misinterpretation of facts
from the technician I spoke with.

Hope this explains the situation!  Enjoy!


Dave Kurtiak     AT&T - CCS Consumer Information Management
AT&TMail: [e-mail]

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

From: Stephanie da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Rates Across the USA
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1991 17:28:13 GMT


Well, since everyone else is doing their phone bill and since I
haven't noticed anyone has posted Southwestern Bell's rates, then I
might as well do mine. Be warned my bills are skewed this month
because I have credits on both of them.

This is for our voice line.

Monthly Service                    $15.75 (includes callwait & 3way)
FCC Approved Customer Line Charge    3.50
911 Service Fee                       .22
Other Charges                        3.09 Cr (we removed call forward &
                                                 speed dialing)
Info. Delivery Service Dial 976       .49 (from calling a time service)
                                   ------
                                    16.87
Federal Tax                           .49
State & Local Taxes                  1.03
                                   ------
Total                               18.39

There's also a $.75 charge from calling that Voicephone demo that was
posted here recently.

This is for the two data lines. Everything's doubled, so just divide
by 2 to get charges for one line. The only reason we have two phone
bills is because the voice line is listed in Peter's name and the data
lines are in my name.

Monthly Service                    $24.10
FCC Approved Customer Line Charge    7.00
911 Service Fee                       .44
Other Charges                       29.41 (1/4 of the installation charge)
                                   ------
                                    60.95
Federal Tax                           .94
Sate & Local Taxes                   3.78
                                   ------
                                    65.67

Now this is the interesting part. This phone bill has a $60 credit so
it comes out to a grand total of $5.67.  When we had the third line
installed, we originally were quoted an installation fee of $120. The
reason it was so high was because they had to install a phone jack, or
so they said.

When the installer arrived, I showed him the jacks (we have three
wired for two lines each), and he wandered around the apartment and
ended up in my kids' room where he found an unused jack. Suggested I
put the new line there. I said it'd be inconvenient since the BBS is
in our bedroom and we'd have to run the phone cord from their room to
ours and he said that a few feet of cord was a hell of a lot cheaper
than a $60 jack. So I said, fine, do it.

When we got the phone bill, it had the full installation fee on it so
naturally we called to see what was going on. The representative said
that it didn't matter if the installer didn't put in a jack, if he
even touched a jack, then that meant we got charged for a jack
installation.  Now, we know that they can't charge us for something
they didn't do and told this person that the installer specifically
told us that by doing it the way he did it would save us the $60. They
said they'd get in touch with him to verify this and apparently they
did, hence the credit.  I noticed they didn't credit us for the
federal and state taxes.


Stephanie da Silva Taronga Park * Houston,
Texas [e-mail] 568-0480 568-1032

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

Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1991 7:45:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Niebuhr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Rates Across the USA


The responses received to my question about phone bills has been
enlightening.  What I noticed and I don't see it on my phone bill are
charges for 911 and the New York Relay Service for the hearing
impaired.

I called the local business office and asked about them.  According to
the representative there is no charge that she knows about for 911 and
she wasn't sure about the other but thought it was 30 cents per month.

There is a specific mention of the TDD stuff in the phone book though.

For the 911, I'll be willing to lay odds that there is a monthly
charge buried somewhere, probably in the basic serice charge and no
one is saying anything.

I just can't fathom not paying something since my police department
handles over 600,000 calls per year.  This is believable since each
call is flagged with a 'Civilian Complaint' number and I can hear the
number go up when I have my scanner tuned to the police bands.

If it's not buried in the bill then it's buried in the police district
budget and the taxpayers in the district are getting hit with it in
their taxes.

Personally, I really don't care about whom I pay it to, when I call
the police, I want them there as soon as possible and if it costs to
make the call then so be it.

Note:  No charge from payphones to 911.


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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:33:34 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on US West and 976 IPs
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)


US West reportedly cited "business reasons" for wanting to discontinue
976 services.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was not the story we
heard when they went to the PUCs several years ago to START the whole
mess.  What they said then was to the effect that "this will enable
telephone subscribers to access a wide variety of information right
from their home, such as stock quotes, lottery results, sport scores,
weather reports, etc."  Has this changed?  Are these services no
longer available?  Nope, they are still there.  Then why should they
be allowed to discontinue them?

Or maybe what they are REALLY saying is "Well, we lied about why we
wanted to do it in the first place.  Our real reason was that we
thought we could make a handsome profit.  Since that is apparently not
the case, we want to discontinue the service.  Oh, and about the
'public interest' aspect that we convinced you of in the beginning,
that is much less important than our bottom line.  After all, we are a
regulated monopoly.  Our bottom line is much more important than the
public interest we serve."


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: "Michael A. Covington" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 91 06:11:55 GMT


I haven't seen this widget, but one way to disguise a voice electron-
ically while leaving it intelligible is to full-wave rectify it.
(Someone who is a whiz at Fourier transforms can tell us exactly what
this does; my impression is that F[0] gets doubled but most of the
higher components stay in place.)

This produces an "Alvin and the Chipmunks" effect, or so I'm told.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D.  |  [e-mail]   |  N4TMI
Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A.


[Moderator's Note: Apparently no one has seen 'this widget' yet. Has
anyone who ordered one of these things had it show up yet or been
billed for it yet?   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #709
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25616;
          7 Sep 91 14:53 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22103;
          7 Sep 91 13:22 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02299;
          7 Sep 91 12:16 CDT
Date:     Sat, 7 Sep 91 11:42:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #710
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Sep 91 11:41:57 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 710

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phone Fraud Articles from comp.risks [Ed Hopper]
    Re: 900/976/540/Whatever Calling/Blocking [John Higdon]
    Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Steve Forrette]
    A Devious Sort of Guy (was Billing Responsibility; 900) [TELECOM Moderator]
    Auto-Block, etc. [Carl Moore]
    References Wanted on Interface Projects for Phones [Steve Chafe]
    Single Chip Rotary Pulse Decoders [Umesh H. Patel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Phone Fraud Articles from comp.risks
From: ED HOPPER <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri 06 Sep 91 14:01:17 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575


In a comment on a previous article, Pat mentioned that all Dimension
PBX's had a default access code of "1111" and that "service rep's"
didn't know they existed.

Point 1.  The Dimensions that I implemented (union guys installed
them, I did the paperwork), did NOT have a 1111 default.  They did
have a default and it was trivial but it wasn't THAT trivial.  Also,
of the half dozen or so switch projects I implemented, the access
codes were all different. Additionally, the default code was in the
PBX translation documents that were in the hands of the implementer as
soon as the firm switch engineering was sent to Denver.

When I implemented Dimensions, I took the customer by the hand and
said: "Here is the remote access feature.  It does this ...
(explanation).  Do you want it?  If so, I strongly recommend that you
restrict it's ability to make toll calls and/or you restrict heavily
those people who the access code.  You should change the code
regularly.  Do you understand?"

Then, after the cut, I took them by the hand again and said "We're
going to change the code again, twice.  The first time I am going to
help you do it.  Then, you are going to do it again and NOT TELL ME
the code.  Then I want you to establish a schedule to change the code
regularly.  Do you understand?"

Point 2.  Pat made mention of "service rep's".  Let's keep our terms
straight Pat.  A service rep was a union-member (i.e., not allowed or
trusted to think) who sits in an inbound-telmarketing type operation
and takes and makes calls to customers re: moving phones, new connects
of single line and small key system customers, billing problems etc.

PBX's were implemented by management personnel (in most operating
companies) who came to vist the site, had access to the aforementioned
PBX engineering documents, etc. They should have known of the
existence of DISA (or remote access as we called it). If they didn't
then I'd be highly surprised.  They WERE trained on it if they
received any of the standard Bell System PBX marketing training that
occured in that time period.

I wouldn't be surprised if "service rep's" didn't know about remote
access.  I would be VERY surprised if those who were charged with
implementation and support of PBX's were ignorant of that feature.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 22:53 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: 900/976/540/Whatever Calling/Blocking


"Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]> writes:

> 1.  When I ordered telephone service, that's just what I ordered.  A
> telephone, local service, acces to long distance service.

> (I know about telegrams, but let's
> ignore that for the moment to keep things simple.)

Oh, if we could just ignore things. That certainly would make things
simple wouldn't it? Of course the "telephone company" has, in the
past, billed you for things other than "telephone service". It used to
bill you for all of that telephone equipment you had.

> 2.  My position is that I authorized telco to charge me for the cost,
> according to some reasonable authorized charging schedule, of the
> phone call.  Not for "information providing," contributions to the
> local charity, etc.

But what about the time-of-day service the telco provides? The weather
service? Who pays for these (Pac*Bell provides them "free")? Take a
close look at the bottom of your bill where the charges are listed. In
Pac*Bell land, we pay for the Lifeline subsidy; the 911 subsidy; taxes
(which have absolutely nothing to do with providing phone service) to
Federal, state, and local agencies; "access" charges (that have
nothing to do with access); and devices for the deaf.

> 3.  Telco has now changed the rules.  All of a sudden, charges for
> lots of things can show up on my phone bill, looking like phone calls.

But they ARE phone calls. All you have to do to keep them off of your
bill is NOT make them. The above deaf/poor/emergency/taxes/access
excrement appears on your bill no matter what you do.

> As far as I'm concerned, that's like a store doing its billing by
> adding its charges to my phone bill.  I never authorized that.

Then leave the merchandise on the counter. If someone was adding those
mean old charges without your participation, then you would have a
point. If you don't like the concept of information providing, then
don't make the calls. If you cannot control yourself, get free
blocking. You do not have to play the game. But do not decree to
others who may actually want to play.

> 4.  So my proposal is that all telephone numbers should default to
> blocking of 900/976/540/whatever, until the person who receives the
> bill for the telephone calls made from that number authorizes in
> writing telco to allow other things to be billed to that number.
> (Perhaps we might modify things so that for service ordered after a
> certain date, telco is required to get authorization when you order
> service in order to unblock it, rather than do it separately.)  But in
> any case, access to 900/etc numbers would have to be explicitly
> authorized.

In the 900 business, your proposal is simply code for "kill the
industry". The whole point of 900 service is casual and spontaneous
usage. You see a service that strikes your fancy so you try it. Your
proposal would make such usage impossible and indeed would make using
a 900 service harder than ordering features on your line. Remember,
even if you do not have blocking, nasty 900 charges do NOT appear on
your line without making the calls. I have yet to have a single 900
charge appear on any of my sixteen home lines and none of them have
blocking.  It is easy. I do not call 900 numbers.

> [Moderator's Note: Telco could argue that since they have acted as
> collection agents for Western Union (telegrams by phone billed to your
> phone bill) for eighty years, they cannot discriminate against other
> 'communications-related' services which require the use of the phone
> to provide their service.    PAT]

But we will just ignore that because it makes thing easier. It is a
lot less trouble to make arguments when we can just leave out
inconvenient facts.


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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 18:11:41 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)


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

> "Michael A. Covington" <[e-mail]> writes:

>> *    If callers to 900 and 976 numbers were required to give a
>>      credit card number (by voice or by keypad), this would
>>      establish that:

> The customer has a credit card. And what if one does not have a credit
> card? Sorry, he is just out of luck. So what you advocate is just
> another restriction on the lives of people who, sometimes by choice,
> do not possess a bank credit card. Obviously, you missed the whole
> point of 900/976: the ability to casually use a service without having
> to make prior billing arrangements or having to carry a bank or other
> credit card.

John Higdon's assertion that blocking solves all of the security
issues overlooks the major complaint I have about the current
situation: the occasional user of 900/976.  I have the occasional need
to call 900/976 services, but am unable to do so, because of security
issues.  I do not keep my phone under lock and key, and live in an
apartment complex which refuses to lock the punchdown boxes, so I feel
the need to have blocking.

My solution is to allow charges to be billed to telco calling cards.  This
would provide several benefits:

- Allow me to have blocking, but still be able to call on an as-needed
basis, with my identity being verified by the calling card PIN.

- Allow me to call from payphones, mobile phones, and friends' phones.

- Not require people to have bank credit cards.  After all, anyone with
a phone line can get a talco calling card free for the asking.  Anyone without
their own phone line can't legitimately place 900/976 calls currently, so
this does not create any more credit-worthiness restrictions than are already
in place.

- People who don't have blocking don't have to use the calling card method,
and can thus avoid any extra costs incurred through its use.

Now what's wrong with this?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 7 Sep 91 0:54:42 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Devious Sort of Guy (was Billing Responsibility; 900 Calls)


In TELECOM Digest V#11 Issue 708 Linc Madison <[e-mail].
edu> <Re:>plied to Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls saying:

> The other ones that really get my goat are the "FREE!!!" 900 numbers,
> specifically the ones that advertise as "America's most popular Fifteen
> Dollar Love line, with the first minute FREE!!!  Try it FREE!!!!"  The
> numbers are all advertised as 1-900-nxx-FREE.  The fine print is that
> the first minute is indeed free, but then you get hit for $15 for the
> sixty-first second.  Now, does that include call setup?  What about the
> little "hang up now and you won't be charged" spiel?  Is that part of
> your FREE minute?

One fellow in Chicago uses the free services extensively, and beats
them at their own game. His gimmick is to get on an 'adult' conference
line which offers the first minute free; make a quick pitch for his
particular kink; give out a special phone number under his control and
disconnect -- all in about 45 seconds or so. He repeats his -- ahem --
announcement as required.

This chap has a phone line he uses for nothing except naughty, late at
night talk. Non-pub of course, it costs him about $7 per month
including the line access fee, etc. In order to ignore calls when he
does not want them, the bell on the phone is always disconnected. A
beehive lamp flashes where he can see it when he glances that way or
is specifically waiting for a late night call.

So when it is time to have fun and games he:

    Dials one of the 'first minute free' conference lines ...

    Is dumped into the conference-in-progress ...

    Plays a pre-recorded tape which is nicely done and sounds
    like a real person -- not a tape is speaking  ...

    "Hi!  This is <phone name he uses> ... I'm looking for
    (description of desire, and type of person wanted). I am
    (his own {probably fraudulent!} description) and I am
    taking calls right now at 312-xxx-xxxx. "

    Then he repeats it and stresses his phone number two or
    three times ... and disconnects, well within one minute.

He claims that ordinarily a call arrives within seconds. He has
received calls from everywhere. If the caller is not the 'sort of
person' he desires, he is quick to say "sorry, gotta go" and
hang up on them. Usually within seconds someone else out there in
conference-land who was banging away with a demon dialer gets through
and it starts all over again. When someone he wants to talk to is on
the line, they have their chat.

When he is finished with the chat, its "sorry, gotta go" and a
disconnect, but the callers who did not get through the the busy
signal earlier are very persistent.  He said he might glance at the
beehive lamp hours or days later and see it flashing!  Anytime he
chooses to answer at random he is assured it will be an obscene call
from somewhere in the world.

He said only rarely has he slipped up and gone over a minute, and he
estimates his total monthly outlay at $10 or less for all the late
night chats he can handle. He figures let the others pay to call him
 ... :)

Now does that take nerve and phone-gall or not?  :)

When he makes his broadcast announcement on a conference line, he does
not wait for a break in the conversation ... the first minute might
run out!  He just barges right in with his pre-recorded modulation,
and the others on line always stop to listen, usually with positive
results for himself as a result.

It takes all kinds ... and this guy has his routine down perfectly.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 13:33:21 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Auto-Block, etc.


As I wrote previously, there is an automated system in place if I am
making 0+ call within the Baltimore LATA.  I get a recording telling
me to hit 11 for collect call, or enter the billing number for
calling-card or 3rd-party-billing, or hit 0 for operator, or say "yes"
in reply to a prompt at the end of the message; a rotary- dial
customer would stay on the line for an operator.  I don't know if the
auto-blocking used by the Moderator is available in the Baltimore
LATA.

Within the LATA at Chicago, does the above apply or not?  If it does,
an automated system such as above presumably can, on attempted 3rd-
party-billing or collect call, discover the auto-blocking and report
this back to the caller.  If it is necessary to involve a human oper-
ator, how does that operator discover the auto-blocking?  It should be
OK to call such a number with such auto-blocking via calling card
(hence 0+) because then the CALLER is paying for the call, right?


[Moderator's Note: We have the same system here exactly (except for
the part about saying 'yes' on request. Rotary dial phones are noted
as such in telco records and those default immediatly to the operator.)
We punch 11 to go collect, and if someone has zero-plussed my number
to call me collect, as soon as they enter the 11, the computer tells
them immediatly that collect calls cannot be billed to that number.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 12:00:27 -0700
Subject: References Wanted on Interface Projects for Phones


Do you know what books exist on interface circuit projects for
telephone lines? I need to detect an open circuit on a line that
signals a far end disconnect.  Therefore, I am looking for something
like an optocoupler circuit or whatever, as long as I can get a TTL
output.  If you do not know of any books, do you know who would? Or,
could I send the message back for a second attempt at a posting?

I have searched through 1600 telephone-related books through the
database that catalogs all the UC and California State library
volumes, and have come up with no results.  My only next step is to
drive a long way and look at various electronic store bookshelves.
So, any help you could give me would be very appreciated!


Steve Chafe   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 09:15:12 EST
From: "Umesh H. Patel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Single Chip Rotary Pulse Decoders


As pointed out earlier in TELECOM Digest, 38% of phone users do not
have a touch tone phone. I have an application where I would like to
detect numbers dialed from a rotary phone. Does anybody make a single
chip rotary pulse decoder?  Ideally it would be nice to have a chip
that can decode either DTMF tones or rotary pulses.

Any information on this subject is very much appreciated.


Umesh Patel    Purdue University    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #710
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03757;
          8 Sep 91 0:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07938;
          7 Sep 91 20:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11504;
          7 Sep 91 19:24 CDT
Date:     Sat, 7 Sep 91 18:25:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #711
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Sep 91 18:25:10 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 711

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? [Greg Hackney]
    Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Cellphones and 911 [Marty Brenneis]
    Re: List Wanted of General Areas of 900 Services [Sean Williams]
    Re: Definitions Wanted For RJ-11 / RJ-14 [Julian Macassey]
    Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [Roy Silvernail]
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes [John R. Levine]
    Re: New AT&T Card [Bill Huttig]
    A Flame At AT&T [Seth Cohn]
    ATT PBX System 25 Survey [David Sangurima]
    Direct, Portable, Receive-Only Data From Geo-Sync Satellite? [Jim De Arras]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Greg Hackney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors?
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1991 16:55:45 GMT


[e-mail] (John Nagle) writes:

> Cellular phone is in the high UHF band
> Cellular towers transmit at about the same power level as cellular phones.

How about the microwave antennas which are mounted lower on the towers
for intertower connectivity?


Greg Hackney     [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 05 Sep 91 09:07:18 cst
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors?
Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs![e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


I thought of sending this privately to Toby, but I thought it would be
best if I shared it with everyone.

Toby mentioned he was involved with a neighborhood association, a
group of a type that has historically (in our area, anyway) opposed
construction of cellular (and other) towers.

I wonder if the cellular firm might be willing to negotiate with your
group and give, for example, significantly reduced cellular rates to
members of your group in exchange for your agreeing not to oppose
construction of the tower.  That way they will get their tower and
have a good 'lock' on several subscribers against the 'other' cellular
company and you and your members will be compensated for any alleged
lowering of property values.

I would think that it would be much cheaper for them to cut a deal on
bargain-basement rates than it would be to pay their house counsel to
fight opposition (and all of the negative publicity it may bring).

Just a thought here.


Good day!   JSW

Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
DRBBS, Keep On WOC'n in the Free World  (200:5010/666.0)

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

Date: Sat, 7 Sep 91 11:59:05 PDT
From: Marty the Droid <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellphones and 911


[e-mail] (John R. Covert) wrote:

> I suspect what happens depends on which carrier you are using and
> which area you are in.  It's my understanding that in the L.A. area,
> there is a special cellular 911 operator who asks you where you are
> and then connects you.

Yes, this is a person in the CHP main dispatch centre.

Here is a free concept for the folks out there who build cellular
switches and cellsite radio equipment. (H-M-M-M, now who could that
be??) :-)

Install a RDF (radio direction finder) antenna at each cell site.
When a mobile requests 911, the system would set the mobile to a
particular channel, set it to max output power, and then get a bearing
on it from all the cell sites that could hear it. I would suspect that
in many systems you would be hitting several sites at the full 3W
output. With multiple bearings like this the mobile could be located
in most cases with a fair amount of accuracy. This could become a
standard part of a cellsite.

What do you guys think??


Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis     ...!uupsi!kerner!droid
Industrial Magician             [e-mail]
[phone]   KAE7616 - 462.700 - 162.2      KC6YYP

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

From: "WILLIAMS, SX" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: List Wanted of General Areas of 900 Services
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date:  7 SEP 91 17:15:06


In article <[e-mail]>, infmx![e-mail]
(William Daul) writes:

> Does a list of general 900 service exist?

This might not be quite what you're looking for, but you can dial +1
900 555 1212 to get a list of many 900 numbers and the associated
charges for calling them.  The call to this directory is free,
however.


Sean E. Williams  Rochester Institute of Technology  [e-mail]

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Definitions Wanted For RJ-11 / RJ-14
Date: 7 Sep 91 17:42:33 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> Can someone please tell me where I could find a definitive answer to
> exactly what RJ-11 and RJ-14 are.

    They are all the same physical connector. The difference is
the use it is put to.

                     1 2 3 4 5 6
                 -------------------
                 |   o o o o o o   |
                 |                 |
                 |                 |
                  --             --
                    |            |
                     --        --
                       |      |
                        ------

Here is the scoop:

    Pins      Line #

     3,4           1
     2,5           2
     1,6           3

    So if you only have one line used on the jack, it is an RJ-11,
a kack wired for two phones is an RJ-14 and a jack wired for three
lines is an RJ-25. Same phyiscal jack. The jack may only have pins in
positions 3,4 in which case it can only be used as an RJ-11. But if it
has pins 1 to 6 and only connects 3,4, it is still an RJ-11. If it is
a used for a wall mount phone (has the protuding studs) it has a W
suffix -- RJ-11W.

    This can be seen in FCC Part 68, or a catalogue from Anixter
or Suttle. I am sure there is an AT&T doc on this, I would like to
track it down.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 91 12:54:12 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


sequent!techbook.com![e-mail] (James Deibele) writes:

> If the country is indeed running out of phone numbers, I wouldn't mind
> at all having an eight digit added if it were a check digit on the
> first seven.

That's an interesting idea, but does it really increase the number
space?  If the eighth digit is a checksum, than it is forced by the
first seven.  The total number of combinations remains the same.

Still, it _would_ be a handy feature.


Roy M. Silvernail |+|  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 7 Sep 91 12:11:51 EDT (Sat)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>... the new plan may require some people to always dial an area code,
> even their own.

There are two things they may be talking about.  The first is that in
many areas, you still dial 1 before a toll call in your own area code.
There are two reasons for that, the good reason which is that old step
offices in small towns physically require the 1 to connect to the toll
switch, and the stupid reason which is that many people seem to want
to know when they're dialing a toll call.  (I find this stupid, both
because it seems unlikely that someone would decide not to call
someone just because it was going to cost 14 cents, and because in
most areas multiple calling plans and message units make the
definitition of a toll call pretty fuzzy.)  Once there are
interchangable area codes, the exchange can't reliably tell 1-220-5678
from the beginning of 1-220-567-8901, so they'll require the local
area code on in-area toll calls to disambiguate.  This is already in
effect in some areas such as Toronto.

The other thing they may be talking about is local calls across an
area code boundary.  In New York city to call from Manhattan to
Brooklyn, you dial 1-718-NNN-NNNN even though it is a local call.
When Manhattan splits to 212 and 917, local calls within Manhattan
will require the area code to call between 212 and 917, and I can
easily imagine that people will start to dial the area code on all
calls since it is often easier than trying to determine the area code
of the phone from which you are calling.  Initially 917 will be
cellular phones and pagers only, which already have separate prefixes,
but they are threatening to put fax machines and modems in 917 as
well, which are mixed in with regular phones.  If you have a combined
fax and answering machine, does that go in 212 or 917?  Who knows?
Really, who cares?

Here in New Jersey, by careful planning they have arranged that
prefixes which are a local call from a neighboring area code are not
duplicated, so you can dial all local calls with seven digits.  I
imagine that they will eventually run low on prefixes again and have
to change that.  Once nice thing here is that you can already dial 1 +
area code on any call, even to your own local exchange, and the call
completes anyway, which is handy for calls from autodialing computers
and pay phones.


Regards,

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

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New AT&T Card
Date: 7 Sep 91 18:49:22 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

> (800-562-6275) where my old card was not.  Also, when is the "full
> cutover" for such new AT&T card (i.e., your old AT&T card number would
> no longer work)?

The old card should work until you cancel you LEC card since the old
AT&T number was issued by the LEC. Even if you did not request a card
from your LEC they still issued the number and I don't think they will
cancel it unless you ask. There is a problem with the new AT&T Call me
cards.  They are not restricted for calls within a LATA.

I think that by January 1, 1992 AT&T will have sent out new cards to
everyone that had a 'old' card.

I wonder when they are going to change the Universal Card Numbers to
the new system with the new 891253 internation numbers?

I have a friend that has a direct bill account on one of the new AT&T
cards and his bill was the old standard Bell system type and came with
a accont number on it that looked like the one I had back in 84/85 for
a non-subscriber card that was billed by Cincinnati Bell ... my card
was 508 188 something or other. I assume AT&T still uses them to
process non-subscriber cards.


Bill

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

From: seth cohn <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Flame at AT&T
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 91 09:55:07 EDT
Organization: Alchemy International, Ithaca, N.Y.


Here's my FLAME at AT&T which after you read this you'll understand
WHY I'm going to switch to Sprint or MCI or someone ...

I run a BBS and poll out nightly to a computer 50-60 miles away which
is in another LATA in NY.  (Ithaca to Binghamton) I have two lines.
The second line is billed under the first number. I have Sprint on
line one, and AT&T on line two.  I decided to check out AT&T deals on
LD and see what I'd save.  I call out only from the second line.

I called AT&T early in June, and was told "No way, you can't HAVE AT&T
on the second line, we can't bill you that way ... it must be Sprint
servicing you..." At this time I was just starting to call out and
hadn't gotten a bill yet for that line with any LD calls on it. Also I
had ASKED for AT&T when I installed the phone. OK, I figured "fine, my
LD is Sprint, I have a Sprint plan ... NO prob..."  THEN I get a bill
and guess who is my LD carrier ... AT&T!  I call and complain ... and
they say "Oh yes SIR, we can get you our special plans of Reach Out
America and Reach out NY ... no problem ... we'll install it and
credit your bill the difference in rates since your last call to
us..."

I figure GREAT, nice service from AT&T. That's the reason I use em ...
That was August.  Yesterday I get my NEXT bill from AT&T and lo and
behold NO Reach Out NY (which is what I subscribed to.) I HAD RECIEVED
A NOTICE SAYING "Welcome to the Reach Out NY plan", yet it wasn't
there!  I called yet again to AT&T ... "oh, no sir, who ever told you
you could get a plan on JUST your second line was WRONG.  NY Tel
cannot bill to just your second line.  The first line is fine, and if
the lines are the same ... fine, but you CANNOT have just a second
line covered by ANY plan from us (or by Sprint etc)."  Needless to say
I was furious ... three calls, three different answers. I complained
and complained to a supervisor. They refused to do anything except
credit my account the differnce again.  BTW, the total $ difference
for the normal rate VS Reach Out: first set of calls credited: $1.50
or so ... second set (78 minutes): 56 CENTS.  (Gee, some savings ...
the "real" bill was $12.71 -- the saving of 56 cents is ridiculous.)
WHY the heck should I subscribe to ANYTHING!  I'd be better off
switching to someone else! All my calls are at night and I'm sure I
can find somone to bring my calls under $10 a month on some plan.  I
used to like AT&T. No more.  I'm switching for sure.  Probably to
Sprint.  They aren't much better, but at least they try harder.


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: Someone got confused on the difference between
having different *default carriers* on each line of a multi-line
system billed under one number with straight billing from each
(possible) versus more than one *special billing plan* on the same
lines, which is not possible under most telco billing computers at
present.  As long as AT&T (or other carriers) rely on the local telcos
to do their billing for them, they will be at the mercy of how the
local billing mechanism works, which is why there is so much confusion
from one person to another at AT&T regards combinations of Reach Out
plans, etc from one telco to the next. I suspect NY Tel got hung up
trying to add Reach Out NY on your second line due to some obscure
point having to do with the way they were billing the same calls on
your first line from Sprint, etc. The computer probably did not have
provision for it. In my case, I could not get the additional five
percent discount on domestic out of state LD from AT&T that other
subscribers to Reach Out World receive because Illinois Bell could not
decide how to program it in addition to other discounts I receive.
Overall, LD carrier <==> telco billing gets very messy and very
technical. Still, AT&T should not give you three different answers.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 22:03:04 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: comp.dcom.tele: ATT PBX System 25 Survey


I'm interested in some feedback from organizations who've used AT&T
PBX equipment, esp. "System 25". This package can handle voice mail
and call accounting and it sounds like a nice, although expensive,
deal for organizations in the 25-150 staff range.


Thanks,
David Sangurima    Washington, DC   PeaceNet:    ipscomm

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

From: Jim De Arras <[e-mail]>
Subject: Direct, Portable, Receive-Only Data From Geo-Sync Satellite
Reply-To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1991 20:01:11 GMT


Does anyone know of a system, or of someone working on a system, that
would provide slow to meduim speed data reception directly to a
portable or handheld, terminal from a Ku band geo-sync satellite?  Or
anything close?  Any infomation welcomed and encouraged!  Please reply
by E-MAIL to:

[e-mail], [e-mail] (two different offices in different
states.)

and I'll summarize if there's interest.


Thanks,

Jim De Arras    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #711
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13393;
          9 Sep 91 1:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28441;
          8 Sep 91 23:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10981;
          8 Sep 91 22:48 CDT
Date:     Sun, 8 Sep 91 21:45:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #712
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Sep 91 21:44:58 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 712

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Problem Reaching AT&T MAIL [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Problem Reaching AT&T MAIL [Bill Nickless]
    Re: Long Distance Question 700-555-4141 [Bill Huttig]
    Re: CO Broadcasting [Dan Jacobson]
    Re: CO Broadcasting [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? [Michael A. Covington]
    Re: Cellphones and 911 [Marshal Perlman]
    Re: Cellphones and 911 [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Same Day Service [Christopher Wolfe]
    Re: Direct, Portable, Receive-Only Data From Geo-Sync Satellite [B Higgins]
    Re: Unix on Switches [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Can Anyone Identify This Equipment? [Alan Millar]
    Re: Disconnect Timing (was Telephone Line Status Lights) [Vance Shipley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problem Reaching AT&T MAIL
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 91 00:35:03 GMT


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

> Someone recently made mention of the fact that there are two different
> addresses for AT&T for mail purposes: ATTMAIL.COM and ATT.COM.  It was
> also mentioned that one is internal and the other is for those who
> want to pay for access to the Internet as an outsider.

ATTMAIL.COM is a mail relay service, similar to MCI MAIL and EASYLINK.
Service is offered to paying customers. Obviously few of these will be
AT&T employees, since they have other service provised at work.

The internal email system at AT&T (for the company's employees) is
seen from the outside as the domain ATT.COM. The main gateway from the
internet is named ATT.ATT.COM; this machine acts as an MX mail relay
for that large subset of hosts within AT&T that have only uucp
connections between them.

ATT.ATT.COM is ALSO the MX relay from the internet to ATTMAIL.COM. Most
likely, the connection between the two is an UUCP connection.


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


[Moderator's Note: I disagree with your assertion that 'few will be
AT&T employees'. ATT Mail was around for internal use a long time
before it was offered to the public. Also, check the directory of
subscribers sometime; you'll find it is full of AT&T people.   PAT]

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

From: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problem Reaching AT&T MAIL
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 91 16:22:55 GMT


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

> Someone recently made mention of the fact that there are two different
> addresses for AT&T for mail purposes: ATTMAIL.COM and ATT.COM.  It was
> also mentioned that one is internal and the other is for those who
> want to pay for access to the Internet as an outsider.

Well, it's a little simpler than that.  Pulling out ye olde nslookup:

 % nslookup

 Default Server:  anagram.mcs.anl.gov
 Address:  140.221.10.1

> set q=mx
> attmail.com

 Server:  anagram.mcs.anl.gov
 Address:  140.221.10.1

 attmail.com     preference = 0, mail exchanger = att.att.com
 att.att.com     inet address = 192.20.239.129

> att.com

 Server:  anagram.mcs.anl.gov
 Address:  140.221.10.1

 att.com preference = 0, mail exchanger = att.att.com
 att.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = research.att.com
 att.att.com     inet address = 192.20.239.129
 research.att.com        inet address = 192.20.225.2

So, what this means is that addresses @attmail.com are routed from the
internet to a machine called att.att.com, IP address 192.20.239.129.
Mail to att.com is routed to that same machine, unless that machine is
down.  When att.att.com is off the network, mail to addresses @att.com
get sent automagically to the machine research.att.com, IP address
192.20.225.2.  So if att.att.com was down, sending to
[e-mail] would end up getting to a (possibly) up machine
(research.att.com) whereas sending to [e-mail] would get
you nowhere.

This message brought to you from comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains.  Now
back to your regularly scheduled TELECOM Digest....


Bill Nickless   <[e-mail]>  [phone] or [phone]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Question 700-555-4141
Date: 7 Sep 91 18:23:39 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator responded
to [e-mail] (Phydeaux):

> other hand, when I zero plussed it (10222+0+700-555-4141) I got the
> same results as yourself, basically a request to enter an MCI card
> number. I am on the Rogers Park CO.  PAT]

The request was not to enter a MCI card. It was to enter a LEC card
unless MCI works differently in IL. About three years ago it would
only accept MCI card with that method of dialing now it will only
accept a LEC card.  (I wrote to the Digest earlier this year about the
same thing).


Bill


[Moderator's Note: You are correct. I should have said 'telco calling
card' rather than 'MCI card'.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: CO Broadcasting
Date: Sat,  7 Sep 91 22:32:00 GMT


Pat> "This is a recorded message from the XYZ Police Department. An
Pat> emergency announcement is being made to all residents of Podunk.
Pat> In just a few seconds, you'll be connected to the emergency
Pat> announcement which may be in progress.

Sounds like an opportunity for pranksters/burglars to make grandma and
grandpa run out the front door and head for the hills, hands up in the
air and tongues wagging like a Don Martin or Simpsons cartoon.  Better
have the air-raid sirens blaring or even announcing the message for
increase the perception of genuineness of the message.

Semi-related topic: How safe are America's TV waves?: Could the evil
Doctor Simon Bar-Sinister beam porno movies into ABC's master
distribution satellite during the Saturday Morning Cartoons?  How long
before the U.S. Air Force could track down his secret lab and blow it
to bits?


[Moderator's Note: Aside from pirate broacasters who occassionally jam
the over-the-air signal of a licensed broadcaster, there are also
numerous instances of people getting into the link between the
broadcaster and his antenna facilities and causing disruptions. The
latter has happened a couple times in the past year to local
television stations here.   PAT]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CO Broadcasting
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1991 19:16:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mitel!Software!grayt@
uunet.uu.net (Tom Gray) writes:

> The Mitel GX5000 CDO has just such an emergency alerting feature.

What is a GX5000 CDO?


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

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

From: "Michael A. Covington" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors?
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 91 04:52:47 GMT



Re the proposal that members of a neighborhood association should be
given a discount on cellular phones if they vote to allow a cellular
tower in a place where covenants would ordinarily disallow it ...

Bad precedent. In effect it discriminates against other people who
want to put up an equally (or less) unsightly tower, but are not
prepared to offer discounts or bribes.  I'm thinking of hams,
shortwave listeners, and even folks who don't like the cable TV
company.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D.  |  [e-mail]   |  N4TMI
Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A.

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

From: Marshal Perlman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellphones and 911
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 91 06:28:41 GMT


I live in the LA area and use a cellular phone ... so let me answer
your questions:

1.  911 is a free call here from a cellular phone. You get a central
dispatcher who asks you what you want (police, fire or medics) ...
then s/he asks you what city you are in ... they transfer you to them
 ... and you do what you want from there.

2.  As for cell sights ... they are all over the damn place here ...
they have to because there are more then 832 users per square five
miles ... so if hey do it right you can have 832 people per square two
miles or so. There are just tons of cell sites here.


Bye!

Marshal Perlman, [e-mail] <-=
Located in Huntington Beach, California (Surf City, U.S.A.)

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

From: Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellphones and 911
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1991 19:17:31 GMT


    "Sounds like a software problem".  The cellular system sure
knows approximately where you are (in which cell), so it should be
fairly straightforward to figure out where to send 911 calls.


Harold


[Moderator's Note: What you suggest is something Ameritech has looked
into here. Cells located well within the city limits of Chicago would
send a control signal to the switch saying 'take this call to 911 and
in fact route it to xxx-yyyy (a seven digit number terminating at the
proper dispatching position for that area of the city.) At present we
do not have 911 on cell phones here, we must dial the operator.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 91 03:08:52 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Same Day Service


On the subject of same day service:

I recently moved into my new apartment at college.  I called Michigan
Bell last Tuesday to ask for phone service.  They were real nice and
said they were sorry I had to wait almost an hour on hold.  They got
all my information and said the phone would be connected by 3:00 p.m.
Friday.

Here's the good part!

We picked up the receiver on Wednesday morning and found a dialtone
where there was none the day before.  GREAT! we thought, they hooked
it up early.  So I called someone and asked them to call me back to
check it out, but they couldn't get through.  Seems the number that
Michigan Bell gave us didn't work.

So I called the operator and asked her what number I was calling on,
and she just said I'd have to call the service department.  After
waiting on hold for another hour, the service department told me that
they didn't connect anything up yet, and that I should not be able to
talk to them on that line.  They had no idea what was connected but
promised that everything would be O.K.  by Friday.  Well, everything
is O.K. now, but it seems funny that I had a phone number, and not
even Michigan Bell knew what it was!  I will say they were nice in
offering things such as 900 block, 3rd party block, etc for no charge,
which I took advantage of!


Christopher Wolf

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1991 8:28:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Bill Higgins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Direct, Portable, Receive-Only Data From Geo-Sync Satellite


Jim De Arras ([e-mail]) writes:

> Does anyone know of a system... that would provide slow to meduim
> speed data reception directly to a portable or handheld, terminal from
> a Ku band geo-sync satellite?

Yes.  Steven K. Roberts recently paid me a visit here at Fermilab.
For eight years Steve has been traveling North America on a recumbent
bicycle equipped with networked computers, ham radios, solar panels,
electronic security system, and all sorts of other gadgets.  He is a
freelance writer who ships his articles and books by modem and does
business by e-mail.

Steve pedals from town to town, pitching his tent at a campground or
staying with net-friends, attracting attention wherever he goes as a
unique "high-tech hobo."  (See {Discover Magazine}, July 1991, page
36, for a description and pictures of BEHEMOTH, his latest bike.)
Corporate sponsors have donated hardware, software, and other support
to him in exchange for publicity.  It was great fun to see the
intricate details of BEHEMOTH up close, and to show off the Tevatron
(equally intricate, but not nearly as mobile (-: ) to Steve.

The relevant point is that the trailer Steve tows has a little
Qualcomm antenna sticking out for low-speed satellite data
communication.  I recall him saying that it receives his electronic
mail at 165 baud, that it uses the G-Star 3 satellite, and that
Qualcomm supplies it to trucking companies and other customers with
large mobile fleets.  I'm not sure, but I think the link both
transmits and receives.

To find out more, contact:

Qualcomm, Inc.
10555 Sorrento Valley Rd.
San Diego, CA 92121
800-544-4977   619-587-1121

Steve also carries a cellular phone and lot of ham radio equipment
including HF, packet, and slow-scan TV.  His handgrips hold switches
for a chording keyboard so he can write while he's riding.  His helmet
carries lamps, a "Private Eye" 25 X 80-character 1-inch CRT display,
and an ultrasonic pointing system (originally intended for disabled
users) which allows him to move the mouse cursor on his Macintosh by
moving his head. A number of computers are networked together to
manage BEHEMOTH's systems.  First time I've ever seen a bike with a
bus aboard it ...


Bill Higgins                            Internet: [e-mail]
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory   Bitnet:   [e-mail]

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches
Date: 8 Sep 91 14:02:53 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (C.A.)
writes:

> Brian Crowley asks:

>> I understand that modern CO switches run a software program called a
>> generic which is based on the UNIX system.  Just how different is the
>> kernel the switch runs from the kernel which is running my
>> workstation?  What sort of interface does the CO technician have to
>> the switch (dumb terminal, graphics terminal, etc.)?  Is it possible
>> to bring up a shell on a CO switch?  What type of filesystem is
>> typically used?

> I can't say anything about switches other than DMSs; I would guess
> that AT&T binds Unix closely to its stuff (Andy? you out there?).  The
> DMS operating system is proprietary and definitely _not_ Unix or
> Unix-based.  However, peripherals do indeed run Unix, on graphics
> terminals, with all the trimmings.

Actually, I was hoping Al Varney would take this one, as he knows a
lot about switches, which I do not.  What I know for sure is that
"generic" is just an AT&T term, probably dating back to the Bell
System, for a release.

I am all but certain that what runs in the switches is *not* the
Unix(R) operating system.  There are ancilliary pieces that *do* use
Unix (somebody out there must remember what a 3B-20D computer is for),
but not in the sense implied by the original question.

Al, if any more than this can be posted, be my guest.


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: Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1991 21:25:24 GMT


    Is ringer frequency selective ringing used on party lines
anymore?


Harold

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Can Anyone Identify This Equipment?
Date: Sun,  8 Sep 91 15:21:12 PDT


Speaking of identifying equipment, I've got two things that call
themselves "Wescom 829 Data Channel Interfaces" which are apparently
for low-speed analog leased lines.

Are these things good for anything?  Useful around the house? :-)


Alan Millar

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Disconnect Timing (was Telephone Line Status Lights)
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1991 15:00:47 GMT


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

A very thorough perspective on the topic of discussion.  This is why I
read this newsgroup!  Hats off to Al Varney, please keep it up.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #712
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13627;
          9 Sep 91 1:31 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28441;
          9 Sep 91 0:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10981;
          8 Sep 91 22:48 CDT
Date:     Sun, 8 Sep 91 22:37:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #713
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Sep 91 22:37:13 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 713

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad [Steve Forrette]
    Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call [Alan Boritz]
    Re: Single Chip Rotary Pulse Decoders [John Higdon]
    Re: Voicemail (was We're Sorry, But the Country ...) [Dale Miller]
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: A School Which Teaches Telemarketing [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: CO Broadcasting [Vance Shipley]
    Re: More on US West and 976 IPs [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Questions About Wire Maintenance Plan [Robert L. McMillin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad?
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1991 00:00:00 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)


> I wonder: If you were at one of these "numbers-only" phones and had to
> dial a number that was given with letters, would the operator help you
> out?

> [Moderator's Note: The operator will help anyone dial, at the rate for
> operator-assisted calls. If you are asking would they do it at dial
> rates, why should they? It is not telco's concern what phone you use,
> and subscriber-assigned letters are not authorized anyway.    PAT]

What about the case of Pacific Bell, where in some ads they tell you
to call 800-PAC-BELL?


[Moderator's Note: But that is a 'free' call anyway, or at least free
to the caller's perspective. I'm sure the operator would 'charge' Pac
Bell something via inter-department chargebacks, etc ... but what do
you care what Pac Bell has to 'pay' for the call?   PAT]

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

From: Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1991 19:26:39 GMT


    Although I prefer to "dial" using numbers on the keypad (I can
find them more quickly than the letters), some voice mail or automatic
attendant systems let you call a specific extension without the
extension number by keying in the person's name.  When I first heard
such a system, I thought it was quite clever, and it DOES work.  So,
maybe we need to keep the letters on phones (but, what if my name had
a Q or Z in it?).


Harold

[Moderator's Note: Most such systems say for Q or Z to use the digit 1.
Too bad that popularity poll for VP a few years ago forgot about it.  :)
Others just put Q on 7 and Z on 9.     PAT]

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

From: Alan Boritz <[e-mail]>
Date: 05 Sep 91  09:32:32
Subject: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call


In an article <[e-mail]> written 1 Sep 91 17:16:26
GMT, William Degnan responded to TELECOM Moderator:

>> [Moderator's Note: However, when 'other carriers' stick you with a
>> third party billing, you would just automatically refuse it when
>> you were paying your telco bill. Or if the bill for the third party
>> call came direct from the 'other carrier', just toss it in the
>> wastebasket and forget it. Maybe as a courtesy -- just once -- send
>> it back to them with a note explaining they defrauded you and not
>> to push the matter further.

> Disclaimer: I cannot advise as an attorney. However, as a
> telecommunications professional experienced in billing matters ...

> I think it would be more appropriate to advise the "other carrier" that
> "someone" had defrauded _them_.

Absolutely *correct*.  This is the only way to deal with "bully"
tactics used against telephone subscribers for difficult fraud cases.

> If necessary you can advise them that unless they would like to
> defend fraud charges themselves they should see that you are not
> further troubled by it.

However, be prepared to follow it through if the harassment doesn't
stop.  I know of one person in South Carolina who got on Southern
Bell's bad side when he made the equivalent of a Public Service
Commission complaint when SB dropped the ball on some 976-fraudulent
billing.  SB's manager of security framed his son for theft-of-service,
and even purjured himself on the stand at the trial.  The good news
(yes, there is good news here!) is that the conviction was overturned
and now HE'S suing Southern Bell!

> I wonder if anyone can guess the magic words that strike fear in the
> hearts of telco attornies?  No. It is not, "You've been transferred to
> Brownsville." That comes after.

You're on candid camera? :-)


Alan Boritz
Another Telecom Professional Experienced in Billing Matters
[e-mail]
The Hourglass BBS  Fidonet: 1:269/[e-mail]
1:269/[e-mail]    * [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 7 Sep 91 22:30 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Single Chip Rotary Pulse Decoders


"Umesh H. Patel" <[e-mail]> writes:

> As pointed out earlier in TELECOM Digest, 38% of phone users do not
> have a touch tone phone. I have an application where I would like to
> detect numbers dialed from a rotary phone. Does anybody make a single
> chip rotary pulse decoder?  Ideally it would be nice to have a chip
> that can decode either DTMF tones or rotary pulses.

What you apparently are attempting to do is highly problematical.
Virtually every CO switch in existence will object in some way to a
caller sending rotary dial pulses after a call is in progress. Some
will drop the call, some will go into "feature dial tone", and some
will even mute the line while the pulses are being sent.

Did you ever consider why end-to-end signaling was never attempted
before DTMF was adopted by the telcos? Even if you had a "pulse
detector", "hearing" them properly through the various circuits,
switches, and tandems would be a long-shot crap shoot.


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

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

From: Dale Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voicemail (was We're Sorry, But the Country ...)
Date: 8 Sep 91 15:24:47 -0500
Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock


In article <[e-mail]>, "WILLIAMS, SX"
<[e-mail]> writes:

> On this note, do any colleges have on-campus voicemail?  Or are just a
> few of us lucky enough to be left out ...

UALR has an on-campus voicemail system called D.I.A.L. which
interfaces with our Ericsson switch.  (Now if you want to talk about
non-standard ...)


Dale Miller - University of Arkansas at Little Rock   [e-mail]

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

From: Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1991 01:03:35 GMT


    It seems that the reason for making the distinction between
area codes and prefixes, or adding a 1 to indicate an area code
follows is because the switching system needs to know hom many digits
we are going to send.  Of course, this problem also exists in
international calling.  The solution used there seems appopriate for
domestic calling also.  Dial as many digits as necessary, then hit an
end of dialing key (# is currently used for international calls).  For
those of us without DTMF phones, a so many second pause indicates end
of dialing.  This approach eliminates the need for the leading 1 to
distinguish between area codes and prefixes.  It also allows for the
eventual addition of more digits for calls within the US, if
necessary.  This is, of course, quite similar to computer input of a
string followed by a [CR] key.


Harold

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

From: Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A School Which Teaches Telemarketing
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1991 01:11:12 GMT


    Here at work, I get a whole lot of telemarketing calls.  I
patiently explain to them that we think telemarketing is a very poor
way of doing business and refuse to purchase anything sold over the
phone.  We suggest they use the mail next time.  One sales person told
me that they'd tried the mail, but found the phone more effective.
Well, I explain, it didn't work this time!

    I guess not enough people object to it, though, since they
apparently do find it effective.


Harold

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CO Broadcasting
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1991 15:57:02 GMT


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

> Is it (theoretically) possible,
> with software changes for central office switching equipment, to
> operate in a broadcast mode where several numbers are dialed at once,
> in parallel, connected to a single caller if answered, and the same
> message played in parallel.

The Meridian 1 (aka SL-1) PBX has a feature called "Group Call".  It
is described thus:

Group Call allows an SL-1 or Meridian digital set user to place a call
to up to twenty DN's simultaneously by activation of a Group Call key.
The called DN's must be previously defined as members of a group.

When a group is defined, the members of the group are assigned a
member number.  If network or conference blocking is encountered,
members are assigned priorities for connection to the Group Call in
the order of their group member number (member 0 has the highest
priority).  It is recommended that group members be assigned from
different network loops to minimize the possibility of network
blocking.

Activation of a Group Call key originates a call to all assigned
members of the group.  When the first member of the group answers,
ringback tone is removed and a speach path is set up between the
member and the originator of the call.  As subsequent members answer,
they are added to the call.  The lamp associated with the Group Call
key at the originator's set flashes until all members of the group
have answered the call.

If a DN is actively engaged in a call and a Group Call is originated
to the DN, either the Group Call is camped-on or Call Waiting is
activated for the DN and a special warning tone is provided.  The
special warning tone consists of two rapid bursts of tone followed by
ten seconds of silence, then an additional two rapid bursts of tone.
If a Group Call DN is involved in a conference or another key, a
special warning tone (three second buzz) is supplied to the set to
indicate that a Group Call is waiting.

An active Group Call is under complete control of the originator of
the call.  If the originator goes on-hook, the call is completely
broken down.  Members who are taking part in a Group Call may
disconnect from the call at any time but once disconnected, they
cannot be reconnected.

It appears that this feature is based on speed calling as the same
overlay program is used to create both speed call and group call
lists.  The "priority" number assigned is really just the order of the
list, the first entry will be called first.  If there is blocking
later entries could be excluded.

I could not find a similiar feature in the DMS 100 Feature Guide nor
in the Meridian Digital Centrex Features Guide.


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

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

Date: Sat, 7 Sep 91 21:21:00 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on US West and 976 IPs
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)


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

> If only it were as easy as that. Getting a credit card merchant
> account for telephone ordered services is quite difficult. Most banks
> simply refuse, and those that are "generous" enough to grant you one,
> require a signficant (read: > $100k) bond. This simply puts a typical
> credit card as a means of collections out of reach for most small
> businesses.

This is not necessarily the case.  I am an MasterCard/Visa merchant,
so I speak with experience, and not net.urban-legend.  On my
application, I was truthful in indicating that 90% of our sales would
be telephone or mail order, where we would not have a card imprint or
be able to verify ID, etc.  I was not required to post any sort of
bond.  While it is true that a "traditional" bank would not deal with
us because of the mail order situation, we were able to get approved
without a great deal of hassle.  The only costs were a discount rate
of around 5%, and inflated prices for the merchant terminal.  But it
was certainly nothing like a $100,000 bond.  And it was well worth it,
as it is virtually impossible to run a telephone/mail order outfit
without credit card appectance these days.  If I can do it, so can the
IPs.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 91 09:06:44 PDT
From: "Robert L. McMillin" <rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com>
Subject: Re: Questions About Wire Maintenance Plan


Phydeaux <[e-mail]> asks about inside wire service:

> I do not subscribe to a wire maintenance plan.  I've discovered that
> my modem noise problems are due to the internal wiring in my apartment
> building.  If I subscribed to Illinois Bell's wire maintenance plan
> would they come and fix it?  We're talking about a 2400 baud modem
> here, nothing too fancy or fast (I remember when I was glad to have
> 300 vs.  110 ;-) I've tried using different pairs in the six pair that's
> in the walls, but none of them is clean.

> It seems the problem is worst when other people are likely to be on
> the telephone (ie almost no noise at 3 AM.)

> My main question is this.  When you purchase the maintenance plan does
> that cover *any* problem with the wire (not instrument)?

I have had three experiences with inside wire maintenance plans, two
positive and one not-so-positive.  The first, with Pac*Bell, was quite
pleasant: I had just moved into a apartment and the lines were dead
because of a short in the inside wires.  As soon as I found this out,
I ordered the inside wire maintenance plan, and Pac*Bell fixed the
problem the day after.  No muss, no fuss.

The second, recently, was prompted by the twin KNX AM broadcasting
towers in the park directly south of my apartment complex.  This I
received beautifully through my telephone, sometimes louder than the
people I wanted to talk to.  GTE brought out a technician who
installed an RF filter at the first phone jack in my unit.  This, too,
was painless.  However...

The third case happened after I bought a new Zoom Telephonics v.42bis
modem (of which, more later), again with GTE.  The modem was also
picking up KNX.  Now, since v.42bis modems will keep retrying until
each side is sure the other got the right message, this meant that I
spent a LOT of time waiting, sometimes as much as a minute, depending
on how clearly the modem "got" KNX.  GTE dutifully sent out a rather
surly woman who told me that it wasn't any of her business if I was
getting interference on my modem from a radio station.  "Go to Radio
Shack and get an RFI filter," she told me.  "Your phones work fine.
We're not paid to fix modem problems."  I was a bit miffed at her
attitude, but in essence, she was right: there wasn't much else she
could do.

Radio Shack, of course, had nothing that worked.  What DID work,
though, was a $17.95 choke coil I bought from my local AT&T phone
store, billed as a Radio Frequency Interference filter.  This was a
ripoff, I know, but I wasn't in the mood to kluge something.

As far as your problem goes ... I have heard other people with similar
complaints, and it seems to be related more to the sun being up than
to other people making calls, but I give the caveat that I have seen
neither your situation nor your modem.  If you are having line
problems I would recommend both the aforementioned RFI filter, and
getting a modem with some kind of error correction, preferably
v.42bis.  My guess is that your phone company will likely take a
similar attitude to your modem problems: if the voice line works, you
don't have anything to gripe about.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #713
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22419;
          10 Sep 91 0:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04968;
          9 Sep 91 22:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06202;
          9 Sep 91 21:44 CDT
Date:     Mon, 9 Sep 91 21:07:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #714
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 9 Sep 91 21:07:02 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 714

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Toucht... (smack!), Sorry; DTMF Receivers [Bud Couch]
    Local IXC's "CALL ME" Card is Here; Now What? [Michael Ho]
    Looking For Telecom BBS in Western Australia [Scott Marshall]
    Southern Bell on Hold [Dave Leibold]
    Screening E-mail to Space [Jack Winslade]
    FAQ Updates [Dave Leibold]
    Ring Director Project [Jeff Sicherman]
    Can Direct Dial Calls be Charged to AT&T Calling Card? [Rusty Duncan]
    Novatel Programming / Panasonic Code [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    What LD Company Do The Bells Use? [Douglas Scott Reuben]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Toucht ...(smack!), Sorry; DTMF Receivers
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1991 20:26:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon D
Woods) writes:

> The most difficult spec to meet was "talk off" which refers to the ability
> of the receiver to reject voice as a valid Dual Tone Multi-Frequency (DTMF.
> Touch Tone is some type of "mark" owned by the RBOCs.) signal. We used a
> special tape of recorded telephone conversations to test the receiver. This
> tape was the same one used in the development of the original DTMF
> system. The conversations were of Bell Labs employees (Who knew they
> were being recorded!) that took part in an experiment to get voice
> characteristics for the DTMF project.  The conversations were all
> chopped up and spliced into a long tape so that individuals and
> specific conversations could not be identified, e.g. 5 or 10 words of
> one call, then 5 or 10 from the next call, etc.

The "industry" standard for testing "talk-off" in the 70's was the
"Mitel" tape. The only reason that it was a standard was that it was
the only thing available; that is, the only test that could be
purchased as an "outside" standard.

How did you obtain this tape? When I was working at Lenkurt, we knew
of it, but we had to create our own, using exactly the same techniques
(recording snippets of conversation on our company PBX and splicing
them together randomly)because we couldn't obtain the Bell Labs tape.

What ties this together with my comment about the Mitel tape was the
fact that all sorts of semi outfits would bring in IC DTMF decoders
which would pass the Mitel test, but which would fail our tape
miserably. It took the IC boys about three years to come up with an IC
which with we would replace our discrete design. I also know that lots
of equipment was built (by others) using the same ICs that we
rejected.


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

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

From: Michael Ho <[e-mail]>
Subject: Local IXC's "CALL ME" Card is Here;  Now What?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1991 01:38:29 GMT


[I am posting from cse.unl.edu because my home machine has fallen and
can't get up.  Replies are still directed there and will be forwarded
to an ambulatory machine.]

I have now received the fabled local telco's "Call Me" card.  For
those of you who remember, AT&T can't issue a Call Me card because I'm
served by a non-RBOC telco.

A couple of people mentioned that these things don't always work as
advertised.  My question: WHEN don't they work?  When calling from
inside this telco's LATA?  When calling from outside the LATA?  Only
on certain (AOS) carriers?

Replies via e-mail are preferred to save c.d.t bandwidth, unless PAT
really wants this mucking up the Digest.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Looking For Telecom BBS in Western Australia
Date: 8 Sep 91 10:32:50 +0800
Organization: Curtin University of Technology


I was hoping someone could put me on to a good Telecom related board
in Western Australia. I just came here from the US where I had many
BBS's I could call that were related with Telecoms. Thanks in advance.


Scott

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 91 21:45:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Southern Bell on Hold


  From the {Sun-Sentinel} (Fort Lauderdale) on 8th Sept. 91 comes word
that Southern Bell is messing up some new installations in Coral
Springs, FL. SB is doing an upgrade to its switching there at 0100 on
14th September, and new lines are not being activated quite yet. Phone
numbers ordered up to last week (6 Sept) will not be put into service
before 23rd Sept. Some customers will be left in the lurch and the
backlog will likely continue until early October. In special cases,
new installations could be accelerated. While SB mentioned that
upgrading was taking place, no announcement was made that it could
delay new installations according to the {Sun-Sentinel}.

The affected prefixes (area code 305) are 341, 344, 345, 346, 752,
753, and 755. The article only mentions the upgrade being done to
"switching and computer software systems to better serve the area's
43,000 subscribers." Presumably this means cutting over to a digital
switch from a crossbar (or older electronic unit).

This is the only upgrade to be done in Broward County this year; Fort
Lauderdale was upgraded August 1990.


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

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

Date: Sat, 07 Sep 91 21:49:17 cst
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Screening E-mail to Space
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a recent article by JOE ABERNATHY, he quotes Debra Muratore ...

> She said operators of AppleLink told NASA that it was impossible
> to keep public e-mail from being sent to the on-orbit address, so
> the only option was to try to keep it secret.

This is total equine doodoo !!

Although I believe that some droid at AppleLink probably told NASA
that it was impossible (perhaps according to 'policy') to screen mail,
they (NASA) were awfully naive to accept that as fact.  Any sysadmin
worth his or her salary knows all kinds of ways to screen, reroute,
forward, etc. e-mail based upon about any parameter that is
imaginable.

Our domain certainly does not use the most sophisticated mail software
there is but if some site wants mail screened, it's a quick edit to
limit that site's mail to that from an 'approved' list of senders, and
forward the rest to [e-mail].

{sound of wheels turning in brain} I wonder if that address was wide
open for a reason, and maybe that 'leak' was not so unintentional ???

Who knows ??

I think that the bottom line on this is that if they left the mail
address wide open, they deserved what they got.

I wonder how long it will be before some cretin calls for a law to
prevent the sending of mail to certain addresses ??


Good Day        JSW

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 91 21:31:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: FAQ Updates


I'm finally back in Florida, and vm1.yorku.ca is history for now.
Thanx for any response to the FAQ list; unfortunately, the autopilot I
had to pick up AT&T Mail died at the start of September. If there was
any followup to the FAQ list, please re-submit messages to
[e-mail] or [e-mail] (AT&T Mail seems to be
back on the Internet) or [e-mail].

In the meantime, I did note the correction to one of the touch tone
frequencies, and hope to have an updated list later this month. In the
meantime, any more follow-up to FAQ list should be directed to any of
my above e-mail addresses.


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

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 91 21:31:19 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ring Director Project
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  The October 1991 issue of {ComputerCraft} (formerly Modern
Electronics) magazine has a project to build a ring director that
allows call-back type selection and also selective ring detection. I
won't recount the details of the project but the article also lists
the parts or whole kit as available from the author:

  Mark V. Lukas
  P.O. Box 777
  Glenham, NY 12527

  Ring Director II assembled and tested -  $ 65.00
  Complete Kit of parts (with power supply) - $45.00
  Programmed 8748 with Ring Detector I & II and
    Ring Alert programs and pc board only - $25  (get the parts elsewhere)
  8748 Microcontroller - $13.00
  TCM-1520 ring detector - $4.50

  plus $2.50 postage and handling per order
  New York residents add sales tax

  I don't know if the kit's can be assembled or items gathered without
getting the article (there is no indication if instructions or
schematics are included with any of the items). No phone number is
given and no indication of payment method so credit cards may not be
acceptable. If anyone gets more information please post it.

  Also, not mention of FCC certification/compliance was mentioned in
the article that I could find.

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

From: Rusty Duncan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can Direct Dial Calls be Charged to AT&T Calling Card?
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 91 08:09:24 GMT
Organization: National Transmogrifier, Inc.


My employer will soon be giving me an AT&T calling card, which will be
my only method of payment for the computer dial-up sessions I'll be
making from across country.

I'm unsure of how I can get my modem to tolerate the usual method of
using a calling card, particulary the prompting tone to enter your
calling card number, and the cheerful thank-you-for-using-AT&T message
(I can barely tolerate that myself).

However, I will have my own private line, so can I somehow get all the
long distance calls from that line billed directly to the calling
card?

Or, for the modem folk, is there a reliable way to dial-up using a
calling card, without having to sacrifice a chicken every time?

E-mail reply is fine ... much thanks.


[e-mail]       menlo park, ca


[Moderator's Note: By definition, 'direct dial' means just that: no
operator (live or robotic) intervention. Calling cards require some
intervention to obtain the billing number. So about all you can do, if
you must do it that way, is insert sufficient pauses in your modem
dialing string to punch out your card number and PIN at the
appropriate time. You will have to experiment to find the proper
length of pause after dialing the number. A better solution might be
that since your employer is paying for these calls anyway, have him
reimburse you for your *direct dial* long distance calls when you send
in the call detail pages from your bill as documentation. That way you
can dial direct, and your employer will get the cheaper direct dial
rates at the same time.  PAT]

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

Date: 9-SEP-1991 04:13:40.08
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Novatel Programming / Panasonic Code


I recently purchased a $19 Novatel bag-phone. Although it has a REALLY
cheap handset, it does have a lot of features which my three-year old
Audiovox CMT-450 doesn't have at all, such as transmit power level
selection, light brightness adjustment, call-in-absence WITH number of
calls indicator, auto 911 dialing, etc.

Anyhow, I know how to get into the programming mode (I enter the FULL
"Lock" mode by hiting FUNC + 1 + SEND, then after it locks I dial
2-5-9-#, and I am in the program mode), but what I need to know is
what some of of the options are.

Specifically, I can't seem to switch from the "A" to "B" systems. I
think my dealer blocked it out, and I am wondering which one of the
features does this. I know I can play around with the channel
selection 333/334 option, but this is a pain, since all one normally
has to do (if the A/B switch is not "blocked" is to hit FUNC + SEND
+SEND, which does not require that one enter the programming mode.

By the way, I also got the Panasonic 382 (?) series access code: Dial
* - 0000 - # - * - 1 - SEND.

This should get you into the programming mode -- what you do from
there I dunno ...

Anyhow, thanks in advance for any info on the Novatel (or Panasonic
for that matter ...)


Doug   [e-mail]   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The Shell gasoline stations in Chicago have a 'cell
phone giveaway' promotion going on. Buy at least seven gallons of gas
ten times (as per a punch-out card they give you) and get a free cell
phone already hooked up to Ameritech.  Nice looking bag phones.   PAT]

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

Date: 9-SEP-1991 04:22:41.65
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: What LD Comapny Do the Bells Use?


I'm wondering what LD company the Bells use for their automated
operator service?

As far as I can tell, this is only necessary for third party calls
which you make from payphones, so I guess this is another one of my
"esoteric calling card questions" ...

Anyhow, if you are in a Bell which uses an automated operator service,
let's say you want to place a call (within the LATA of course), but
want to charge it to your phone back home, where you know someone will
definitely accept the charges.

Anyhow, if you are in Boston, and want to call to Charlton (which I
believe is toll, but this will work for ANY Intra-lata call), you dial
0-508-xxx-xxxx. You wait a few seconds after the "New England
Telephone ....<BONG>", and a voice comes on and says: "This is New
England Telephone's Automated Operator System. Press 11 for collect
calls, or to bill to another number dial the complete billing number
now."

So you enter 808-922-xxxx, so it can be billed to your home in
Honolulu (or Waikiki, or wherever 922 is ... I THINK it's on Oahu
somewhere! ;) )

If you were calling from a RESIDENCE or BUSINESS phone, all that the
NETel auto-op system would do is check the "Payphone" and non-billable
database to make sure that 808-922-xxxx is a valid billing number, and
if so, allow the call to go through. If there was any problem later
on, the call could always be billed back to the residence or business
customer's line you made your call from.

Obviously, this is not the case with payphones, and thus NETel has to
actually CALL the 808-922-xxxx number to see if the charges will be
accepted. (Like a collect call, in a way.) So the NETel system asks
you to state your name, and then calls the 808-922 number, plays back
your name, and asks the person in Honolulu if they will accept the
charges. (This has been discussed here a bit in the past ...).

So WHO carries that call? Do the Bell's have some way of segmenting
their third party calls and giving perhaps 60% to AT&T, 15% to Sprint,
15% to MCI, etc? Or do they just use AT&T and hope MCI doesn't start
screaming "antitrust" about it?

Note that the BELL Auto-Op system is NOT to be confused with those
which many COCOTs use, generally without the help of their AOS.
Usually, the COCOT itself will ask for your name, and then call the
third party and ask if they will accept a call from you. Of course,
COCOTs being so stupid, they will generally NOT do a database check on
your call (although some seem to do that now), and you can call from a
COCOT to another payphone (even another COCOT!) collect or as a third
party, and the call will go through. Alternately, if you just want to
hear the weather, you can have a COCOT place a collect call to your
favorite non-976/non-900 info provider, and after a few attempts at
ascertaining if the called party wishes to accept the charges, the
COCOT tends to give up, and will just leave the line open (both ways,
it seems ...) for a few minutes, and then hang up. I dunno why they do
this -- seems like you can call someone and if they stay on the line
long enough (but not press the "1" key to accept the call) they will
be billed regardless of what they do.


Doug   [e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #714
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24419;
          10 Sep 91 1:28 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26854;
          10 Sep 91 0:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04968;
          9 Sep 91 22:55 CDT
Date:     Mon, 9 Sep 91 22:24:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #715
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 9 Sep 91 22:24:01 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 715

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Kaliningrad, Baltic States, etc. [Carl Moore]
    SOAK vs. Beta-Test [Bruce W. Mohler]
    Need USA Direct Information [Joel B. Levin]
    Telemarketing Calls [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Signs of the Times [John Higdon]
    Don't Remove 1+ = TOLL (Re: Running Out of Area Codes) [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Problem Solved! (was Re: International Toll-free Numbers?) [Joe Isham]
    How Are Distances Calculated? [Mark Gleaves]
    800-Number Pitfall [Carl Moore]
    WANTED: Ground Start Adaptor For Single Line Phone [Proctor & Associates]
    Cellular and AOS [Tom Lowe]
    Re: Cellphones and 911 [Marty Brenneis]
    Re: Cellphones and 911 [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Unix on Switches [Dan Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 13:44:03 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kaliningrad, Baltic States, etc.


I am sending along the front part of my list of city codes for the
Soviet Union (USSR) as it has existed coming up to the recent coup
attempt against Gorbachev.  Notice the question I have added in
parentheses at the end of this excerpt, which contains all the city
codes I know of beginning with 01 (notice that the leading 0 is NOT
deleted for calls from outside the USSR).

If asterisk appears at end of line, then for 5 or 6 digit numbers, add
'22' or '2', respectively, before a 5 or 6 digit phone number.
Otherwise, add '00' or '0' respectively.  (This note was written
Sept. 19, 1990; later-arriving entries will be marked & if such add-on
information is unknown.)

7   Soviet Union
    011  Kaliningrad
    012  Lithuania
    012 2  Vilnius
    013  Latvia
    013 2  Riga*
    013 52 Jekabpils
    013 54 Daugavpils
    014  Estonia
    014 2  Tallinn*
    014 34 Tartu
    014 44 Parnu
    015  Grodno*
    016  Brest*
    017  Minsk*

(Are Grodno, Brest, and Minsk in other parts of USSR near the Baltic
states?)

Notice how the Baltic states' codes are clustered together, with 011
Kaliningrad occurring just before them.  I am assuming that these
codes will stay around for a while, given the continued use of the old
East and West German codes in unified Germany (I don't know what would
happen to the USSR postal codes, however).

Note about Kaliningrad: It is the former Konigsberg, in the former
East Prussia.  Before World War II, East Prussia was part of Germany,
and was cut off from the rest of Germany by the Polish corridor; at
the end of World War II, East Prussia was split between Poland and
USSR.  Apparently the USSR's part, including Kaliningrad, is part of
the Russian republic, the rest of which it does not touch!  (The
USSR's part only borders Lithuania and Poland.)  This does remind me
of the case of East and West Pakistan, separated by a long distance
across India, with East Pakistan later rebelling and becoming
Bangladesh; the country codes for India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are
given as 91, 92, and 880 respectively, and I don't know about the
phone and postal systems in pre-Bangladesh Pakistan.


How far back do country codes go, anyway?

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

From: "Bruce W. Mohler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SOAK vs. Beta-Test
Date: 9 Sep 91 22:59:34 GMT


Having read all of the recent articles on the term "generic", I
thought I'd try another telecom/software related term on the c.d.t
readers.  I've asked about this in the comp.software-eng group without
any real success.

What is the etymology of the word "SOAK"?  How is it different from a
beta-test?

I work for Pacific*Bell doing s/w dev support for two applications
called COSMOS and MARCH(tm) (nee Mizar).  When we get a new release of
the "generic" we "SOAK" it on a system before deploying it to all of
our machines.

I've been involved in Software Development for almost fifteen years
and had never heard of this term before coming to COSMOS/MARCH,
however, the people around here use it reflexively.  I can no longer
even beta-test my own software -- I must SOAK it.  They can't explain
what it really means though.

The recent articles on "generics" (our version levels are related to
the version levels of the switch generics as well as other big
provisioning systems upstream (like FACS)) got me to wondering whether
this is a switch testing term that migrated to their application
software.


Thanks, in advance.

(MARCH(tm) is a Trademark of Bellcore).

Bruce W. Mohler   Systems Analyst
[e-mail]   voice: 619-586-2218

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need USA Direct Information
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 10:08:10 EDT


My parents are heading to Europe (principally Iberia) in a week and I
wanted to give them the straight poop on USA Direct*.  I knew where to
get the USA direct numbers; unfortunately, the file in the telecom
archives turned out to have been corrupted and all the countries
between Cyprus and Zimbabwe are gone.

My request: could anyone who has a copy of that information resubmit it
for the archives and e-mail me a copy?  I am also looking for how USA
Direct* is charged and what it costs, so I can advise my parents that
they should use it.  I believe there are equipped with AT&T cards but
they may also still have Sprint cards, so I'm interested in this
information for all four networks.

Please respond by e-mail; I will be happy to forward it to the TELECOM
digest (and newsgroup).


Thanks / JBL

*USA Direct is probably a mark of AT&T; I am using this term to refer to
 that service and its equivalent on Sprint, MCI and Allnet.


nets: [e-mail]    |    BBN Communications
  or: ...!bbn!levin    |    M/S  20/7A
POTS: [phone]  |    150 Cambridge Park Drive
FAX:  [phone]  |    Cambridge, MA  02140


[Moderator's Note: I just now went to check, and unfortunatly Mr.
Levin is correct. The file 'usa.direct.numbers' is *once again*
unavailable due to corruption. I have removed it. (bitter smile,
baring teeth) ... I do not know if there is supposed to be some kind
of sick joke concerning that file, or what.  Will someone please send
it in again, responding to Mr. Levin at the same time? Thanks.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 7:18:02 PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketing Calls


Last night I got an automated call from a company which is "fighting
back against telemarketing". The recorded voice told me to call
1-800-688-6060 to reach the "Catalyst for Change Foundation". At that
number, the same automated voice explains how you can get on the "no
telemarketing calls" list, have a letter written to Congress and such.
All you have to do is to call a (aha!) 900 number, and the call is
"only" $9.95.

This has got to be one of the biggest ripoffs in the history of 900
service. Even if you put your name on list to "protect your privacy
and stop receiving those dinner time calls ...", how in the world is
this going to work? Are they going to send the list to all companies
in the world and say "OK, here is a list of people, don't call them?"

YEAH RIGHT!


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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 17:54 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Signs of the Times


The evidence of the impending CO switch cut is making itself apparent.
It is common knowledge that in the final days of a crossbar switch's
life, maintenance comes to a halt. This finally surfaced today.

A high percentage of the connections was permeated with busy signals,
clicking sounds, the infamous crossbar "double connection", and other
bumps and grinds signifying the end of an era. While a big yawn to
many of those of you out there, this is big excitement here in
Pac*Bell telephone backwater country. My office cuts this Friday
night. When the BAldwin crossbar is replaced in December, that will be
the end of crossbar in the San Francisco Bay Area. My Pac*Bell contact
tells me that there is no longer any #1 crossbar in service anywhere
in the world. Is this true, even in NYNEX country?

Just a couple of weeks ago, my sister's phone in the City cut from 5XB
to 5ESS. When I called, I almost hung up and redialed since the
ringback was "wrong". But when she answered, I realized what had
happened. "So, how do you like the new phone equipment?", I asked.

"Huh?" So much for impressing non-telecom enthusiasts!


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

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Don't Remove 1+ = TOLL (Re: Running Out of Area Codes)
Date: 9 Sep 91 13:00:08 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John R. Levine) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 711, Message 7 of 12

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

>> ... the new plan may require some people to always dial an area code,
>> even their own.

> There are two things they may be talking about.  The first is that in
> many areas, you still dial 1 before a toll call in your own area code.
> ... the stupid reason which is that many people seem to want
> to know when they're dialing a toll call.

Why is this considered stupid?  The number of 'value-added' services
with a surcharge make this a vital feature.  Toll calls can have a
major impact on your bill.

I still want to know whether there will be an additional charge for
the call, beyond whatever my calling plan provides at a flat rate.
For example, some cellular providers have a concept known as 'caller
pays', where anyone calling a cellular phone pays part/all of the cell
system surchages. (airtime, etc.)

[From the Cincinnati Bell white pages:]

'A call to a callular telephone user may result in a charge.  A
service is available to cellular mobile subcsriber known as "Calling
Party Pays".  Under this service, charges normally billed to the
cellular subscriber on a per-minute-of-use basis will be billed to the
party originating the call.'  ...  'When dialing a "Calling Party
Pays" customer from the 513 Area Code, you must dial 1 plus the
seven-digit telephone number. '

So there a valid user interface consideration here.  800 (and 950) are
the accepted 'free call, not even message units' codes, and 1+
indicates a surcharge; ie, long distance, 900, 976, directory
assistance for the Area Code, etc.

In Pittsburgh, we didn't have 1+ for 'toll' calls, and it irritated me
no end to have a call to one part of a suburb be free, and another
part cost .50 for three minutes.

Message Units customers would also be interested in calls outside
their 'untimed' area.

I hate getting nickle-and-dimed, and will take measures to limit calls
to 'toll' exchanges except when necessary.  I considered putting my
Apple-Cat modem w/DTMF and Auto-dialing in charge of my line, with a
synthesized reminder that calls to certain areas would cost extra.


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. (N3FGW, [e-mail])
Alternate e-mail: [e-mail]   Phone: [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 20:13 CDT
From: Joe Isham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Problem Solved! (was Re: International Toll-free Numbers?)
Organization: Chinet - Public access UNIX


The number you were given -- 95-800-010-0401 -- is in fact that
company's Mexican toll-free number.

The access code 95 is the code for dialing the USA from Mexico;
followed by 800 and a special number reachable only through TelMex.


Joe Isham - [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1991 14:48:00 CST
From: Mark Gleaves <"pmvax::cmdglv"@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Subject: How Are Distances Calculated?


Can someone explain how distances are calculated when determining
charges for long distance phone calls here in the US?  (ie. I'm
interested in the "standard" LD service that is distance sensitive,
not the special plans that allow calls anywhere in the U.S. at the
same cost per minute.)  If different carriers use different methods,
I'd be interested in hearing about that, too.

Thanks.


Mark Gleaves   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 17:18:46 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800-Number Pitfall


There was an article in the {N.Y.Times} travel (?) section yesterday
warning of pitfalls in short-notice trip cancellations.  Of interest
to telecom: One of the cases involved the use of an 800 number to
order a trip package; in the article, someone offered a bottom-line
comment that you shouldn't use an 800 number for this.  Apparently,
there was confusion (on the part of various state regulatory agencies)
as to where the trip order was placed (also frustration expressed at
the various names/locations the company operated under).

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 22:00 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: WANTED: Ground Start Adaptor for Single Line Phone


I am looking for a simple device that will allow a single line phone
to be temporarily connected to a PBX ground start line.  It does not
need to generate ringing voltage to the phone.  Can anyone point me to
a manufacturer?


Paul Cook
Proctor and Associates
15050 NE 36th St.   Redmond, WA  98052-5317
phone: [phone]    800-824-9719   fax: [phone]
internet: [e-mail]   MCI Mail: 399-1080

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Sep  9 09:22:52 EDT 1991
Subject: Cellular and AOS


Are cellular carriers going to be required to provide equal access to
long distance carriers like payphone owners are?

My cellular carrier (Ocean County Cellular, Ocean County, NJ) uses a
company called "Chadwick Communications" for their long distance.  I
haven't gotten a bill yet, so I'm not sure if their charges are
reasonable yet.

What are some other experiences with cellular long distance,
especially when roaming?  Good? Bad?


Tom Lowe   [e-mail] (when it works)   or [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: What happens when you place your long distance cell
calls via 10288+ ?    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 07:01:35 PDT
From: Marty the Droid <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellphones and 911


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen):

>     "Sounds like a software problem".  The cellular system sure
> knows approximately where you are (in which cell), so it should be
> fairly straightforward to figure out where to send 911 calls.

This is true, the cell system does know which cellsite you are calling
thru.  It does route you to the proper Mobile 911 PSAP for that
cellsite. Here is the rub, we are talking the SF Bay Area. There is a
big flat spot in the middle of the area, the bay, and radio waves
propigate over this area along with the water waves. Several times
when I've called mobile 911 from one side of the bay I get the PSAP
for the other side.  (Oakland CHP vs SF CHP)  When this happens I ask
for the other service desk.

I would think that there are other areas in the country where you wind
up using a cellsite that is not the closest physically.


Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis   ..!uupsi!kerner!droid
Industrial Magician          [e-mail]
[phone]    KAE7616 - 462.700 - 162.2     KC6YYP

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 10:22:23 -0700
From: Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellphones and 911


    Good point!  I guess we need smaller cells, and a few in the
middle of the bay!


Harold

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Date: Sun,  8 Sep 91 23:04:00 GMT


Some of those switches even have a version of Emacs on them.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #715
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26530;
          10 Sep 91 2:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22421;
          10 Sep 91 1:10 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26854;
          10 Sep 91 0:03 CDT
Date:     Mon, 9 Sep 91 22:58:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #716
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 9 Sep 91 22:58:25 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 716

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Unix on Switches [Thomas J Roberts]
    Re: Unix on Switches [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Unix on Switches [John DeTreville]
    Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad? [David E A Wilson]
    Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad? [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Re: Voicemail (was We're Sorry, But the Country ...) [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Re: Voicemail (was We're Sorry, But the Country ...) [Justin Leavens]
    Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers [David Gast]
    Re: NASA Severs Connection on Email Linkup [Colin Plumb]
    Re: NASA Severs Connection on Email Linkup [J. Brad Hicks]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon,  9 Sep 91 09:31:25 CDT
From: Thomas J Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> I understand that modern CO switches run a software program called a
> generic which is based on the UNIX system.  Just how different is the
> kernel the switch runs from the kernel which is running my
> workstation?  What sort of interface does the CO technician have to
> the switch (dumb terminal, graphics terminal, etc.)?  Is it possible
> to bring up a shell on a CO switch?  What type of filesystem is
> typically used?

There are VERY many different switches in operation, and each type is
different (they can be VERY DIFFERENT!!).

I am only familiar with (reasonably modern) AT&T switches:

1ESS*/1AESS*:  No UNIX+ System. Special-purpose real-time OS.

2BESS*,3BESS*: Ditto.

4ESS*:  Ditto (uses essentially the same processor as 1AESS, but
        a very different switching network).

5ESS*:  The 5ESS Switch uses many processors; the primary maintenance
    interface is to the Administrative Processor, which
    uses UNIX/RTR* as the operating system. This is a VERY
      enhanced version of an old version of the UNIX (pre-System
    V) System. It is enhanced for real-time control, and
    ultra-reliable operation (thousands of office-years show that
    the CPU and OS contribute less than one minute of downtime
    per office-year). The file-system is straight (pre-Sys V)
    UNIX; the maintenance console(s) can easily bring up a standard
    UNIX shell [this is done rarely, if ever].
    The standard maintenance interface is via a dumb terminal;
    some enhanced interfaces (via DMDs and PCs) are used for
    special purposes (e.g. operator services).
    Other processors in the 5ESS Switch use a proprietary OS.

* (Tm) or (Rg) by AT&T.
+ (Tm) or (Rg) by someone (UNIX System Labs (?)).

In addition to the main switch processor(s), we often use adjunct or
attached processors for additional features. These all run under the
UNIX Operating System, in one form or another.


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

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches
Organization: Chinet - Public access UNIX
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1991 08:06:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (C.A.)
writes:

> Brian Crowley asks:

>> I understand that modern CO switches run a software program called a
>> generic which is based on the UNIX system.  Just how different is the
>> kernel the switch runs from the kernel which is running my
>> workstation?  What sort of interface does the CO technician have to
>> the switch (dumb terminal, graphics terminal, etc.)?  Is it possible
>> to bring up a shell on a CO switch?  What type of filesystem is
>> typically used?

> I can't say anything about switches other than DMSs; I would guess
> that AT&T binds Unix closely to its stuff (Andy? you out there?).  The

Likewise, I only have experience on DMS switchers.

> DMS operating system is proprietary and definitely _not_ Unix or
> Unix-based.  However, peripherals do indeed run Unix, on graphics
> terminals, with all the trimmings.

On most DMS switches, which may not be the case in the latest
installations, dumb terminals are pretty much standard.  VT-100s are
about it.  The peripherals that run UNIX are not used by maintenance
people for most things.  I haven't used one yet, but it isn't used,
for example, for trunk or line testing.

> If there is a Unix kernel out there running an average urban CO,
> though, I'll bet it's got a lot more muscle than anything sitting in a
> workstation. I doubt that a garden-variety kernel could handle the
> demands of a CO switch, particularly the multitasking and real-time
> scheduler needs.

The multitasking, yes.  The real-time, not even close.  Most
workstations have more CPU power than say an NT-40, or even a
Supernode, but they don't have the i/o either. The wierd thing about
doing things on a DMS is getting used to the concept that the terminal
process is a background process.  On normal computers you get used to
what you can see as the foreground, and what you can't as the
background.  A switch processes calls in the foreground, and
everything else, including your terminal, is in the background.

And there is a shell on the DMS, but spawning off a separate one is a
bit tricky and cumbersome.  Also the shell is very different than
anything on UNIX.  It is a little frustrating to move between the two.

The file system on a DMS is based on an IBM tape format, even on the
hard disk (the first DMS-100's didn't have hard disks).  It is slow
and very inconvenient, but it does the job it was intended to and has
been consistant since the original DMS came out.

There are a few utility programs available.  There is a line editor, a
sort program, a compress program, and others.  But they are not
designed to be generally useful.  They were designed for specific
applications, and usually do those rather nicely.  It is hard to come
up ways of doing normal computer type operations like reformatting
text files and so on.  Some of the 'shell scripts' that have been
designed for various purposes are really very imaginative.  With UNIX
there are usually several ways to do something and the hard part is
figuring out which is best.  On a DMS the trick is to even find a
way.


Floyd

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

From: John DeTreville <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 19:45:16 PDT


I worked on the 5ESS switch around 1980, so I can tell you how it
operated a dozen years ago.  (And I'd certainly like to hear about how
it's changed since then.)

A 5ESS switch was distributed; it had up to 128 modules, each of which
could connect up to 512 lines or trunks.  Most of the switching
software ran in the modules, which could communicate across the shared
switching fabric.  I wrote the operating system for the modules, OSDS,
which was not UNIX.

A 5ESS system also had a central processor, which held translation
information (e.g., a mapping from telephone numbers to line numbers),
kept call records, etc.  This central processor was a 3B-20D, which
ran DMERT, a variant of UNIX.  A little of the switching software ran
in the central processor; to support it, an instance of OSDS ran there
in a DMERT process, so that the switching software still ran under
OSDS.


Cheers,

John

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 04:11:34 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Most such systems say for Q or Z to use the digit 1.

Here in Australia the latest Telecom T200 touchphones have letters in
addition to digits -- Q & Z share 1.

I assume this is so Telecom can sell QANTAS (our national airline) a
phone number.  (Our 008 numbers are of the form 008 xxx xxx so QANTAS
would fit nicely).


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

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

Date: 9-SEP-1991 12:57:32.86
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad?


In response to message <[e-mail]> from Harold
Hallikainen <[e-mail]>, the Moderator notes:

> Most such systems say for Q or Z to use the digit 1.
> Too bad that popularity poll for VP a few years ago forgot about it.  :)
> Others just put Q on 7 and Z on 9.     PAT]

On the very first phone my folks ever had, back around 1950, there was
a "Z" written in on the "zero/operator" hole.  No "Q", though.  But on
the basis of the old "2Z" and "QZ" charge-billing codes, and the aural
indistinguishability of spoken Q 's and spoken 2 's , I might well
have imagined "Q=2" .  Still, Q on 7 (along with its neighbors P, R,
and S, makes sense too.


Fred    <[e-mail]>    <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com>

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voicemail (was We're Sorry, But the Country ...)
Date: 9 Sep 91 12:11:30 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 705, Message 12 of 12

> On this note, do any colleges have on-campus voicemail?  Or are just a
> few of us lucky enough to be left out ...

MIT has a 5ESS, with AUDIX if I'm not mistaken.  (I haven't called
anyone there since '89 or so).  I don't know what determines who
'qualifies' for AUDIX covergae. At many installations it's viewed as a
'deluxe' feature and charged back to the subscriber at a
larger-than-expected rate.  This would seem to preclude 'regular'
people' (ie students) having access to it.

Carnegie-Mellon had Centrex with a 'Message Center' (forward on no
answer to a bank of dedicated lines for taking messages.)  The
message-takers would send an E-mail message with the caller's name and
number and other pertinent information.


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. (N3FGW, [e-mail])
Alternate e-mail: [e-mail]   Phone: [phone]

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

From: Justin Leavens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voicemail (was We're Sorry, But the Country ...)
Date: 9 Sep 91 17:07:28 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


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

> I wish RIT would get some voicemail in, or at least let us forward out
> calls off campus to be handled by Rochester Tel's voicemail.  I'm
> really beginning to miss my United Telephone MessageLine (being so far
> away from it makes it expensive to use!)

> On this note, do any colleges have on-campus voicemail?  Or are just a
> few of us lucky enough to be left out ...

That is a critique I have of our system: Calls cannot be forwarded off
campus (I guess there's some decent reasons for this, but still).
However, voicemail is supposed to be on the way here sometime in the
next year. They're still cleaning up all the problems from our
switchover from Centrex last fall ...


Justin

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 19:21:44 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers


I have been waiting to see if anyone else would say something, but they
haven't so ...

> "People are going to get used to 10-digit numbers," said Ron
> Conners, the Bellcore district administrator in charge of the North
> American numbering plan.  "Psychological studies have shown people
> don't care what they have to dial, as long as it's consistent.

Ten digit, actually 11 digit (if you count the one at the beginning)
are a pain in the ass.  I live in 213 soon to be 310 and it will be a
real pain dialing an extra four digits for all those 213 numbers.  It
has already been a pain converting the the proper 213 numbers to 310.

Sure, we will get used to them, just like we get used to the choke
holds, biting police dogs, clubbings and other forms of police
brutality.  :-)

As far as those psychological studies go, I think he must be taking
something out of context.  Is he really trying to say that he would
not mind prepending 25 digits to the front of every phone call?
Wasn't it Bell Labs that gave us 'mv' instead of please-move-this-file
or move and '}' instead of end or 'endif' or 'fi' because people don't
like to have to type more than is necessary?

> "I think we can pretty much say that the United States has the
>  best numbering plan in the world," Mr. Conners said.

What evidence for this statement does he have?  If they had to do it
all over again, I bet they would not do it the same way.  I strikes me
that a numbering system related to geography would be much better.
Our current system was designed to minimize dialing times in the days
before touch-tone and in the days with many fewer area codes.  Now
almost everyone uses touch-tone so it does not take any longer to dial
a nine than a one.  (Mandatory CYA: Perhaps someone has a study
showing that it takes .2ms longer because it is easier to reach up
than down and for right handed people the index finger would be used
instead of the ring finger.  :-) )

BTW, I have to agree with John Higdon that one of the major reasons
for needing to split area codes so frequently is that Centrex uses up
a lot of numbers.  Too bad the tariffs do not require the Centrex
users to pay for all the externalities involved.  After the LECs can
sell PBX equipment, they probably will.

Finally, I would point out that California has several area codes that
are practically empty like 805 and 707.  So much for the best design.


David

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NASA Severs Connection on Email Linkup
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1991 00:31:22 -0400
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mikel Manitius) quoted skeptically:

> "And in today's news, Engineers at NASA are trying to figure out how
> to cure a computer virus that has apparently taken over the Space
> Shuttle Atlantis' main navigation computers. Apparently the virus
> managed to make it's way into the shuttle's systems through a national
> electronic mail network ..."

Ref: "Architecture of the Space Shuttle Primary Avionics Software
System," G.D. Carlow, Comm. ACM 27(9):926-936, September 1984.

Navigation is a function of the PASS, so one must assume the "main
navigation computers" are the IBM AP-101 General Purpose Computers.
These are a) physically isolated from peripheral duties, b) obscure
processors running a full-custom OS with lots of error-checking, and
c) fully reloadable from "mass memory," which is unspecified but is a
serial, rather than direct-access device, which in IBMese means it's
not your normal disk and is probably awkward to write to.

Then there's the slight problem of explaining how *anything* sent over
an email system is going to look enough like a program to get executed
by any computer on board the Shuttle.  I mean, maybe that Grid MS-DOS
clone picked something up from some demo someone uploaded, but
commercial networks are generally pretty careful about vetting their
archives, and it seems like an unlikely thing for an astronaut to
spend rare and precious spare time doing.  (I dismiss the idea it was
an official mission duty!)

So, the data which is the virus is hugely unlikely to have gotten to
the Shuttle, once there it couldn't get to the main navigation
computers, on which it would have to be custom-crafted by someone who
went to a hell of a lot of research effort, and has either got an
AP-101 simulator running or got a complex piece of software to run
more or less as intended the first time, and it would be difficult for
it to permanently stick even if it got there.

In total, Not Bloody Likely.


Colin

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 15:15 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NASA Severs Connection on Email Linkup


> "And in today's news, Engineers at NASA are trying to figure out
> how to cure a computer virus that has apparently taken over the
> Space Shuttle Atlantis' main navigation computers. Apparently the
> virus managed to make it's way into the shuttle's systems through
> a national electronic mail network ..."

Not bloody likely.  AppleLink, like any sane e-mail network, does not
support remote job initiation.  The Internet worm attack(s) would be
impossible without this UN*X cum TCP/IP "feature."

Besides, the Mac Portable wasn't connected in any way to the nav
'puters, or to anything else critical.  (If the Mac was running System
7.0, this was a Very Good Thing ;-)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #716
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28732;
          10 Sep 91 3:40 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02924;
          10 Sep 91 2:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22421;
          10 Sep 91 1:11 CDT
Date:     Tue, 10 Sep 91 0:05:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #717
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Sep 91 00:05:11 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 717

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More on US West and 976 IPs [John Higdon]
    Re: CO Broadcasting [Colin Plumb]
    Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite? [Peter Thurston]
    Re: Problem Reaching AT&T MAIL [Brian Charles Kohn]
    Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call [Roger Herrick]
    Re: Questions About Wire Maintenance Plan [John Higdon]
    Re: NET's Call Answering Service [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: Single Chip Rotary Pulse Decoder [Paul Cook]
    Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: A Devious Sort of Guy (was Billing Responsibility) [Justin Leavens]
    Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines [Bob Lashley]
    I Need Voicemail With a Long Outgoing Message [Richard Freeman]
    Motorola Opens Museum of Electronics [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 91 23:35 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: More on US West and 976 IPs


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> This is not necessarily the case.  I am an MasterCard/Visa merchant,
> [...]
> If I can do it, so can the IPs.

Not so fast. Did you tell them you were a telephone information
provider and that 100% of your charges would be "cardless" and that
you were giving only information, nothing tangible? If you had, I can
guarantee you that you would not be sportin' your precious merchant
account right now.

Besides defeating the very purpose of the 900 intentions (casual use,
no prior billing arrangements, no credit cards, etc.), there are few
if any IPs with VISA/MC merchant accounts. Instead, they are forced to
hide behind a rip-off "space and facilities" provider who maintains a
quasi-legitimate bank card account and doles it out to IPs who
contract with his services. The ones I am familiar with give scant
detail to the IPs and collect a very healthy percentage of the take.

If this was such a viable option, most IPs would be using 800 numbers
and credit card billing today given the rotten state of affairs with
regards to 900 services with the restrictions and the collection
difficulties.


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

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CO Broadcasting
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1991 00:36:33 -0400
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


How about just letting it ring until the loop begins?  Normal ring
cadence is two seconds on, four seconds off, so if you're willing to
wait, say five rings, that's either a thirty second message, loops
staggered every thirty seconds, or a thirty second loop welcome
message which repeats until the main loop is at the beginning.


Colin

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

From: Peter Thurston <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 11:12:30 +0100
Subject: Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite?


Several people have commented that they have expereienced half duplex
phone conversations within the US. Even odder -- I have noticed the
same effect when talking to a service department of Mercury
Communications here in the UK. A most odd situation -- you just can't
help thinking that the line has been disconnected.


Peter Thurston

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

Date: Mon,  9 Sep 91 09:49:55 EDT
From: Brian Charles Kohn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problem Reaching AT&T MAIL
Reply-To: "The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality" <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Internet


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

> Someone recently made mention of the fact that there are two different
> addresses for AT&T for mail purposes: ATTMAIL.COM and ATT.COM.  It was
> also mentioned that one is internal and the other is for those who
> want to pay for access to the Internet as an outsider.

> Please enlighten me; which is which?

attmail.com is the domain address of the subscriber service.  att.com
is the domain address of the machine that is the gateway to AT&T's
internal systems.


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: HERRICK, DANIEL <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call
Date: 9 Sep 91 08:55:16 EST


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

> very long.  It seems that some carriers are dismayed that people
> cannot call their 900 lines by using a credit card.  Some LECs have
> already capitulated to a request to open up 0+900 on a selective basis
> (ie available to some 900 numbers but not to others).

I am dismayed that I cannot put a 900 call on any of my credit cards.
There is a brainstorming conference call tomorrow that I want to
participate in.  It is well worth the 36c/minute.  It is not worth the
additional cost of arranging to be home at 1:00 pm to put it on my own
phone.  So I won't participate.

Last time around, I had three ways to bill the call; none of them
would work.  This time, I won't try.


dan herrick      [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 09:54 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Questions About Wire Maintenance Plan


"Robert L. McMillin" <rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com> writes:

> My guess is that your phone company will likely take a
> similar attitude to your modem problems: if the voice line works, you
> don't have anything to gripe about.

This is becoming a less and less acceptable attitude for telcos to
take. Modem and fax use of telephone lines has become a way of life,
and it is no longer possible for the telephone company to dismiss
fully approved and compliant devices.

While Pac*Bell has had their "data assured" line scam in place for
some time now, I have found the attitude of repair people to be most
reasonable when complaining about modem trouble. General policy is
that 2400 bps should always work, "data assured" or not. If you
complain about 2400 bps failures, you WILL get attention from repair
service.  Maybe it is because this is Silly Con Vallee.


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


[Moderator's Question: Is Silly Con any relation to Rudy?   PAT]

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

From: HERRICK, DANIEL <[e-mail]>
Subj: Re: NET's Call Answering Service
Date: 9 Sep 91 10:07:46 EST


In article <[e-mail]>, Jon Sreekanth <jon_sree@world.
std.com> writes:

> I recently signed up for New England Telephone (Nynex) voice mail, on
> my home line, 617-547-. Here are some observations:

> 1. It costs $11.60 to turn on the service, plus $4 per month.
> Outgoing message can be up to two minutes, up to 30 incoming messages,
> each of two minutes maximum, can be stored.

> On the whole, I'm not pleased with it. In the beginning, the only
> advantage of a service over my trusty Panasonic answering machine was
> the potential that no caller would ever hear a busy. Given the various
> flaws, I'm tempted to ask: is it just the residential service that's
> crippled, or does the business service also have all the above
> restrictions?

Think how convenient it will be to have an hour or more of your
telephone messages on back-up tapes at the phone company if someone
wants to find out if you have been telling secrets to the {Wall Street
Journal}.

At least, it is still harder to search digitized voice than to search
billing records.

The phone company Audix that AB uses here is tolerably convenient.
AB probably has a thousand lines around here.  (Half that, anyway.)


dan herrick      [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 21:58 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Single Chip Rotary Pulse Decoder


"Umesh H. Patel" <[e-mail]> writes:

> As pointed out earlier in TELECOM Digest, 38% of phone users do not
> have a touch tone phone. I have an application where I would like to
> detect numbers dialed from a rotary phone. Does anybody make a
> single chip rotary pulse decoder?  Ideally it would be nice to have
> a chip that can decode either DTMF tones or rotary pulses.

I know that early versions of the Teltone DTMF decoder chips worked
with pulse dialing also.  It required a simple transistor interface to
tip and ring to detect interruptions in loop current.  You can reach
them at:

Teltone
22121 20th Ave. SE
Bothell, WA  98021-4408
800-426-3926

BUT ... you MUST be able to detect the interruptions in loop current
that make up rotary dial pulses, so you WILL be connected DIRECTLY to
the phone generating the pulses, right?

Rotary dial pulses do not pass through the CO.  That is why DTMF is
used for end to end signalling.  When you call me on the phone and
fool with your rotary dial after you are connected, no DC signalling
appears at my end ... only some clicks, which are really hard to tell
from noise.

There may be a solution, but it is certainly not a "single chip" by
any stretch of the imagination.  It uses DSP to try to detect the
sound of the rotary dial clicks.  It is NOT cheap.  There is a high
level of interest in this because of voice mail.  A Canadian company
makes a product called the GENIUS that is advertised to do this at a
hefty price.  I have never talked to anyone who has actually seen one
work, however.

Check with:

Teleliaison
3501 Ashby
Montreal, PQ  H4R 2K3
Canada    Phone: [phone]


Good luck!


Paul Cook    Proctor & Associates
206-881-7000  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I'll tell you who else could do this years ago --
don't ask me how. United Airlines had a local dialup which accessed
their Unitel network. It worked *best* with touchtone, (and only with
touchtone more than one level deep into the bowels of their telecom
network) but it worked okay with rotary (pulse) dialing at the first
level after connecting with Unitel through the dialup.  PAT]

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

From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice
Date: 9 Sep 91 21:52:22 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


> [Moderator's Note: I have not received it yet, nor has my credit card
> been charged. Neither have I been charged for the 900 demo line call
> which was advertised with it. I wonder what's going on?    PAT]

My call showed up on my bill.  It was billed by Southwestern Bell in
the AT&T section of the bill, the place called was 'VOICEPHONE', and
it cost $0.75 as promised.

I didn't order the phone because it sounded too artificial.  It might
have been fun pretending to be a bratty kid who won't call Daddy to
the phone for telemarketers, or to answer those calls to my
(nonexistent) wife.  It didn't sound realistic enough to do that
credibly.


Gordon L. Burditt   sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: My 75 cent charge just showed up on my latest bill
also, but still no phone and no charge on my credit card.   PAT]

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

From: Justin Leavens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Devious Sort of Guy (was Billing Responsibility; 900 Calls)
Date: 9 Sep 91 18:55:06 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


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

>> numbers are all advertised as 1-900-nxx-FREE.  The fine print is that
>> the first minute is indeed free, but then you get hit for $15 for the
>> sixty-first second.  Now, does that include call setup?  What about the
>> little "hang up now and you won't be charged" spiel?  Is that part of
>> your FREE minute?

> One fellow in Chicago uses the free services extensively, and beats
> them at their own game. His gimmick is to get on an 'adult' conference
> line which offers the first minute free; make a quick pitch for his
> particular kink; give out a special phone number under his control and
> disconnect -- all in about 45 seconds or so. He repeats his -- ahem --
> announcement as required.

Well, I'm impressed with this. The few times that I've called party
lines and such (back in other people's dorm rooms, of course) the
first minute was free, but it was filled with ads for the provider's
other 900 numbers.  So by the time you got into the conversation, your
free minute was already up.

The first thing I ever heard on a party line: "I'm gonna blow up all
these f*ckin' party lines..."


[Moderator's Note: When we could reach OP-976s (other place) for the
cost of the toll, Devious was quite content to spend twelve cents for
a minute on line. He still got all the callbacks he could handle.  One
correspondent mentioned to me that conferences with moderators on duty
would never permit Devious to get his message out ... they'd cut him
so fast his head would spin ... :)  With his audio path gone, he'd be
talking to no one but himself.  PAT]

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

From: bob lashley <radius![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines
Subject: Selective Ringing on Party Lines
Date: 9 Sep 91 00:33:15 GMT


> How can only one phone of a multi-party line be rung?  (It also

As I recall, this used to be accomplished by resonating the ringers
using different frequencies.  The AC voltage applied to the line would
vary in frequency for each party on the party line.  The Q of the
ringers for each phone would have to be adjusted for the appropriate
frequency by jumpering the coil for another impedance, etc.


bob

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 01:32 CDT
From: Richard Freeman <[e-mail]>
Subject: I Need Voicemail With a Long Outgoing Message


Re the discussion on voice mail systems. I operate a 24 hour per day
voice hotline here using a Watson voice board in my old XT computer
 ... one line runs into it. I'd like to free up the XT and the line by
getting a voice mail box that would handle the hotline calls remotely,
and handle several at the same time.  Problem here is there's no voice
mail vendor I've come across that wants to give me the seven minutes
minimum outgoing message time that I require.

The whole voice mail industry seems to be geared to short messages of
the "Hello, we're not in the office at present. .."  variety. "What do
you want all that time for?" they ask me incredulously when I let them
know the awful truth. Perhaps others have run up against the same
problem ... perhaps some one of you has even solved it.


Internet: [e-mail]   MCI Mail 487-8467
Prodigy GCDS20A   Recorded 24hr Catholic Action Line  708-747-4725
Voice Network (Ch. 1) 708-392-9229   Fax [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I'm surprised you can hold the caller's interest
for seven minutes. Many telephone message-givers have a hard time
doing that for that long. Central Telephone (Centel) in Park Ridge
offers 'deluxe' voicemail service with two or three minute outgoing
messages. If you had a logical way of breaking your message into
segments according to topic, you could probably chain two or three of
these together using one as a front-end with two or three others
behind it, ie, "to hear more about X, press 1; to hear more about Y,
press 2."   Phone [phone] for details of Centel service. They
will ask for your *Centel* phone number, but explain you are an
Illinois Bell customer and want it on a miscellanous non-subscriber
billing. That's the way mine is set up with them.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 23:11:16 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Motorola Opens Museum of Electronics


Motorola, Inc. dedicated its Museum of Electronics a few days ago.
This new, quite large exhibit showcases products of the company going
back to its founding in 1928.

The museum is located at Algonquin and Meacham Roads in Schaumburg,
IL. The museum is open to the public, with hours by appointment only.
For more information or to schedule an appointment/tour of the
facility, call the musuem curators at 708-576-8620.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #717
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01416;
          11 Sep 91 0:07 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29130;
          10 Sep 91 22:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19784;
          10 Sep 91 21:28 CDT
Date:     Tue, 10 Sep 91 21:20:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #718
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Sep 91 21:20:08 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 718

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    ATM Fraud Articles in Telecom Archives [Sue Welborn]
    Cellular Skip (was Cellphones and 911) [Bob Miller]
    Centrex Revisited [John Holman]
    Mass. DPU Caller-ID Decision Due Next Month [Adam M. Gaffin]
    Long Distance Operator Story [David B. Whiteman]
    Re: A Devious Sort of Guy (was: Billing Responsibility) [Tom Olin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 91 23:21:54 cst
From: Sue Welborn <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATM Fraud Articles in Telecom Archives


Hello all,

I have made available to Patrick in ASCII format, three articles from
the {Omaha World-Herald} that detail the attempt by a small group of
people to steal from Bank of America several million dollars through
the fraudulant use of automatic teller machine (ATM) cards.  The
ring-leader of the group was a former employee of Applied
Communications, Inc. (whose international headquarters are based in
Omaha, Nebraska), a leading supplier of the software that runs ATM
machines.  ACI at one time operated under the auspices of U.S. West
Communications as a subsidiary, but was sold to Tandem Computers
earlier this year.

At the time of his arrest, he was a loaned employee to GTE in Los
Angeles, working with the ATM division.  He stole magnetic tape, an
encoder and the PIN numbers for several thousand ATM accounts.  He
(and four associates that were also arrested) then created phony cards
and were planning on using the President's Day holiday of 1989 to
spread out over the country and use the cards to obtain what
authorities estimate could have been between $7 and $14 million
dollars.

The articles were fascinating for me to read, as I have worked in an
Omaha bank for the last 12+ years, and I'm a big advocate of the use
of ATM's.


Sue Welborn   Internet: [e-mail]   Fido: 1:285/666.3


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for this really good file for the archives.
I have logged it under the title 'atm-bank.fraud' in the sub-directory
entitled 'telecom.security.issues' in the archives. To access the file
using anonymous ftp, login to lcs.mit.edu. Give [e-mail] as
the password. Once on line, 'cd telecom-archives' for the main body of
files, but 'cd telecom-archives/telecom.security.issues' to reach the
new file, along with many other files with security-related topics.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 11:06:57 PDT
From: Bob Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Skip (was Cellphones and 911)


[e-mail] (Marty the Droid Brenneis) writes:

> the cell system does know which cellsite your are calling thru...
> there is a big flat spot in the middle of the area, the bay, and radio
> waves propigate over this area along with the water waves...
> I would think that there are other areas in the country where you
> wind up using a cellsite that is not the closest physically.

I have heard of this before, with two examples given:

In New York City the radio waves bounce between buildings and you are
sometimes well out of the 'range' of the cell cite you are using.

In the Detroit/Windsor area, I have heard of something similar to the
San Francisco bay area where the cell cite you are using may be on the
other side of the river.  Not only are you using another cell cite,
and another carrier, but your conversation is bouncing between two
countries.

Can anyone confirm these examples, or provide others?


Robert S. Miller    Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd.
416-597-3461     dtn: 637-3461    [e-mail]
!decwrl!trca01.enet!bobmiller     Standard disclaimers apply

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 14:19:20 CDT
From: John Holman  holmanj.uwwvax.uww.edu
Subject: Centrex Revisited
Organization: University of Wisconsin/Whitewater (lots of COWS)


We are entering our sixth year of a seven year CENTREX agreement with
our RBOC Wisconsin Bell.  The agreement was rather unique in the fact
that the University purchased a projected capacity (3721 lines) of the
CO.  A lump sum of $1,250,000.00 was paid for the purchased capacity
of the CO and all campus CPE (2500 sets, LSIs, 30 Key Systems) station
wiring, risers, and a fiber backbone with six fiber remotes for
asynchronous data via a Gandalf PACX.  Presently, and for the previous
five years we have only paid for access fees for the activated lines
monthly.  Currently this access rate is $3.91 per line.  We think we
got a great deal and want to keep it that way!

I am looking for some HELP from someone that has renewed or is
familiar with this "PURCHASED CAPACITY" concept.  In particular I am
interested in:

(1) What were the renewal charges for your orgainization?  (We have a
three year extension that I am presently trying to negotiate. This is
where I am really looking to the net for help.)

(2) How was the term 'Purchased Capacity' viewed or defined during and
after your RBOC agreement?

(3) What was done at the end of your contract?  (I am assuming that a
PBX alternative was investigated again.)

Any help and direction would be greatly appreciated.  Whitewater is on
the map ...


TTFN john h.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 15:24:00 -0400
From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mass. DPU Caller-ID Decision Due Next Month


The DPU decision is scheduled to be released either Oct. 8 or 10
 -- Adam

{Middlesex News}, Framingham, Mass., 9/10/91

Phone caller ID service goes before state DPU
Devices permit customers to see numbers of those calling them

By Adam Gaffin
NEWS STAFF WRITER

    Call it dial tone wars. It could be coming soon to a phone near you.

    The state Department of Public Utilities is scheduled to decide
early next month whether New England Telephone can offer ``caller
ID,'' a service through which customers can see the originating number
of calls coming into their phones.

    Bowing to concerns from civil-liberties advocates, the company has
agreed to offer a free ``blocker'' service, which would let callers
keep the people they call from seeing their numbers.

    But companies that sell home caller-ID devices are already coming
up with blocker blockers that hang up on such callers after playing a
recording that says something to the effect of "if you don't want the
called party to know who you are, then the called party does not want
to talk to you," New England Telephone spokeswoman Roberta Clement
said yesterday.

    "It gets wild," she said.

    It's all made possible by the increasingly sophisticated computer
software used to run the company's switching stations.

    If the state approves the proposal, New England Telephone will
begin offering caller-ID and several other "intelligent phone"
services to customers in 32 communities on the North and South shores,
now served by switching stations that use a complex set of computer
instructions known as Signaling System 7 or SS-7.

    Clement said the company plans to convert the entire state over to
this system by 1995. She said the conversion cost will be in the
millions, but declined to set a specific number.

    Caller ID will only work on calls originating from phones served
by switching stations that also use SS-7, which means that people with
the service will not be able to identify all of the calls that come in
until after the entire state is switched over, she said.

    The company wants to charge $4.95 a month. This is in addition to
the $35-$80 cost of a call-monitoring device, she said.

    Clement said law-enforcement officials are particularly anxious
for it to come on line. Until the company's statewide "enhanced 911"
system becomes operational over the next two years, caller ID can
provide invaluable information to police, she said.

    Along with caller ID, the company is seeking state permission to
offer:

    -- Repeat dialing for $2.25 a month. Somebody who reaches a busy
signal will be able to have his phone check the busy number every 30
seconds or so and then put the call through once it clears.

    -- Call return for $2.25 a month. This will let a user have his
phone dial the number of the last person to call him or her and is
aimed at people who can't be bothered with answering machines or voice
mail, but who are still worried about missing a call while in the
shower or otherwise indisposed, Clement said. She acknowledged that
if, in fact, a person didn't get any calls while in the shower, he
would be connected to somebody he had already talked to.

    -- Call trace for $1.50 a month. Somebody worried about obscene
phone calls will be able to punch in a two-digit code after receiving
one that will "flag" the originating number in the switching station.
When the next call comes in, the user punches in his code again and
then calls the company to check to see if both calls came from the
same number. If they do, the company will ask the subscriber if he or
she wants the police to be notified.

    Clement said the subscriber will not be told the originating
number because of privacy concerns. The phone company now provides a
similar tracing service for free, but Clement said this can take
several days to set up.

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

From: "David B. Whiteman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Operator Story
Date: Tue Sep 10 05:09:42 1991


Pat,

Some time ago there were several postings regarding operators placing
long distance calls.  I heard this on a tape of the radio show The
Henry Morgan Show.  The show was first aired in 1946 on the NBC Blue
Network (ABC).  The tape I heard this on was furnished by SPOORDVAC,
the Society for the Preservation Of Old-time Radio Drama, Variety, And
Comedy.  The tape did not list a copyright on it, and with other
recordings they are careful to place the copyright symbols where
appropriate.  I also read this in the book The Big Radio Comedy
Program edited by Ross Firestone; again no copyright was listed in the
Acknowledgments page.

Morgan: You know, years ago people used to make jokes about how hard
it was to get a number on the telephone.  Nowadays there aren't any
jokes because there's no trouble. The phone works fine. This summer,
when I was up in Cape Cod in Massachusetts, I was living near the town
of Truro, T-R-U-R-O, a town. And I had to call Los Angeles from there.
And so first I asked myself the big question: will my alarm clock go
off when the three minutes are up? And then I place the call:

(SOUND: LIFTS RECEIVER, DROPS COIN, DIALS OPERATOR)

Operator 1: Operator.

Morgan: I want to call Los Angeles. The number is Westwood 8927.

Operator 1: (excited) You want to call Los Angeles!

Morgan: Yeah.

Operator 1: Oh, what number?

Morgan: Westwood 8927.

Operator 1: California?

Morgan: That's the one.

Operator 1: Thank you! Just a minute now.

(SOUND: CIRCUIT RINGS)

Operator 2: This is Hyannis, operator.

Operator 1: Hello, this is Truro.  I have a call for Los Angeles.
Westwood 8926.

Operator 2: Los Angeles?

Operator 1: Yes!

Operator 2: What number?

Operator 1: Westwood 8927 .

Operator 2: Is that in Los Angeles?

Operator 1: Just a minute....  Is that in Los Angeles, sir?

Morgan: Mm-mm.

Operator 1: Yes, that's in Los Angeles, Hyannis.

Operator 2: Well, one moment please.

(SOUND: CIrcuit Rings)

Operator 3: This is the Wellfleet operator.

Operator 2: This is Hyannis, Wellfleet. I have a call from Truro to Los
Angeles.

Operator 3: What number?

Operator 2: Westwood 2897.

Operator 1: Westwood 8297.

Morgan: Westwood 8927!

Operator 1: I'm sorry, sir.

Operator 2: I'm sorry, Truro.

Operator 3: I'm sorry, Hyannis....   What is that number?

Operator 2: Uh, Westwood 8927, Wellfleet.

Operator 3: How do you spell the exchange?

Operator 2: W for Walter, E for Edward, S for Samuel, T for Thomas, W
for Walter, double O as in Oscar-Oscar, and D for David.

Operator 3: One moment, Hyannis.

Operator 2: One moment, Truro.

Operator 1: One moment, sir.

Morgan: Are we still in Massachusetts?

Operator 1: Oh, sure!...  Just a minute now.  Wellfleet is calling
Boston.

Morgan: Swell.

(SOUND: CIRCUIT RINGS)

Operator 4: Boston.

Operator 3: This is Wellfleet, Boston.

Operator 4: What is that again?

Operator 3: Wellfleet: W for William, E for --

Morgan: W for Walter!

Operator 3: Wellfleet, Boston: W-E-double L-F-L-double E-T.

Operator 4: Where are you calling, Wellfleet?

Operator 3: Los Angeles, California. The exchange is Westwood.

Operator 4: What is that exchange?

Operator 3: W-E-S-T-W-double O-D.  Westwood 2897

Operator 1: Westwood 8927.

Operator 4: Who was that, Wellfleet?

Operator 3: That was Hyannis.

Operator 1: No, Wellfleet. This is Truro.

Operator 3: Where is Hyannis?

Operator 2: I'm on the line, Wellfleet!

Morgan: Westwood 8927, please.

Operator 4: What is that?

Morgan: Westwood 8927, Truro....  Uh, Wellfleet....  Boston?...

Operator 4: Just a moment, please.  I'll call the New York Operator.

(SOUND: CIRCUIT RINGS)

Operator 5: Yeah?

Operator 4: This is Boston, New York. Calling Los Angeles.  Westwood
8927.

Operator 5: Callin' what?

Operator 4: Westwood. W-E-S-T-W-double O-D.

Operator 5: D for David or T for Thomas?

Operator 3: D for David, New York.

Operator 5: Who th' heck was that?

Operator 3: This is Wellfleet, New York.

Operator 5: Who?

Operator 3: W-E-double L--

Operator 5: Awright, awright, awright!...  Who's makin' dis call?

Morgan: Me.

Operator 5: Who's zat?

Morgan: Me: M-E.

Operator 5: Awright, I'll call Los Angeles.

Morgan: It's up to you.

(SOUND: CIRCUIT RINGS)

Operator 6: This is Los Angeles.

Operator 5: This is New Yawk, Los Angeles.  I want Westwood 8927.

Operator 6: Westwood 8927.  Do you want the charges?

Operator 5: Do yah want de charges, Boston?

Operator 4: Do you want the charges, Wellfleet?

Operator 3: Do you want the charges, Hyannis?

Operator 2: Do you want the charges, Truro?

Operator 1: Do you want the charges, sir?

Morgan: nah.

Operator 6: I will ring the number.

Operator 1: Just a minute.  Please deposit two dollars and twenty-five
cents.

Morgan: okay.

(SOUND: DROPS NINE QUARTERS INTO THE PHONE)

Operator 1: That was only two dollars.

Morgan: That was two dollars and a quarter!

Operator 1: Well, I'll return the money and you can drop it again.

(SOUND: COINS RETURNED, THEN DROPPED BACK INTO THE PHONE)

Operator 1: Thanks a lot.  We're ready, Hyannis.

Operator 2: We're ready, Wellfleet.

Operator 3: We're ready, Boston.

Operator 4: We're ready, New York.

Operator 5: Okay, L. A.

Operator 6: Ringing your party, sir.

(SOUND: PHONE BUZZING)

Housekeeper: Hello.

Morgan: This is Mr. Morgan.  May I talk to Mrs. Morgan?

Housekeeper: I'm sorry. Mr. Morgan is not here.

Morgan: This is Mr. Morgan.

Housekeeper: Mr. Morgan is not here!...  He's in Truro, Massachusetts.

Morgan: Thanks.

(SOUND: HANGS UP THE PHONE... TELEPHONE RINGS, RECEIVER PICKED UP)

Morgan: Yeah?

Operator 1: This is Truro operator.  Did you get your party?

Morgan: no.

Operator 1: Why not?

Morgan: He's in Truro.

(MUSIC CUE UP...APPLAUSE)

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

[Moderator's Note: Although I cannot attest to the housekeeper's
response and that of the great Henry Morgan, I can confirm that the
dialogue between the operators and the confusion over the money was
all too typical of long distance calls pre-DDD in the USA during the
first half of this century. He told it like it was!  :)     PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 10:31:11 EDT
From: Tom Olin <adiron![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Devious Sort of Guy (was Billing Responsibility; 900 Calls)


   It takes all kinds ... and this guy has his routine down perfectly.

And you know it perfectly.  Is this guy a friend of yours?  :)


 Tom Olin    [e-mail]    uunet!adiron!tro    [phone] Ext 638
PAR Technology Corporation * 220 Seneca Turnpike * New Hartford NY 13413-1191


[Moderator's Note: Well let's just say he is a friend of a friend. I
found it hard to believe until I went over for dinner one evening with
a mutual friend, heard the tape he uses and saw how the responses
started coming in a few seconds later. He had never heard of TELECOM
Digest, and asked me if it was 'a BBS for phreaks ...'  ha ha! Imagine
that ...   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #718
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03866;
          11 Sep 91 1:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27447;
          10 Sep 91 23:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29130;
          10 Sep 91 22:36 CDT
Date:     Tue, 10 Sep 91 22:17:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #719
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


Telecom Digest     Tue, 10 Sep 91 22:17:02 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 719

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Call For Discussion: Comp.privacy [Dennis G. Rears]
    What is DTMF? [Dennis Blyth]
    Telephone Service in the UK [Kevin Lynch]
    NPA 510 from Tucker, Ga. CO [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: Unix on Switches [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Unix on Switches [Charles Hoequist]
    Re: Unix on Switches [Martin Harriss]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 20:51:23 EDT
From: Dennis G. Rears <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call For Discussion: Comp.privacy


[Moderator's Note: The following is a CFD on the creation of a new
news group to be entitled comp.privacy.  Followups should go to
news.groups. It is being posted here at the request of Dennis Rears,
Moderator of Telecom Privacy, a mailing list affiliated with TELECOM
Digest.  Individual messages other than formal responses to the CFD
shoudl go to [e-mail].  Sorry ... I *cannot* entertain
responses to the CFD here. You *must* respond in news.groups. After
the time for discussion has passed, a vote will be taken.   PAT]

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

   This is a Call for Discussion for the creation of a new newsgroup
with the name:

    comp.privacy  (tech.privacy see below)

  This newsgroup will be moderated and be gatewayed to an Internet
Mailing List.  I propose myself as the Moderator of this newsgroup. I
am currently Moderator of the telecom-priv ([e-mail])
Internet mailing list.  The telecom-priv mailling list will be folded
into this newsgroup.

   The discussion will center around the effect of techology upon
privacy.  All to often technology is way ahead of the law and society
as it presents us with new devices and applications.  Technology can
enhance and detract from privacy.  For example Cryptologic methods can
enhance privacy but sophisicated microphones can detract from it.
Topics include but are not restricted to:

    o Telecommunications - Caller-ID, ANI, monitoring of cordless
phones and celluar phones, tracking poeple's locations through use of
calling cards, and shutting down pay phones becuase of the War on
Drugs.

    o Cryptology - This subject because it enhances citizens
rights to safeguard their information, of course it detracts from law
enforcement.

    o Data Bases - Big Brother is here but it is not just the
Govt, It is also Corporate America.  The advent of mailing lists has
now reach an extremely high level.  Consider the Social Security
Number.

    o High Tech Spy Devices - ranging for sophisicated (SP) bugs,
viewing devices, and audio devices.

    o The boon in video cameras and private citizens taping
events; e.g. Rodney King episode.  Video as well as Photographic
information can be forged.  A possible topic of conversation on this
issue is the taping by a neighbor of a couple having sex in their own
apartment in Florida.

    o The effect of technology on privacy in the legal arena (e.g
admissibilty in court of items produced by new and old technology).

    o Misc - National Identifier Numbers, electronic toll devices
mounted on Autos, etc.

  This group is not intended for the overall issue of privacy, (e.g
should a rape victim have their name published).

  Currently privacy issues are discussed in many newsgroups but only
how the privacy issue affects that one topic.  There is a need for a
single newsgroup.  The Internet mailing list telecom-priv (telecom-
[e-mail]) was created a year ago to discuss Caller-ID after
that topic was bounced from comp.dcom.telecom.  Telecom-priv was
expanded to include all issues of privacy dealing with telecom
equipment.  Several months later alt.privacy was formed.  I proposed
that initially alt.privacy and comp.privacy coexist.  Depending upon
how comp.privacy evolves either the two should be merged or continue
on separate paths.

  There are several other places where this group could go such as
sci.privacy.  I really think a new hierarchy should be formed which
would be called "tech".  For example "comp.risks" should be tech.risks
as it deals more with technical risks than computer risks.  I under-
stand there is a CFD for a tech hierarchy.  If this happens this
newsgroup will be called tech.privacy.


            Dennis G. Rears
MILNET:   [e-mail]     UUCP:  ...!uunet!fsac1.pica.army.mil!drears
INTERNET: [e-mail]    USPS:  Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
Phone(home): 201.927.8757       Phone(work): 201.724.2683/(DSN) 880.2683
USPS:        SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 17:21:52 -0400
From: Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is DTMF?
Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton


(previous poster said ... "for those of us with DTMF phones" ...  )

As I am not a telecom engineer, please pardon this question if it is a
bit like asking 'what is electricity', but what is DTMF?  Are all
touch tone phones DTMF?  I have a touch tone phone both at home and at
work; is there any way I can tell if I have DTMF?  I apologize if this
is both a DQ (dumb question) and FAQ.

BTW, my work phone is green and has "ITT" stamped on the plastic and
on the bottom metal near the volume control for the ringer it says
(stamped in ink on the metal):

    "2500 05 BA  20M 5 81"

Does anybody have a clue as to what these mean?

I presume NCR will make the right choice for its future phone set
purchases:-)

BTW, some (not all) NCR higher-ups have AT&T phones that indicate the
name of the caller if it is a call from NCR Dayton (ie. internal
call).  All secretaries at NCR's WHQ appear to have an AT&T phone with
the same feature.


Dennis Blyth, Marketing Research, NCR Europe Group
[e-mail]  (looking forward to becomming an AT&T employee)
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: If your phone makes tone sounds when you press the
buttons, then it has <D>ual <T>one <M>ulti-<F>requencies, which is
another way of saying the more common expression 'touch-tone'.  The
numbers on the bottom of your phone say that the phone is a model 2500,
which is a touch-tone desk set. Phones with rotary dials are model 500.
The '5 81' says your phone was manufactured in May, 1981. The numbers
in the middle probably identify the factory where it was built and/or
some aspect of the innards of the instrument.    PAT]

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

From: Kevin Lynch <tharr![e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Service in the UK
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 22:41:34 GMT


I live in the UK and don't have access to ftp archives. A lot of the
time the acronyms and services described don't mean anything to me so
please forgive my ignorance.

I thought you guys might like to know about telephone service in the
UK.  We have currently two long distance carriers: British Telecom
(BT) and Mercury, a division of Cable and Wireless. BT has 98% of the
doemstic telephone market. Mercury is trying to break in using cable
TV companies as the local operator. The market is heavily regulated -
the regulator tends to weight his decisions in favour of Mercury.

It costs about 250 dollars for BT to install a line. They have a
standing charge of 50 dollars a quarter. A five minute call to USA off
peak is about seven dollars. They do provide touch tone dialing and
itemised billing free.

I work for a company that expects me to call people anywhere. So they
pay for me to have facilities like call waiting and three-way calling.
These cost about five dollars a quarter.

BT has just started to promote their chargecard so I am obtaining one
as I hate cellphones. I am waiting to see how this will work out I'll
let you know how I get on.

I also use Mercury for my long distance calls as they are cheaper than
BT. The service is excellent. They basically work from one big
computer system and have people available to 8PM unlike BT who doesn't
have anyone sensible around after 4PM.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: NPA 510 From Tucker, Ga. CO
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 13:20:52 EDT


As of 8:30 this morning, I could STILL not dial NPA 510 from my home
phone.  I tried 10288 and all of the other PICs, none of which worked.
In troubleshooting the problem with a very nice lady who works for
AT&T here in the Atlanta area, we have both come to the realization
that the calls are being intercepted at the Tucker Central Office
(1AESS) where both of my lines go.  Southern Bell repair called me
this morning and told me that they could dial out fine from my line
and that there is no trouble -- the Southern Bell employee left that
message on my answering machine.  Moments later, I tried NPA 510 and
still got an immediate intercept.  I forgot to mention that as of
yesterday, AT&T referred the problem to Southern Bell, but did not
just pass the buck.  AT&T is acting as my liaison to SB with regard to
this matter and they will wait for me to say that everything is okay
before they close out the call.

Here comes the incredible part: at least one Southern Bell employee
doesn't believe that 510 is a legitimate area code!  They apparently
tested my line by dialing to NPA 415, which of course worked fine, and
then decreed that there is no problem on my line!  I am guessing here,
but I'd bet a dollar that that is what was going through their heads.

The Southern Bell woman said that the problem "must be with AT&T."  I
wish I could have had a dialogue with the Southern Bell woman, but I
was getting ready for work at the time and couldn't answer the phone.

So, back to AT&T ... I just now spoke with the woman with AT&T and she
is going to pursue the matter with Southern Bell and let me know when
things are/should be working.  I also called Southern Bell repair and
opened a separate repair ticket with them about this same problem.

I have always had good dealings with Southern Bell and I am impressed
by their professionalism.  I have a number of friends who are at
various levels in that organization.  But, it looks like I finally
found a bad apple or two in the bunch.  All in all though, they are a
most progressive and professional organization.  I'll also add that
once this problem does get resolved, I will be sending a very
complimentary letter to the manager of the woman at AT&T because she
is a true professional and I am quite impressed by her customer
service skills and thoroughness.


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

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 06:07:14 GMT


Actually, I'd like to supplement this a little, and move from the
operator and maintenance interfaces of the switch, to the voice
interface.

I guess it must have been about 1972 that I first heard about stored
program control for telephone switches. I was curious as to just how
the system worked, and I listened up straight when it was explained. I
wonder if the following is anywhere near accurate -- then or now ?

The way it was explained to me, each line card with its ADC and DAC
(that's Analog-to-Digital Converter and Digital-to-Analog Converter)
shows up as a memory location. So the switching processor basically
scans all the ADC input byte locations, and for each one it looks up
which other channel this one is connected to, and stores the digitized
value into the DAC output for THAT channel. This is of course the
simple part ... the hard part is updating that table of who goes with
whom.

It makes sense to me that this could be implemented more efficeiently
by a computer than by "real switches and relays". But how accurate is
this model?


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

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

Date: 10 Sep 91 11:06:00 EDT
From: Charles (C.A.)Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches


Floyd Davidson caught me on one here: I said 'peripherals do indeed
run Unix, on graphics terminals, with all the trimmings.'  This is of
course news to the craftsfolk out there doing testing of an installed
switch. Where you find the Unix peripherals are on maintenance and
provisioning positions for some of the newer applications, which don't
touch core switch functionality.  Apologies for the overstatement.

While I'm here though, I can add something to what I said previously:
there _is_ a Unix subset in a SuperNode (love those mixed-case names;
oooweee, doesn't it just _shout_ high-tech?). It (Unix) runs a new app
or two, and is not usually accessible to anyone once the application
developers have finished with it. It communicates with the rest of the
switch over an internal bus. Its filesystem is regular Unix, leading a
charmed life on the otherwise flat-system DMS disk (based on IBM tape
format! _That's_ why it looks the way it does!).  As for the shell,
the developers can certainly call one up, but again, once the switch
is in the field, no one should see the internal Unix.

PS: I must defend the SuperNode against a slur from Floyd: :)

> Most workstations have more CPU power than say an NT-40,

That's for sure. What are we talking here <snicker, chuckle>: MIPD?
(millions of instructions per day?)

> or even a Supernode,

I want me one of them workstations. SNodes use Motorola 6800-series
chips for their processing, same ones as (for example) the current HP
line.


Charles Hoequist   [e-mail]
BNR Inc.   PO Box 13478   Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27709-3478, USA      919-991-8642

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

From: Martin Harriss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches
Reply-To: Martin Harriss <bdsgate![e-mail]>
Organization: Beechwood Data Systems
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 14:24:04 GMT


Brian Crowley asks:

> I understand that modern CO switches run a software program called a
> generic which is based on the UNIX system.  Just how different is the
> kernel the switch runs from the kernel which is running my
> workstation?  What sort of interface does the CO technician have to
> the switch (dumb terminal, graphics terminal, etc.)?  Is it possible
> to bring up a shell on a CO switch?  What type of filesystem is
> typically used?

The processor used in 5ESS is a 3B20D.  This is a dual version of the
3B20S processor with various fault tolerant additions to it.

The OS that runs on the processor is called DMERT.  DMERT is an
outgrowth of something called MERT (Multi Emulator Real Time.)  MERT
was described in the UNIX edition of the Bell System Technical Journal
that appeared in the late seventies (sorry, I don't remember the
actual month and year.)

Basically, MERT is a system that gives you facilities for writing
operating systems supervisors on top of it.  It has processes, events,
memory management and basic device drivers.  It's rather like the
micro-kernels that people are playing with these days.  MERT (and for
that matter DMERT) gives you 'real time' response in as much as you
can write an application using the (D)MERT system services that allow
you fine control over your scheduling and priority, possibly to the
exclusion of all other processes.  MERT has also been called UNIX-RT.

One of the things you can run on (D)MERT is a UNIX supervisor, under
which you can of course run shells, games, or any other UNIX programs.

I believe that some of the switch software runs under UNIX, and some
of it runs directly under DMERT.  Incidently, I believe that 5ESS has
many microprocessors scattered around various parts of the switch
which relieve the main processor to some extent.

Someone commented that the switch processor must be really powerful to
run all the stuff it has to run.  This is far from true; many years
ago I was a sysadmin for a 3B20S (essentially half a 5ESS prossesor.)
I think we figured out that it had less compute power than a VAX
11/780.  The fact is that you don't need very much compute power to
switch phone calls.

If you want to know more, consult the relavent issues of the BSTJ.  As
I mentioned, the original MERT article appeared in the "UNIX issue" in
the late seventies (October, 1978 maybe?) and there have been a number
of articles more recently, both about 5ESS in general and about the
3B20D and DMERT in particular.


Martin Harriss   uunet!bdsgate!martin

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #719
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06600;
          11 Sep 91 2:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03384;
          11 Sep 91 0:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27447;
          10 Sep 91 23:43 CDT
Date:     Tue, 10 Sep 91 23:13:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #720
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Sep 91 23:13:25 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 720

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (Running Out of Area Codes) [John Higdon]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (Running Out of Area Codes) [Bob Frankston]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (Running Out of Area Codes) [Andrew Dunn]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (Running Out of Area Codes) [Jim Rees]
    Re: SOAK vs. Beta-Test [John Higdon]
    Re: SOAK vs. Beta-Test [Tom Gray]
    Re: SOAK vs. Beta-Test [Dave Platt]
    Re: Telephone That Disguises Your Voice [David B. Whiteman]
    Re: Telephone That Disguises Your Voice [Phillip Birmingham]
    Re: Telephone That Disguises Your Voice [Wayne G. Namerow]
    Re: Same Day Service [Shawn Goodin]
    Re: Kaliningrad [Mike Olson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 00:25 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)


"Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]> writes:

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

>> There are two things they may be talking about.  The first is that in
>> many areas, you still dial 1 before a toll call in your own area code.
>> ... the stupid reason which is that many people seem to want
>> to know when they're dialing a toll call.

> Why is this considered stupid?  The number of 'value-added' services
> with a surcharge make this a vital feature.  Toll calls can have a
> major impact on your bill.

There seems to be revisionism afoot here. Do you recall the oil
embargo of the '70s and as a GAS SAVING measure, a national speed
limit of 55 MPH was imposed. Many years later, many opposed removing
the limit for SAFETY reasons.

The same applies to the '1'. The original purpose of dialing '1'
before long distance had nothing to do with notifying the caller that
he was about to make a toll call. It was to provide a way for telling
older CO equipment that a call was about to be dialed that would have
to be put directly through to another office or tandem. The customer
dialed the '1' and was then directly connected to the next
(long-distance-capable) office and the digits were directly recorded
there. To keep things consistent, in any area where a '1' was required
in any office the telco required it in all offices.

In areas (generally the coasts and other metropolitan areas), where
common control CO equipment was the norm, a '1' was not necessary.
With the advent of informal prefixes (again in the metropolitan areas)
it has been revived to signal the CO that an area code (rather than a
prefix) is about to be dialed.

Now if people want a movement to decree that the '1' be used to denote
toll or long distance, fine. But this is not historical; the '1' has
never been used for this purpose. And now, with timed local service
with rate bands, what criteria will people use to define a "toll"
call?  And how about, rather than the caller having to take some
pre-action on a toll call, have the CO switch signal with a burst of
three tones that a toll call has been dialed?

But let us not rewrite history to serve personal visions of "how it
ought to be".


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

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

From: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Don't Remove 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)
Date: 10 Sep 1991 05:55 -0400


You shouldn't confuse addressing (a phone number) with a billing
service.  Do you want the phone numbers you dial to change when your
billing plan changes?  Perhaps a service that allows you to dial a
prefix such as *99 (not real) that allows you to specify a maximum
amount you are willing to pay for a call or a maximum rate.  Of course
this would limit you to placing calls where the rates can easily be
determine. Time boundaries, calling plans, and international are only
some of the problems here.

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

From: "Andrew M. Dunn" <mongrel![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove 1+ = TOLL (Re: Running Out of Area Codes)
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Waterloo, Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 17:47:23 GMT


[e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre) writes:

> I still want to know whether there will be an additional charge for
> the call, beyond whatever my calling plan provides at a flat rate.

> So there a valid user interface consideration here.  800 (and 950) are
> the accepted 'free call, not even message units' codes, and 1+
> indicates a surcharge; ie, long distance, 900, 976, directory
> assistance for the Area Code, etc.

Good point, but what happens when 1+ starts meaning a local call, too
 ... as it will have to in many places when an area code splits, and
cross-area calls are still considered local?  The change in area code
enumeration requires the 1+ to tell the switch that an area code
follows, since you can't tell them apart syntactically anymore.


Andrew M. Dunn ([e-mail])            Tel: [phone]
President                                       FAX: [phone]
A. Dunn Systems Corporation, P.O. Box 665, Waterloo, Canada N2J 4B8

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 15:04:35 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Ralph W. Hyre) writes:

>> ... in many areas, you still dial 1 before a toll call in your own
>> area code. ... the stupid reason which is that many people seem to
>> want to know when they're dialing a toll call.

> Why is this considered stupid?  The number of 'value-added' services
> with a surcharge make this a vital feature.  Toll calls can have a
> major impact on your bill.

I get 50 "free" calls per month.  On the 51st call, should I suddenly
be required to dial 1 + NPA + 7D for all local calls?  I don't think
so.

I've always liked the European system of having meter pulses.  Even a
cheap $10 Radio Shack phone could be equipped with a light that
flashes every time a pulse comes along, so you at least get some idea
of how much your call is costing.

I'm all in favor of reserving 1+ as an area code prefix.  I think it's
completely absurd that I should ever have to dial my own area code.
(It's also completely absurd that I should be prohibited from dialing
it if I want to, but that's another topic).

While we're on the subject, 11+ and 00+ should have been the prefixes
for international direct and operator assisted dialling, respectively.
This would have been a natural extension of 1+ and 0+.  Oh well, if I
ran the phone system, lots of things would be different.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 23:55 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: SOAK vs. Beta-Test


"Bruce W. Mohler" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I work for Pacific*Bell doing s/w dev support for two applications
> called COSMOS and MARCH(tm) (nee Mizar).  When we get a new release of
> the "generic" we "SOAK" it on a system before deploying it to all of
> our machines.

Ok, let's get this out of the way now. I've heard this term associated
with Pac*Bell before. But I had always assumed that it referred to
something that the company did to its customers.

[BaDumpBump]


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

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SOAK vs. Beta-Test
Date: 10 Sep 91 12:11:48 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce
W. Mohler) writes:

> What is the etymology of the word "SOAK"?  How is it different from a
> beta-test?

Cable insulation is tested in a "SOAK" test. A very large voltage is
applied to the conductors to stress the insulation as an attempt to
trigger any inciepient faults in it. This is a common loop testing
term. I suppose it migrated to the software area from the loop
testing.

How stressing insulation came to be called soaking, I guess came from
the practice of calling loops with applied volateges "WET" (as opposed
to DRY). Not only were these loops under test "WET", they were
"SOAKED" to trigger faults.


Tom Gray

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 10:09:52 PDT
From: Dave Platt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SOAK vs. Beta-Test
Organization: New Technologies Group, Inc.  Palo Alto CA


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

> What is the etymology of the word "SOAK"?  How is it different from
> a beta-test?

My guess ... and it's very much a WAG ... is that this term comes from
the steel industry.  Steel billets are placed in a "soaking pit"
(essentially a large, partially-open gas-fired oven) to bring them up
the proper working-temperature to be forged or hot-rolled.  Hence,
"soak X" might have come to mean "get X ready to work".

An alternate etymology might be a derivation from "put it on a test
machine, throw test-cases at it, and let it soak up cycles until we're
sure it won't sink" or something of that sort.


Dave Platt   VOICE: [phone]
Domain: [e-mail]      UUCP: ...apple!ntg!dplatt
USNAIL: New Technologies Group Inc. 2468 Embarcardero Way, Palo Alto CA 94303

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

From: "David B. Whiteman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone That Disguises Your Voice
Date: Tue Sep 10 05:32:36 1991


About the same time the postings appeared in the TELECOM Digest
regarding the phone which changes voice there was a radio show on a LA
radio station about how women can protect themselves.  One of the
items discussed on the radio show was a phone which can disguise a
voice, plus change a female voice to a male voice, and vice versa, as
well as change a child's voice to an adult voice and add the sound of
barking dogs to the background.  They tried to demonstrate the phone
on the air but they could not get the device to work.  The radio
station said the problem was in connecting the phone to the
transmitter rather than with the phone itself.

I don't remember the name of the store selling these phones, but they
gave their address as at the corner of La Cienega and Wilshire Blvds.
in Los Angeles.  I originally did not post this information because I
saw that quite a few people had already ordered the phone, but since
no one has received one yet maybe an LA reader would go to the store
and report on the phone.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 22:15:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: Phillip Birmingham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone That Disguises Your Voice


     This device sounds like it might operate similarly to a gizmo
I picked up on clearance at Venture.

     The thingie is called a "Mega Mike," and it has an on/off/
volume knob, six buttons, and a tone bar. You speak into a microphone,
and the sound comes out of a speaker on front. It's about 2"x3"x6",
but most of that is empty space and it could be made much smaller.

     Basically, it allows you to control the pitch of your voice
with the tone bar, over a pretty wide range. The buttons on the front
allow you to "add" more voices, or to add a bizzarre wavering quality
to your voice.

     Unfortunately, the sound quality is quite poor. When I speak
into the sucker, my voice is incomprehensible with the box set on high
pitch. The special buttons make things even worse. Low pitched sounds
are easier to understand, though (I've used it to record the outgoing
message on my answering machine a time or two, and of course, I had to
use it to call up my friends.)

     I've opened the box up before, but I haven't paid close
attention to what the chips inside were. If anybody's interested, I'll
find out and post it.


     Phillip Birmingham    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 08:41:32 EDT
From: "Wayne G. Namerow" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone That Disguises Your Voice


I have also neither received the phone or gotten charged for it on my
CC statement. Out of curiosity, I called the original order line
(800-677-3939) to inquire as to whats going on. Half expecting a Jane
recording 'Were sorry, the number you have called has been
disconnected or is no longer in service'. I was surprised to get
'Telephone orderline, how may I help you?' I asked what the status of
phone orders was and the woman told me that they are only contracted
to take orders and have no way to check the status of current orders.
So I guess we all just wait and see what happens ... meanwhile watch
those CC statements carefully!


Wayne

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

From: [e-mail] (Shawn Goodin)
Subject: Re: Same Day Service
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 07:16:47 GMT


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

> On the subject of same day service:

> We picked up the receiver on Wednesday morning and found a dialtone
> where there was none the day before.  GREAT! we thought, they hooked
> it up early.  So I called someone and asked them to call me back to
> check it out, but they couldn't get through.  Seems the number that
> Michigan Bell gave us didn't work.

When I first moved to Charlotte, NC (about five years ago), I went
through the usual routine to establish telephone service.  Since this
was a brand new home and no one had ever had phone service at that
address before, I half-expected to wait until the official turn-on
date promised by the service rep before I could get try the new
number.  No problem -- I could make calls from my office and my
corporate apartment.

The day or so before the official turn-on date, I decided to try to
call one of my numbers, just to see if it was working.  The following
is what transpired:

  Me: (Dialing the number and hearing the phone ring ... then it was
    answered!  Totally unexpected!)

Them:  Hello?

  Me:  Uh, hello?  Who is this?

Them:  (Sounding slightly irritated)  Why do you want to know?

  Me:  Because this is supposed to be my phone number.  Where are you?
     (Knowing very well that there was no one in my house.)

Them:  Why do you want to know? (more irritation)

  Me:  Because this is my phone number!  Are you from the phone company?

Them:  I can't tell you that -- are you from Southern Bell?

  Me:  (Talking louder)  No!  Who the h*ll are you?

Them:  Goodbye.

The only thing I could figure out is that perhaps they had connected
the number into a phone located in a switching office, though I have
no idea why.  Can anyone else offer a guess?

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

From: Mike Olson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Kaliningrad
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 09:01:12 PDT


Pat,

This is pretty far afield, but the note on Kaliningrad from Carl Moore
reminded me of a little bit of trivia I thought I'd share.

In 1736, when Kaliningrad (then Konigsberg) was still a part of
Germany, Euler solved a fundamental problem in graph theory by
considering the town map.  Konigsberg sat astride the river Pregel,
and included two islands in the middle of the river.  The islands were
connected to the riverbank by a network of seven bridges.  Euler
realized that because of the network's topography, it was impossible
to cross every bridge exactly once on a walking tour of the city.  His
solution was to consider the degree of vertices in the graph -- a much
simpler proposition than exhaustive search.  In his honor, this sort
of traversal is now known as an Eulerian path.

In the early 1980's, my discrete mathematics professor, Hendrik
Lenstra, decided it would be an interesting idea to get a map of
Kaliningrad to show his students, as a sort of motivator for the
graph-theoretic part of the course.  He contacted the Soviet embassy,
but was told that the town was militarily sensitive, and he could not
be provided with such a map.  With the changes going on now in the
Soviet Union, maybe that's changed; I may try to get myself a map of
the town.

Anyway, an interesting detour from telecom; thanks for indulging me.


Mike Olson    UC Berkeley


[Moderator's Note: You are quite welcome, and thanks for the
interesting detour to close this issue of the Digest.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #720
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08470;
          11 Sep 91 3:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18739;
          11 Sep 91 1:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03384;
          11 Sep 91 0:51 CDT
Date:     Tue, 10 Sep 91 23:55:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #721
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Sep 91 23:55:44 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 721

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Can Direct Dial Calls be Charged to AT&T Calling Card? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Cellphones and 911 [Tony Harminc]
    Re: Local IXC's "CALL ME" Card is Here; Now What? [John Higdon]
    Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad? [Herman R Silbiger]
    Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad? [Andrew M. Dunn]
    Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers [Adam Krolnik]
    Re: NASA Severs Connection on Email Linkup [Eric Brunner]
    Re: Signs of the Times [Tom Gray]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can Direct Dial Calls be Charged to AT&T Calling Card?
Date: 10 Sep 91 15:36:22 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rusty
Duncan) writes:

> Or, for the modem folk, is there a reliable way to dial-up using a
> calling card, without having to sacrifice a chicken every time?

Many modems today have the "@" dial modifier, which is defined as
"wait for quiet answer".  What it does it look for some signal in the
call progress band, followed by five seconds of silence.  It seems to
work pretty reliably for me as a separator between called number and
card number, such as:

    ATDT 0 404-840-9200 @ 123-456-7890-5555

(hyphens and spaces being optional).  The "bong" tone triggers the
"@", at least in Hayes modems.  The only time a problem occurs is if
you have a particularly bored AT&T operator who doesn't let five full
seconds pass before picking up on the call and asking what you need.
They really get a kick out of it when they pick up right at five
seconds, only to be blasted with your card number in DTMF.

When I run into a hotel or whatever where the operator seems to
CONSISTENTLY pick up before five seconds elapse after the bong tone, I
go to plan two: a script, which waits for me to hit <enter> between
the called number and the card number, something like this:

    TYPE LINE "ATDT 0 404-840-9200;"
    WAIT FOR KEY Enter_Key;
    TYPE LINE "ATDT 123-456-7890-5555"
    etc.

(My real script has a lot more stuff in it than that, but you get
the idea).

Pat's idea of using the first method above, but using commas instead
of "@", works too, particularly if there is a VERY predicatable delay
between dialing the called number and getting the BONG tone.
Unfortunately, I've found that delay to not always be the same, even
from call to call on the same line.

One trick is to store your card number in your modem's dialing
directory, so that you can dial it with a simple "ATDS" command.  In a
Hayes modem, you'd use (e.g.) AT&Z=12345678905555 to store the card
number; then, when you use the "S" dial modifier in a D command, it
dials your card number; saves you having to type it out each time.
This also helps if you need to change card numbers; all you have to do
is change it in the modem's memory, rather than in all of your scripts
or dialing directories.

At the prompting of a CompuServe user yesterday, I figured out another
trick to use with your modem.  Most of us are familiar with the
technique of "chaining" calls, in which you can make multiple AT&T
calls by waiting for the other end to hang up, pressing "#", and then
entering the next number to dial.  This is particularly useful when
you're calling from a hotel where they charge $1.50 or something for
"each" credit card call (but they don't know you're making multiple
calls when you "chain" them).

Anyway, I always thought it was impossible to use this with a modem,
because to get YOUR local modem to drop carrier and let you dial the
next call, you MUST use the "ATH" command -- which puts you on-hook.
Well, what I found is that if you use the command string "ATHH1", it
puts you on hook, but IMMEDIATELY takes you off-hook again -- and your
on-hook time is usually so short that the PBX/CO switch doesn't
recognize it!  At least, it works here.  After doing ATHH1, your modem
has dropped carrier, and you're off-hook to the switch.  You can then
do "ATD#;" to prepare AT&T to take another call (if your speaker is
on, you'll hear "You may dial another AT&T handled call now"), then
ATDT the next number you want.  Works great!  I didn't try putting the
"#" and next number on one command line, but that should work, maybe
with a comma after the "#".


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]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors?
Date: 10 Sep 91 18:02:57 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


In article <[e-mail]> uswnvg![e-mail]
(Clay Jackson) writes:

> Several MONTHS passed, and we just lived with the interference,
> figuring that EVENTUALLY, someone at McCaw would notice.  One day, out
> of the blue, someone (male voice) called me and introduced himself as
> 'an attorney working with McCaw Cellular'.  He said that he was aware
> that I was 'monitoring cellular phone calls' from 'a scanner in my
> home', and asked me if I was aware of the provisions of the ECPA,
> which made 'such monitoring illegal, and a federal offense'.  I was
> courteous for the first few minutes, and actually tried to explain to
> this bozo how UHF transmitters worked.  He wouldn't have any of it,
> and kept telling me 'Our engineering staff, which is the best in the
> world, tells me that there is no way you could be hearing our tower
> except with an illegal scanner'.  After a few minutes, I told him ' So
> sue me' and hung up.

    As of about a year ago, I was told by a consulting firm in DC
that they did a lot of design work under contract to McCaw. They may
very well be the best in the world (they're certainly the best I've
met), but they're not exactly McCaw's engineering staff. (There was a
McCaw engineer posting here some time back who couldn't understand why
his cell phone worked just fine when stowed in the door pocket of his
BMW.)

    If you actually tried to explain intermodulation distortion to
a lawyer, you deserved what you got, IMHO :^).


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: And as I explained, he should have taken control of
the phone conversation from the beginning also. Whenever you permit an
attorney to control a phone conversation you also get what you deseerve,
and sometimes what you don't deserve as well.    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 16:44:53 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellphones and 911


Marty the Droid <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This is true, the cell system does know which cellsite you are calling
> thru.  It does route you to the proper Mobile 911 PSAP for that
> cellsite. Here is the rub, we are talking the SF Bay Area. There is a
> big flat spot in the middle of the area, the bay, and radio waves
> propigate over this area along with the water waves. Several times
> when I've called mobile 911 from one side of the bay I get the PSAP
> for the other side.  (Oakland CHP vs SF CHP)  When this happens I ask
> for the other service desk.

> I would think that there are other areas in the country where you wind
> up using a cellsite that is not the closest physically.

There is an even bigger and equally flat spot next to Toronto called
Lake Ontario.  Apparently cellular users near the shore have been
known to reach Buffalo, New York cellular providers at times.
(Buffalo is about 30 miles across the lake.)  The 911 instructions for
cellular callers here now tell you to clearly state *where you are* at
the start of your call.

Not only a different emergency service provider, but a different area
code and a different country!


Tony H.


[Moderator's Note: I find it interesting that in the far southeastern
corner of Kansas you can quite frequently get cellular service from
Tulsa, OK, about sixty miles to the south.     PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 23:26 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Local IXC's "CALL ME" Card is Here; Now What?


Michael Ho <[e-mail]> writes:

> A couple of people mentioned that these things don't always work as
> advertised.  My question: WHEN don't they work?  When calling from
> inside this telco's LATA?  When calling from outside the LATA?  Only
> on certain (AOS) carriers?

The problem with "Call Me" cards is not that they do not work when
they should, but that they do work when they should not. In many
cases, taking a "Call Me" card number (which looks like an ordinary
Calling Card number) and using an AOS frequently results in the
ability to place a call anywhere. This is because the only thing an
AOS cares about in placing the call is the extraction of the embedded
phone number for billing purposes. "Sleazeballtel" could not care less
that there is a flag in AT&T's database that only allows this number
to be used to call the phone who's number is embedded therein.


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


[Moderator's Note: They'll care when they don't get paid for the call,
won't they?   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 08:29:03 EDT
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Harold Hallikainen) writes:

>     Although I prefer to "dial" using numbers on the keypad (I can
> find them more quickly than the letters), some voice mail or automatic
> attendant systems let you call a specific extension without the
> extension number by keying in the person's name.  When I first heard
> such a system, I thought it was quite clever, and it DOES work.  So,
> maybe we need to keep the letters on phones (but, what if my name had
> a Q or Z in it?).

> [Moderator's Note: Most such systems say for Q or Z to use the digit 1.
> Too bad that popularity poll for VP a few years ago forgot about it.  :)
> Others just put Q on 7 and Z on 9.     PAT]

The location of the "missing" Q and Z on the keypad is currently the
subject of standardization in ISO and CCITT.  CCITT is expected to
agree in November on the text which puts the Q and Z on the 7 and 9.
This decision was influenced by a human factors study that showed
users assuming that it would go there even if it was not marked that
way on the keypad.


Herman Silbiger

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

From: "Andrew M. Dunn" <mongrel![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Letters on Dial / Keypad?
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Waterloo, Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 17:59:15 GMT


[e-mail] (Fred E.J. Linton) writes:

> On the very first phone my folks ever had, back around 1950, there was
> a "Z" written in on the "zero/operator" hole.  No "Q", though.  But on
> the basis of the old "2Z" and "QZ" charge-billing codes, and the aural
> indistinguishability of spoken Q 's and spoken 2 's , I might well
> have imagined "Q=2" .  Still, Q on 7 (along with its neighbors P, R,
> and S, makes sense too.

   ^^^^^^^^^ NO! NO! NO!

This makes four letters on one key.  To spell alphanumeric things (I'm
not talking dialing phone numbers here, but what happens when you
connect to a DTMF-recognizing smart-host at the other end; cellular
message centers and voice mailboxes are examples) you need to have
three shifts (LETTER 1, LETTER 2, LETTER 3) with the NO SHIFT
condition meaning NUMS.  To put Q on 7 requires an additional SHIFT
just for the one key (7) with FOUR letters on it!

Put them on 1.  0 is too important to have letters on it, but 1 is ok.

For the above example, we can then use as shifts (* *# #) meaning
LETTER1, LETTER2, LETTER3.  No shift means enter a numeric digit.

   So we get:

      A   =    *2
      B   =    *#2
      C   =    #2
      D   =    *3
      1   =    1
      0   =    0
      Q   =    *1
      Z   =    *#1 or #1  (depending on whether it's QZ- or Q-Z on the key)


Andrew M. Dunn ([e-mail])            Tel: [phone]
President                                       FAX: [phone]
A. Dunn Systems Corporation, P.O. Box 665, Waterloo, Canada N2J 4B8

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

From: Adam Krolnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 14:41:50 GMT


I read that the area codes are of the form [0-9][01][0-9] i.e the
middle digit must be a 1 or a 0.

So the question is very plain, Why can't they just open up the area
codes to include numbers with 2-9 as the middle digit. Sounds like 800
more codes to me.


Adam Krolnik  [phone]   Design Verification Engineer
Convex Computer Corp. Richardson Tx, 75080


[Moderator's Note: That's the way it sounds to the folks at Bellcore
also, which is why new area codes will be numbered as you suggest,
beginning sometime around 1993-95.     PAT]

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

From: Eric Brunner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NASA Severs Connection on Email Linkup
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 17:27:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J.
Brad Hicks) writes:

[That the Morris worm code attack(s) would be impossible without some
"UN*X cum TCP/IP feature" which I infer to mean remote job initiation,
via some mail transport agent.]

While true in the case of the Morris worm which was specific to
several releases of 4bsd and a commercial derivative, it need not have
been.  Prior to the use of the Internet, sendmail used uucp, and while
undocumented, the MTA did have the capability of initiating remote
jobs. There have been attacks mechanisms which have relied upon
features, whether documented or not, of editors and command
interpreters to achive the same ends.


Eric Brunner
Tule Network Services - 4bsd/rt project, NetBlazer Testing, etc.
Consulting for, but not speaking for IBM, Telebit or any other client.

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Signs of the Times
Date: 10 Sep 91 12:22:09 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> Just a couple of weeks ago, my sister's phone in the City cut from 5XB
> to 5ESS. When I called, I almost hung up and redialed since the
> ringback was "wrong". But when she answered, I realized what had
> happened. "So, how do you like the new phone equipment?", I asked.

> "Huh?" So much for impressing non-telecom enthusiasts!

The invisibility of the telephone service is a great tribute to the
technology and the people of the industry. We produce and maintain the
most complicated technologocal machine in existence. Yet it works so
reliably that most outsiders simply assume that it will function
properly.


Tom Gray


[Moderator's Note: Only until it all burns down, ie Hinsdale, 1988.
Then they miss it. Even the local newspapers at first missed the
terrible significance of what happened at Hinsdale. The Monday morning
papers said 'oh by the way, telco had a fire yesterday at Hinsdale'.
By Tuesday, they finally realized what had happened; later stories had
screaming headlines.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #721
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01534;
          11 Sep 91 12:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14615;
          11 Sep 91 3:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18739;
          11 Sep 91 1:56 CDT
Date:     Wed, 11 Sep 91 1:00:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #722
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Sep 91 01:00:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 722

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Southern Bell on Hold [John Higdon]
    Re: What LD Company Do the Bells Use? [John R. Levine]
    Re: Questions About Wire Maintainence Plan [John J. DiLeo]
    Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers [Marshal Perlman]
    Re: Screening E-mail to Space [Don Phillips]
    Re: SOAK vs. Beta-Test [Bryan Richardson]
    Re: Unix on Switches [Bryan Richardson]
    Re: Unix on Switches [Bob Yazz]
    Re: Half Dupex Phone Conversations via Satellite? [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Signs of the Times [Bob Yazz]
    Re: Motorola Opens Museum of Electronics [David Bernholdt]
    Visiting Australia Soon; Need Telecom Info [John Schmidt]
    Dialing # After Completion of Digits [Dennis Blyth]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 23:47 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Southern Bell on Hold


Dave Leibold <[e-mail]> writes:

> Some customers will be left in the lurch and the
> backlog will likely continue until early October.

> The affected prefixes (area code 305) are 341, 344, 345, 346, 752,
> 753, and 755. The article only mentions the upgrade being done to
> "switching and computer software systems to better serve the area's
> 43,000 subscribers."

On the same day, Pac*Bell will be cutting (in 408) 264, 265, 266, 267,
269, 448, 371, and 377 from crossbar to 5ESS. This will be merely one
of many cuts for the last several months to rid the Bay Area of
crossbar. In each case, customers were sent detailed letters
explaining went the cut would occur, what type of equipment was to be
installed, and what new features would be available as a result.

In no case were any service orders delayed, accelerated, messed up, or
otherwise "put on hold". I have just had temporary service installed
and removed in the office that is cutting in several days. Everything
went off without a hitch.

Quite honestly, after reading the last few months of posts, my opinion
of Pac*Bell has improved considerably. The prices are reasonable; the
repair, installation, and customer service people are friendly and
capable; and even the "backwardness" is rapidly becoming a thing of
the past. The company's representatives are open and forthcoming about
equipment and policies. You do not even have to ask what type of
switch is being installed -- you get a letter telling you!

When I asked about the four remaining prefixes in the ANdrews office
that are presently served out of a co-located 1ESS (723, 978, 879,
559), the rep said, "Don't tell anyone I said this, but once the 5ESS
is up and running, we can move the other four prefixes over to it and
retire the 1ESS without having to bother the PUC."

You know, I like a telephone company that can get right to the deep and
dirty like that!


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

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

Subject: Re: What LD Comapny Do the Bells Use?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 10 Sep 91 09:58:46 EDT (Tue)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> I'm wondering what LD company the Bells use for their automated
> operator service? [e.g., the call to a third party to see if they
> accept charges]

Local telcos have phone bills like anyone else, both for things like
third party validation and for the same sorts of calls that any other
business makes.  From a public interest viewpoint, they should use
whatever carrier gives them the best rate.

AT&T doubtless has the bulk of the calls, but I've seen reports of
business won by MCI and Sprint.


Regards,

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

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

From: "John J. DiLeo" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About Wire Maintainence Plan
Date: 10 Sep 91 14:51:36 GMT
Organization: Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity


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

> My main question is this.  When you purchase the maintenance plan does
> that cover *any* problem with the wire (not instrument)?

   Just another data point on the curve.  In June, I moved into a home
which we had purchased.  Since I knew that the previous owner was
break-it-yourselfer 8-(, I ordered the inside wire maintenance plan
for the new address.

   Sure enough, when the service was cut over, it didn't work.  I
called in repair, and the technician showed up the next day.  He put
up a new drop, installed a network interface box, and connected my
inside wiring to it.  The phones still didn't work (the problem
actually was on incoming calls only, I had good voice connections on
outgoing calls).

   This is where it got interesting.  First, the technician said that
I didn't have inside wire maintenance.  When I insisted that I did, he
confirmed it with the business office.  However, he said that correct-
ing the problem would still cost me time-and-materials, because C&P
will not repair 1) problems which already existed when maintenance was
purchased, even if you ordered maintenance with your initial service
order; or 2) wire that does not conform to Bellcore recommendations
for type and size (I think he said 22AWG or larger, twisted-pair only,
etc.).  Since the previous owner had installed it himself, it was
naturally Quad wire 8-(.

   The next morning I complained to the business office that I didn't
want a "service" that wasn't going to address the things for which I
purchased it.  The sales rep cheerfully removed maintenance from my
account and credited the first month's fee, which had already been
billed.

   So, just a word of warning.  Be very sure that Illinois Bell's plan
will cover your problem and wiring before you spend the "installation
charge" to get the service added.  In some places, I believe, companies
will not sell inside wire maintenance to tenants in apartment
buildings, because the tenants technically don't own the wiring.


John DiLeo    [e-mail]

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

From: Marshal Perlman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 04:51:13 GMT


I read somewhere that by the year 2000, US phone numbers will have a four
digit area code and seven digit numbers.

I don't know if its true or not ... maybe you'd know!


[Moderator's Note: Yes, I think most of us here would know. Area codes
will be three digits as now, but 'different looking', ie. the digits
two through nine will be the second or middle digit instead of one or
zero as at present.   PAT]

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

From: Don Phillips <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Screening E-mail to Space
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 03:13:03 GMT
Organization: Research Unlimited, Escondido, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
org (Jack Winslade) writes:

> Our domain certainly does not use the most sophisticated mail software
> there is but if some site wants mail screened, it's a quick edit to
> limit that site's mail to that from an 'approved' list of senders, and
> forward the rest to [e-mail].

Please be careful of how you throw unwanted mail at the above address.
I really wouldn't want to get a whole bunch of unsolicted mail. :-) :-) ;^)


Don Phillips         [e-mail]  or
Research Unlimited   ...!ncr-sd!blkhole!don
Escondido, Calif.    My opinions are just that, and no more.


[Moderator's Note: The problem with an 'approved list' however is the
way the different sites en-route massacre the 'from' line. It's like
me trying to get my auto-ACKS to the right people, and the right
people only ... a constant hassle with some sites I respond to.   PAT]

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

From: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SOAK vs. Beta-Test
Date: 11 Sep 91 04:28:21 GMT
Reply-To: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce
W. Mohler) writes:

> What is the etymology of the word "SOAK"?  How is it different from a
> beta-test?

> however, the people around here use it reflexively.  I can no longer
> even beta-test my own software -- I must SOAK it.  They can't explain
> what it really means though.

In my experience, I have only seen the term "Soak" applied to
switching software.  It is essentially a beta-test in the classical
definition; it follows the product and system tests.  The generic
which has passed product and system testing is typically placed (or
"retofit") into a single "live" office for an extended period of time
to determine if there are any problems which were not exposed in
laboratory conditions.

These conditions are typically things which may be hard to simulate in
a lab, like busy-hour calling volume.  Other things which tend to be
exposed are errors where the customers are using "hidden features" --
flaws or other anomolies in the software that no one expected (or
knew) to be used in the field in the first place.  These (usually very
minor) problems are corrected in the new generic, and some customers,
who were using these "features," lose that capability.

Soak periods typically are a month or two.  After this time, the
generic is made available for retrofitting to all offices.


Bryan Richardson     [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University
Disclaimer:  Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions.

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

From: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches
Date: 11 Sep 91 04:38:54 GMT
Reply-To: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


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

>> Brian Crowley asks:

>>> I understand that modern CO switches run a software program called a
>>> generic which is based on the UNIX system.  Just how different is the
>>> kernel the switch runs from the kernel which is running my
>>> workstation?  What sort of interface does the CO technician have to
>>> the switch (dumb terminal, graphics terminal, etc.)?  Is it possible
>>> to bring up a shell on a CO switch?  What type of filesystem is
>>> typically used?

While I believe that Mr. Crowley's initial question was innocuous, one
thought did cross my mind as I followed this discussion:

This discussion should avoid (and has avoided) going into too many
details about the operating systems and their various innards.  For
security reasons, I doubt that anyone here would want to tempt someone
to break into these computers by providing detailed information.

Summary:  I doubt that any of us would like our CO's cracked!


Bryan Richardson     [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University
Disclaimer:  Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions.

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 02:38:09 GMT


In "Unix/RTR" the RTR stands for Real-Time-Reliable -- as we all want
our switches to be.


Bob Yazz == [e-mail]

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

From: Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 17:31:16 GMT


    Although the effect is quite similar to half duplex, I'd think
the circuit is full duplex (a dedicated voice channel available full
time in each direction) but sort of "converted" to half duplex at each
end by the "echo suppressors".  If we don't have perfect two to four
wire converter balance at each end of the circuit, we get echo.  Over
a long distance terrestial circuit or especially over a satellite
circuit, the echo is real bad.  I'm not sure the suppressed echo is
much better!

    This all makes me think that we should use satellite circuits
for telephone calls as a last resort.  The long delays and their
"point to multipoint" nature makes them less desirable than terrestial
circuits.  They are, however, ideal for point to multipoint where the
delay is not important (radio and TV network distribution).


Harold

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Signs of the Times
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 03:05:17 GMT


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> Just a couple of weeks ago, my sister's phone in the City [ of San
> Francisco ] cut from 5XB to 5ESS.

I am surprised that it wasn't a DMS-100.  I had thought that all of
Pac Bell's new CO switches were going to be DMS-100, rather than 5ESS.


Bob Yazz == [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 16:19:39 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Motorola Opens Museum of Electronics
Organization: Quantum Theory Project, Univ. of Florida


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

> The museum is located at Algonquin and Meacham Roads in Schaumburg,
> IL. The museum is open to the public, with hours by appointment only.
> For more information or to schedule an appointment/tour of the
> facility, call the musuem curators at 708-576-8620.

If you or someone else visits, I'd like to hear a review.  That's very
close to my parent's house, and I'd be interested in visiting next
time I'm up there, but I'd like to hear more about it first.

Thanks.


David Bernholdt        [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project    [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611    904/392 6365

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

From: John Schmidt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Visiting Australia Soon; Need Telecom Info
Date: 9 Sep 91 16:48:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA


I'll be traveling to Australia in a couple weeks for a vacation and
would appreciate some telecom-related information. Specifically:

1. Is the AT&T USA Direct number my best contact to the U.S.? Can I
call an 800 number via the USA Direct operator (to check voice
mail ...)

2. What dialing method(s) are used (pulse or tone)? Are tones (if
used) same as U.S. standards? (Again -- I'd like to access my voice
mail or home answering machine ...)

3. For calling within OZ, do I need to carry a pocketfull of local
currency in change or are phones available that will let me use my
Visa or MasterCard to charge calls? (This is primarily for checking
on/making reservations with hotels, airlines, etc.)

Thanks for any info ...

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 17:28:03 -0400
From: Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dialing # After Completion of Digits
Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton


(Some previous poster remarked about using the # to indicate end of
digits.)

I dial a lot of international calls, and I am wondering if it will be
of any use or would it cause problems if I added a # after I had
finished my digits.  Different countries in Europe and different area
codes within the countries have different requirements as to the
number of digits needed in the phone number.  Basically, if one is
calling a small town in GDR for example, there are fewer digits.  Is
my interpretation correct or does anybody have any additional insight
on this?


Dennis Blyth, Marketing Research, NCR Europe Group
[e-mail]     Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Indeed, terminating an international dialing
sequence with # is *precisely* what you are supposed to do to hasten
the processing of the call. Likewise when entering just your PIN
number to place a calling card call to the number where the card is
billed, terminating the four digit PIN with # eliminates the otherwise
needed timeout. And some people have found that the operator can be
raised faster with 0# than just 0, the theory being a solo zero has to
wait for a time out to see if you are asking for the operator or
trying to zero-plus a call. Essentially, the octothorpe (#) serves as
a 'carriage return' with all that that implies.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #722
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01550;
          11 Sep 91 12:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02715;
          11 Sep 91 4:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac14615;
          11 Sep 91 3:02 CDT
Date:     Wed, 11 Sep 91 2:25:02 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #723
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Sep 91 02:24:52 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 723

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    USA Direct Information [Bill Huttig]
    Phonefiche Gaps in NC [Dave Leibold]
    Re: References Wanted on Interface Projects for Phones [David Ritchie]
    REA Information Needed [Craig Harris]
    Re: Signs of the Times [Marshal Perlman]
    TAT-9 News [John R. Levine]
    Re: Centrex Revisited [Jamie Mason]
    Re: NPA 510 From Tucker, Ga. CO [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 13:03:08 -0400
From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: USA Direct Information
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


[Moderator's Note: Here is the most recent USA Direct listing. I have
placed it in the Telecom Archives (anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu) under
the title 'usa.direct.numbers' and will check to make sure it stays
put this time! :)   PAT]

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

Here it is.  I think ATC will be offereing a similar thing soon.. I
will update the list at that time.

AT&T, US Sprint and MCI accept LEC Cards. You should check with each
for the rates in the country.

Country               Carrier  Operator Number        Customer Service
Anguilla              ATT      1-800-872-2881
Antigua               ATT      Boatphone Marine 872
Argetina              MCI      001-800-333-1111
                      USS      001-800-777-1111
                      ATT      001-800-200-1111
Aruba                 ATT      800-1011
Australia             MCI      0014-881-100           0014-800-125-682
                      USS      0014-881-877
                      ALL      0014-800-125-197
                      ATT      0014-881-011
Austria^              MCI      022-903-012
                      ATT      022-903-011
Bahamas               MCI      1-800-624-1000
                      ATT      1-800-872-2881
Bahrain               MCI      800-002
                      ATT      800-001
Belize+               ATT      555
Belgium^              MCI      11-0012                11-65-80
                      USS      11-0014
                      ALL      11-8671
                      ATT      11-0010
Bermuda+              MCI      1-800-623-0484         1-800-623-0700
                      ATT      1-800-872-2881
Brazil                MCI      000-8012               000814-550-1004
                      ATT      000-8010
Canada                MCI      1-800-950-1022
                      USS      1-800-877-8000
                      ALL      1-800-955-1444
Cayman Islands        MCI      1-624
                      ATT      1872
Chile                 MCI      00*-0316
                      USS      00*-0317
                      ATT      00*-0312
Colombia              MCI      980-16-0001            980-15-1041
                      USS      980-13-0010
                      ATT      980-11-0010
Costa Rica^           MCI      162
                      ATT      114
Cyprus                MCI      080-90000
Czech.                ATT      00-420-00101
Denmark^              MCI      8001-0022              8001-0030
                      USS      8001-0877
                      ALL      8001-0658
                      ATT      8001-0010
Dominica              ATT      1-800-872-2881
Dominica Republic     ATT      1-800-872-2881
Ecuador+              ATT      00-110
Egypt|                MCI      355-5770
                      MCI      356-0200
El Salvador^          ATT      190
Finland^              MCI      9800-102-80            9800-101-01
                      ALL      9-800-1-59601
                      ATT      9800-100-10
France                MCI      19*-0019               05-90-2721
                      ALL      05-90-2919
                      USS      19*-0087
                      ATT      19*-0011
Gambia^               ATT      001-199-220-0010
Germany+              MCI      0130-0012              0130-81-5417
                      USS      0130-0013
                      ALL      0130-8-14247
                      ATT      0130-0010
Greece^               MCI      00-800-1211            00800-12-2007
                      ALL      00800-12-2100
                      ATT      00-800-1311
Grenada+              ATT      872
Guam+                 MCI      950-1022
                      ATT      018-872
Guatemala^            MCI      189
                      ATT      190
Haiti+                MCI      001-800-444-1234
                      ATT      001-800-872-2881
Honduras              ATT      123
Hong Kong             MCI      008-1121               800-6030
                      USS      008-1877
                      ALL      800-6159
                      ATT      008-1111
Hungry^               MCI      00*-800-01411
                      ATT      00*-36-0111
Indonesia             MCI      00-801-11
                      ATT      00-801-10
Ireland               MCI      1-800-551-001
                      ALL      1-800-55-7508
Israel^               MCI      177-150-2727           177-150-1151
                      ALL      177-150-1067
                      ATT      177-100-2727
Italy**^              MCI      172-1022               1678-79073
                      USS      172-1877
                      ALL      1678-97038
                      ATT      172-1011
Jamaica+              ATT      0-800-872-2881
Japan                 MCI      0039-121               0031-12-1022
                      USS      0039-131
                      ALL      0031-12-2453
                      ATT      0039-111
Korea                 ATT      009-11
Liberia               ATT      797-797
Liechtenstein         MCI      155-0222               155-5880
Luxembourg            ATT      0-800-0111
Macao                 ATT      0800-111
Malaysia^             MCI      800-0012
                      ALL      800-0758
                      ATT      800-0011
Monaco                MCI      19*-00-19              05-90-2721
Montserrat+           ATT      1-800-872-2881
Netherlands^          MCI      06*-022-9122           06*-022-1022
                      USS      06*-022-9119
                      ALL      06*-022-8491
                      ATT      06*-022-9111
Netherland/Antil      ATT      001-800-872-2881
New Zealand           MCI      000-912
                      ATT      000-911
Norway^               MCI      050-12-912
                      ATT      050-12-011
Panama+               MCI      108
                      ATT      109
Peru+                 MCI      Special Phones Only
                      ATT      ##0
Philippines+^         ATT      105-11
Portugal              MCI      05-017-1234
San Marino            MCI      172-1022               1678-79073
Saudi Arabia+         MCI      1-800-11
                      ATT      1-800-100
Singapore^            MCI      800-0012               800-1701
                      USS      800-0877
                      ALL      800-1881
                      ATT      800-0011
Spain                 MCI      900-99-0014
                      ALL      900-99-1450
St Kitts              ATT      1-800-872-2881
Sweden^               MCI      020-795-922            020-795-912
                      USS      020-799-011
                      ALL      020-793-934
                      ATT      020-795-611
Switzerland^          MCI      155-0222               155-5880
                      ALL      046-05-8812
                      ATT      046-05-0011
Taiwan                MCI      0080-1-34567
Thailand              MCI      Special Phones Only
Trinidad & Tobago     MCI      Special Phones Only    1-800-283-9977
Turkey+^              MCI      99-8001-1177
                      ATT      99-8001-2277
United Arab Emirates  MCI      800-100-01
United Kingdom        MCI      0800-89-0222           0800-89-1852
                      USS      0800-89-0877
                      ALL      0800-89-2695
                      ATT      0800-89-0011
Uruguay^              MCI      000-412
                      ATT      00-0410
Vatican City          MCI      172-1022               1678-79073
Virgin Islands        ATT      1-800-872-2881
Zimbabwe+             ATT      110-899

+  Limited Availability
*  Wait for second dial tome
** Available from most major cities
|  When dialing outside of Cairo, dial 02 first
^  May require coin at payphone

MCI accepts MCI card, local US telephone card, Telecom Canada card, collect
USS - US Sprint accepts FONcard, local telephone card, collect
ALL - Allnet accepts Allnet Access Card........................

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 23:41:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phonefiche Gaps in NC


There seem to be some major sections of North Carolina missing in the
Phonefiche collection of microfiched phone books. Presumably, this
involves an independent telco territory in NC in which cities such as
Jacksonville or Fayetteville are located, cities which should be able
to make the Category 7 (40,000 population and up) set. It seems likely
that UMI, the makers of Phonefiche, would get those books filmed if
they could. Are these telcos holding out and not allowing UMI to rent
their books? Is there a tariff problem that could be resolved with the
help of NC's Public Services Commission? Any info on the situation
would be appreciated.


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


[Moderator's Note: One thing I have found about NC are the large
number of towns that 555-1212 *cannot* help with on a direct basis.
Time and again, calling directory assistance there results in the
operator who answers me saying, "hold while I connect you to xxx".
Apparently the several independent telcos in that state do not
participate in any sort of mutual directory assistance/listing service
with each other or the local Bell, which typically is the company
running 555-1212.  The circuit rings, you wait, and presently the
local operator of the independent telco wherever answers and looks up
the directory listing requested.  I also have noticed the scarcity of
consolidated criss-cross or cross-reference directories in that area.
The several little towns will all be in one book (Dresser's seems to
be the criss-cross with the most NC coverage), but instead of a metro
section with several towns, you have to look at a dozen little parts
of one town / one phone exchange each. The telcos there must all argue
and fuss among themselves and with sister Bell quite a bit ... that's
all I can figure out. Either that or they are too cheap to pay Bell to
run their directory assistance for them (or the other way around!)   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 23:51:19 mdt
From: David Ritchie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: References Wanted on Interface Projects for Phones


> Do you know what books exist on interface circuit projects for
> telephone lines? I need to detect an open circuit on a line that
> signals a far end disconnect.  Therefore, I am looking for something
> like an optocoupler circuit or whatever, as long as I can get a TTL
> output.  If you do not know of any books, do you know who would? Or,
> could I send the message back for a second attempt at a posting?

  A book that *might* be useful for ideas is "Electronic Telephone
Projects", Anthony J. Caristi (Sams, ISBN 0-672-21618-3).

  On a similiar vein, I am interested in something that I can hang on
my line that will perform the following:

1) Read DTMF for all calls, and save with a timestamp to battery backed RAM.
2) Look for loop activity start/stop, and timestamp same
to battery backed RAM.
3) Listen to ringing tone to detect call progress (i.e. for each call,
ringing started at time t, last ring detected at t+n) so as to have
some idea if the call completed.
4) Detection of reorder/fast busy and the tri-tone signal and logging of
same.
5) Serial interface that would allow me to dump the info to my PC, say,
weekly.

And hopefully, this would all be available for a sum less than the
budget of a small nation :^>. Has anyone heard of something like this?


Dave Ritchie    [e-mail]

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

From: Craig Harris <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: REA Information Needed
Date: 10 Sep 91 15:46:00 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Could someone e-mail me a address or telephone number for the Rural
Electrification Administration.  I need to order a manual called
Telecommunications Engineering; a Construction Manual.


   Craig Harris   708-632-6878   |     Motorola Inc.
   uunet!motcid!charris     or   |     1501 W. Shure Drive, IL27-S309
   motcid![e-mail]   |     Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1497

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

From: Marshal Perlman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Signs of the Times
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 06:02:23 GMT


The best I've seen so far was at my friend's house down the street. We
have GTE <Gross Telephones Everywhere> ... and if you dial 1-1-4, it
says your phone number in a lady's voice.  I was showing my friend how
it worked ... and it gave back the WRONG number the first time but
every other time it worked fine ... but that first time it gave a
number that wasn't even CLOSE (and he has only one line!)

GO GTE!

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

Subject: TAT-9 News
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 0:43:31 EDT
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


While walking my dog on the beach last night, I was surprised to
discover that a power boat had washed up directly on top of TAT-9.
Although I'm sure the cable is buried deep enough that it's not
affected, there is several tons of sand in the boat and reasonably
large equipment will be needed to get it out.  I'll be interested to
see if AT&T is, as their signs say, on site when they start hauling
the boat out.


John R. Levine, IECC-by-the-sea, Harvey Cedars NJ "Where TAT-9 comes ashore"
[e-mail], {ima|spdcc|world}!iecc!johnl

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex Revisited
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 02:17:59 -0400


In article <[e-mail]> John Holman holmanj.uwwvax.
uww.edu writes:

> We are entering our sixth year of a seven year CENTREX agreement with
> our RBOC Wisconsin Bell.  The agreement was rather unique in the fact

> asynchronous data via a Gandalf PACX.  Presently, and for the previous

    Well, you learn something every day.  I thought that the
University of Toronto Computing Services' Gandalf PACXnet was some
special University of Toronto thing.  So it's part of the campus
Centrex deal on your campus -- probably is here, too.


Jamie

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 23:36 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: NPA 510 From Tucker, Ga. CO


[e-mail] writes:

> Here comes the incredible part: at least one Southern Bell employee
> doesn't believe that 510 is a legitimate area code!

> I'll also add that once this problem does get resolved, I will be
> sending a very complimentary letter to the manager of the woman at
> AT&T because she is a true professional and I am quite impressed by
> her customer service skills and thoroughness.

And guess who will quietly benefit when this is all over. Of course,
it will be the OCCs (Sprint, MCI, Grace L. Fergusson Storm Door and
Long Distance, and all the rest) who will once again let AT&T handle
the glitches that come up from the interface between LECs and IECs.
Once the people at SB figure out which end is up regarding 510, it
will be fixed for every carrier.

This is SO typical of AT&T -- the dogged determination to track down
and correct problems including those that are not the company's direct
responsibility. This is a characteristic that is sorely lacking in the
other IECs. Oh, yes, occasionally it may appear that someone at Sprint
or whoever seems to give a hoot, but there is not the consistency that
is exhibited by AT&T.

One of the reasons it is STILL my long distance company.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #723
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06272;
          12 Sep 91 1:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04624;
          12 Sep 91 0:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19337;
          11 Sep 91 23:18 CDT
Date:     Wed, 11 Sep 91 23:17:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #724
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Sep 91 23:17:01 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 724

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Walter Dnes]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [M. Covington]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [Carl Moore]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [Bud Couch]
    Re: USA Direct List [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Re: USA Direct List [Tony Harminc]
    Re: Telephones in Elevators [Kenn Booth]
    Re: Cable TV Competition [Daniel Herrick]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 91 09:42:35 cst
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


Steve Forrette wrote:

> I do not keep my phone under lock and key, and live in an apartment
> complex which refuses to lock the punchdown boxes, so I feel the need
> to have blocking.

This is curious, Steve.  Do you not lock your home, or do you have
roommates that you can not trust?

As for locking the punchdown boxes, I approve completely.  As an
installation technician, I find it especially frustrating and
time-consuming to find the building terminal room locked and/or the
cabinet otherwise inaccessible.

In my 18+ years, I have encountered only ONE incidence of tampering
with this box.  A drunken party got out of hand, and someone
vandalized it.

Unless there is an RJ11C jack on your line, available to the public, I
wouldn't worry about it AT ALL!  I've found that the 66-block concept
eludes even "EXPERIENCED" (independent) technicians.  Many security
system installers (many of whom were pumping gas a few weeks earlier),
among others, wouldn't know ring from tip, one pair from the other, or
a bridging clip.  To fear that they would be able (if even inclined)
to locate your pair, then make all manner of toll calls, borders on
paranoia (IMHO).

On the other hand, your suggestions for alternatives to (blanket)
blocking of access to 900/976 services are EXCELLENT!!

I do NOT use credit cards (VISA, MC, etc), so I am indeed excluded
from most of the "advantages and benefits" of these services.  I would
like very much to see your ideas implemented.

I'll submit your ideas (under MY name, of course) to our Employee
Suggestion Plan and, if accepted (doubtful), and I am given a huge $$
award, I'll be sure to let you know!  (yeah... right!)  (grin)


JR   Tabby 2.2
MacNet Omaha [phone]  -  O.M.U.G. On-Line    (1:285/14)

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

Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls
From: Walter Dnes <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1991 01:30:32 -0400
Organization: Ye Greate Calkulatinge Machine Hoaxe


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> "Michael A. Covington" <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Concerning 900 numbers and billing disputes, here are comments that I
>> submitted to the FCC in April, 1990.  Basically, this sums up the case
>> against having 900 numbers at all.

> I was going to avoid raising my blood pressure and let all of this
> pass, but after several re-readings, I could not stand it any more.

     How about a compromise solution? How about making third-party-
billable-call-blocking (900, 976, 212-510, whatever else pops up in
the future) the *DEFAULT* mode. If someone *REQUESTS* that these
"services" be enabled, get them to sign a release form stating that
that they accept responsibility for the associated charges, up to a
specified amount. Microsoft's 900 number would continue as would other
software support lines that actually make 900 worthwile.

     If people have to request this ability, the sleazoids will
probably go under. Meanwhile, the number of real services will
increase as the rip-off artists go away. I view this proposal in the
same light as allowing credit cards to be mailed only to people who
have requested them. Any comments?


Walter Dnes   [e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

From: "Michael A. Covington" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 15:32:28 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

>  And how about, rather than the caller having to take some
> pre-action on a toll call, have the CO switch signal with a burst of
> three tones that a toll call has been dialed?

Excellent idea.

I think that dialing 1 + area code + number should be _permitted_ for
all calls, even local ones, because there are those of us with
pocket-sized autodialers who travel around, and would like to simply
store every number in full form and have done with it.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D.  |  [e-mail]   |  N4TMI
Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 11:31:12 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> To keep things consistent, in any area where a '1' was required
> in any office the telco required it in all offices.

I know of (former?) cases in Delaware (area 302) where the leading
1 was not required.  It was the case in the 674 exchange appearing
on pay phones in the Dover exchange (but was not the case when I
tried it this past July 4).  It also was or is the case on the 478
exchange in the northern Wilmington suburbs; 478 was created in the
early 1960s (never had a central office NAME) by splitting off territory
which had been using the downtown Wilmington exchange.

In addition, 478 had (still has) seven-digit local service to some
prefixes in 215, and this non-requirement of leading 1 meant that
those Pennsylvania prefixes could not be duplicated ANYWHERE in
Delaware.  I have not gotten around to checking out that leading 1 on
a 478 phone recently.  Any cases similar to this occurring elsewhere?
(Throughout Delaware, the posted instructions were and still are to
dial 1 + 7D for long distance within Delaware, 1 + NPA + 7D elsewhere.
It's too soon to account for the NXX area codes.)

For local calls which cross area code boundaries, you have to check
locally.  You might have to use 7D or 1 + NPA + 7D or (in the
Washington DC and Dallas/Fort Worth areas) NPA + 7D.  If NPA + 7D is
used, that particular NPA is thus "legally" prevented from being used
as a prefix there; but courtesy already suggests this, so that if you
are giving a number out orally (as in a radio or TV ad), you will know
whether there are four or seven more digits ahead.  Notice that the
NPA + 7D construct (for local calls to another area code) preserves
the notion that 1+ means toll.

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 22:01:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> "Andrew M. Dunn" <mongrel!
[e-mail]> writes:

> Good point, but what happens when 1+ starts meaning a local call, too
> ... as it will have to in many places when an area code splits, and
> cross-area calls are still considered local?  The change in area code
> enumeration requires the 1+ to tell the switch that an area code
> follows, since you can't tell them apart syntactically anymore.

Use time-out to distinguish them, as was done in some crossbar
equipment when DDD was first established (and 1+ didn't exist). That
is, after seven digits, the system waits for a period to see if there
are no further digits. Exactly the same thing is done today for O+; if
no further numbers are dialed, the switch times-out and routes the
call directly to an operator.

BTW, the reason that 1+ was available as an area code indicator was
(in the prehistoric days that I remember ;-( ) that a single "1" was
liable to be a false digit, caused by a branch falling across
open-wire, creating an off-hook and then a series of single "1"s. For
this reason, most SXS first selectors were set to absorb 1's.


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

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

Date: 11-SEP-1991 13:25:49.59
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Direct List


In <[e-mail]> (Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue
723, Message 1 of 8), [e-mail] (Bill Huttig) writes:

> Here it is.

We all thank you.

However, you may wish to add under Spain the entry for ATT:

Country               Carrier  Operator Number        Customer Service

Spain                 ATT      900-99-0011

And you may wish to correct or complete the spellings of:

Argetina (should be Argentina)
Czech. (could be Czechoslovakia)
Dominica Republic (should be Dominican Republic)
Hungry (should be Hungary)

Also, under Japan, there is a number of the form 0039-1n1 (for some
small integer n greater than three) that provides what one might call
"Hawaii Direct"; perhaps some TELECOM subscriber in Japan can pass
that along from their local phonebook (I noticed it in the Kyoto
phonebook during the summer of 1990, but, being an East-Coaster,
didn't jot it down).

Finally, a number from anywhere abroad for current AT&T USADirect
information: [phone] (collect) (sorry, I have no such
help-number for MCI's CallUSA or the corresponding ALL or USS
services).


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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 17:21:05 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Direct List


A couple of questions come to mind when I see the USA Direct list of
numbers.  If we look at the numbers for world numbering zone 1
countries (the NANP), we see that AT&T is present everywhere but
Canada.  At first glance this seems very strange, because the volume
of calls between the USA and Canada is at least ten times that between
the USA and any other NANP country.  But then, trying MCI's, US
Sprint's, and Allnet's numbers, I find that they aren't typical
"Country Direct" numbers at all, but rather "dial tones" from the
various carriers.  In any case none of them allowed me to use a
Telecom Canada/local Bell calling card.  Also none except Allnet would
let me talk to an operator.  MCI was the rudest -- told me my number
was bad and gave me a reorder.  They did have a specific recording
warning me that I was in Canada, however ;-); Allnet's operator
confirmed that they do not take anything but their own cards.

So I think it's a little misleading to list these Canadian numbers
along with numbers that get you an operator in the USA.  In any case,
much of the selling point for "Country Direct" services is that you
don't have to deal with a possibly user-surly and non-English-
speaking local operator.  But there is automated calling card service
between Canada and the USA, Canadian operators are at least as user
friendly as the US ones, and they all speak English at least as well
as in the USA :-)


Tony H.

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

From: Kenn Booth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones in Elevators
Organization: Micro-Data Consultants
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 18:23:58 GMT


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

> I got a chance to use a phone in an elevator today. Most of us have
> seen the little door above the elevator buttons, opened it and saw the
> phone or intercom inside ... but fortunatly the need to use it is
> rare.

I work third shift at an answering service, and we have about 20
incoming lines for elevators. (We answer for three elevator service
companies.)

I frequently have to answer a line from someone who was 'just curious'
about who was on the other end, and would pick up the phone just to
see who would answer. I don't mind it terribly, and I've had some
pleasant conversations with some people who were happy to talk to
someone for the minute or two that they would be otherwise staring at
the little lights near the {roof|ceiling}.

There have been a few cases where the elevator had 'locked up' between
floors, and having a phone in the elevator kept the inconvenience of
being stuck down to about an hour instead of having to wait until
morning.

I find it rather disturbing at the number of elevators that do not
have such phones installed, and what kind of dangers someone could be
exposed to from being locked in an elevator for any length of time.
There are numerous possibilities ranging from hyperventilation to the
brakes slipping, and with no phone, there is just no way to get help
at that time of night.

There was an instance where the elevator had locked up, and the person
inside was diabetic. I first contacted the company that services that
elevator, next a relative of mine that lived in that same building, so
she could help when the elevator was opened. (She is a CCRN). I also
patched the call directly to my relative, and between the two of us,
we were able to keep the person in the elevator reasonably calm, and
just offered as much support as we could muster. I received a note
from her at work a few days later thanking me for my help.  My
supervisor had to write me up for my actions, as they were against
policy, but privately congratulated me.

So ... what does this elevator incident have to do with TELECOM?

Well, a phone was involved, at least, but I also am tired of getting
put down for being an operator for an answering service, as if it
isn't something to feel good about, and mainly to show that we do a
helluvalot more than just take messages.

(sheesh! I really didn't expect this to be this long, but, well... I
don't get on a roll to often. :) )


        Kenn "Jazz" Booth II -- Micro-Data Consultants
   [[e-mail]] [[e-mail]]
       [...!uunet!mailrus!sharkey!{wybbs|eurynome}!...]


[Moderator's Note: That was a great story, and I thank you for sending
it in. I was a switchboard operator on the midnight shift at the
University of Chicago about thirty years ago. Almost everyone in jobs
like yours (and mine, long ago) has had at least once instance where
heroic and/or out of the ordinary efforts were required. Don't let
anyone put you down for the work you do.   PAT]

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

From: "90958, HERRICK, DANIEL" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition
Date: 11 Sep 91 10:41:33 EST


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

> local governments don't have much of a stick to use on TCA. The FCC
> forbids them from setting TCA's rates, apparently, and the local
> market is too small (population-wise) and spread-out (area-wise) to
> make it profitable for two cable companies to compete in this market.
> Yet another example of a "natural monopoly", and why such "natural
> monopolies" should be under strict governmental control. It scares me

Don't prejudge the profitability of competition.  Get your licensing
authority to offer a non-exclusive franchise to anyone who wants to
wire a hundred subscribers (or ten).  Make it legal for the guy with a
dish to share the signal from the satellite he has it pointed at.  (At
the polarity he is watching.)  Don't put any restrictions except
compliance with the national code (surely there is one) for wiring.
Remove petty restrictions on right of way.

If TCA has an exclusive franchise, the mere threat to remove that
exclusivity is a very large stick.  If they are dumb enough, they will
let you remove the exclusive clause for all the conventional wisdom
reasons you give in the quoted paragraph.  After all, they already
have the place wired, nobody can beat them in their market.

The government does not know what is a fair price.  The government
does not know what consumers want to buy.  How can it intelligently
regulate the service provider?


dan herrick      [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #724
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07992;
          12 Sep 91 4:01 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10322;
          12 Sep 91 2:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29684;
          12 Sep 91 1:27 CDT
Date:     Thu, 12 Sep 91 0:33:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #725
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Sep 91 00:32:49 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 725

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellphones and 911 [Craig Ibbotson]
    Re: Cellphones and 911 [Michael Lyman]
    Re: Cellular and AOS [Tom Lowe]
    Re: Cellular Skip (was Cellphones and 911) [Marcel Mongeon]
    $99 B&W Cellular Receiver [Paul J. Drongowski]
    Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [Carl Moore]
    Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [Robin Kenny]
    Re: Problem Reaching AT&T MAIL [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines [Jack Adams]
    Re: SOAK vs. Beta-Test [Roger B.A. Klorese]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Craig Ibbotson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellphones and 911
Date: 11 Sep 91 15:39:00 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

>    "Sounds like a software problem".  The cellular system sure
> knows approximately where you are (in which cell), so it should be
> fairly straightforward to figure out where to send 911 calls.

Boy, us switch software people get no respect! :->

> [Moderator's Note: What you suggest is something Ameritech has looked
> into here. Cells located well within the city limits of Chicago would
> send a control signal to the switch saying 'take this call to 911 and
> in fact route it to xxx-yyyy (a seven digit number terminating at the
> proper dispatching position for that area of the city.) At present we
> do not have 911 on cell phones here, we must dial the operator.  PAT]

A different kind of solution is implemented in a few countries.  These
countries do not allow the cellular switch to route the 911 call
through the PSTN; the Mobile Telephone Exchange (hopefully an EMX :))
has a "direct line" to a number of emergency centers.  The call is
routed based on cell of origin.

I would think it would be very easy for most existing cellular systems
to route 911 calls to specific locations via the PSTN if they support
cell of origin routing.  The EMX even supports sector of origin
routing, which can give an even finer granularity of area if required.
It is also possible to route 911 calls to an operator, and present the
operator with the MIN, ESN and cell of origin of the 911 call, which
sounds like what is happening in PacTel (which uses Motorola
equipment).  Perhaps the operator asks your location to get a better
granularity than "Cell XX"?

Maybe there is some sort of agreement that the cellular switch will
not automatically route 911 calls to a specific destinations since it
does not know if it is a police / fire / ambulance type emergency.
Still, the location (to the nearest cell/sector) is available and
could be used for routing.

Neither Cellular One or Ameritech in Chicago uses Motorola equipment,
so I don't know why you can't make 911 calls from your cellular phone
in Chicago.


Craig Ibbotson, Motorola, Inc.    ...uunet!motcid!ibbotsonc
Cellular Infrastructure Division, Radio Telephone Systems Group


[Moderator's Note: We cannot make 911 calls from cell phones in
Chicago because there is no central place (in the suburban towns)
where all calls go. The suburbs cannot even agree among themselves who
will handle emergency calls for all the towns and villages sharing the
same phone prefix. Each community has two or three phone prefixes they
may share with the community next to them. Politics being as they are
here, they are all afraid if something goes right, the other guys will
get the praise, and if something goes wrong, they'll be the ones to
catch hell. The towns with phones exchanges unique to that community
do have 911 ... the others make do with seven digit numbers.   PAT]

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

From: Michael Lyman <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellphones and 911
Date: 11 Sep 91 16:33:22 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

>    "Sounds like a software problem".  The cellular system sure
> knows approximately where you are (in which cell), so it should be
> fairly straightforward to figure out where to send 911 calls.

 (see previous message this issue for Moderator's Note, deleted here)

In a nutshell, this is a function that has existed for quite some time
whose roots go back to the Washington/Baltimore system. It was seen
that a subscriber who needs to dial an emergency number might have a
problem since there is potentially only one 911 route out of the
attending cellular switch.

Because of this, "cell of origin" dialing was implemented and so
translation of the dialed number would pivot on his current cell.
Note, that this really is only a twist on translation and that nothing
new is needed from the cellsite since the subscribers current location
and dialed digits are know by the system at call setup time.  Also
note that the cellular carrier may or may not implement this option at
his own discretion.

Granularity of location will be consistent with the type of system the
sybscriber is operating in: for cellsites that are omni-directional
receive, the location of the subscriber can be pinned to a cell; for
sector receive cellsites the location can be reduced to an area within
a cell. While there is always the chance that the subscriber may not
actually be in the cell the system thinks he's in, this is dependant
how well the system is set up and would seem to affect only those on
the fringes of the cell.


Michael Lyman, Motorola S.E.D (Iridium)
Chandler, Az.   ...uunet!motcid!lyman (for now..)


[Moderator's Note: The main problem here is politics. Chicago does not
want the suburbs to get city calls and vice-versa. Even within
Chicago, when 911 first started, the big shots at the Fire Department
squabbled with the big shots at the Police Department over who would
get the call first.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Sep 11 07:52:11 EDT 1991
Subject: Re: Cellular and AOS


> Are cellular carriers going to be required to provide equal access to
> long distance carriers like payphone owners are?

> My cellular carrier (Ocean County Cellular, Ocean County, NJ) uses a
> company called "Chadwick Communications" for their long distance.  I
> haven't gotten a bill yet, so I'm not sure if their charges are
> reasonable yet.

> What are some other experiences with cellular long distance,
> especially when roaming?  Good? Bad?

> [Moderator's Note: What happens when you place your long distance cell
> calls via 10288+ ?    PAT]

In Ocean County Cellular Land:

Calls to 102880xxxxxxxxxx as well as 10333+ and 10222+ get "The long
distance carrier you have selected is unable to provide service ... to
place a long distance call simply dial direct using standard ten digit
dialing ... thank you for using Ocean County Cellular".

Calls to 950-1033 and 950-1022 get "Your call cannot be complete as
dialed ... please check the number and place your call again ... thank
you for using Ocean County Cellular."

Calls to 800-950-1022 get me the tone, so I guess that would work.
Unfortunately, I would pay airtime from the moment I get the tone.

In Monmouth County Cellular One (next county north of Ocean County)
land, 0+ calls are handled by AT&T (I get the AT&T Bong Tone), but I
still can't dial 10333+ or 10222+ (I get fast busy).  I can however
dial 950-1022 and get the tone.


Tom Lowe   [e-mail] (when it works)   or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel Mongeon)
Subject: Re: Cellular Skip (was Cellphones and 911)
Organization: The Joymarmon Group
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 13:02:40 GMT


[e-mail] (Bob Miller) writes:

> In the Detroit/Windsor area, I have heard of something similar to the
> San Francisco bay area where the cell site you are using may be on the
> other side of the river.  Not only are you using another cell cite,
> and another carrier, but your conversation is bouncing between two
> countries.

> Can anyone confirm these examples, or provide others?

This is very much the case.  One of the biggest problems that the
Canadian cellular carriers had was in integrating their service with
their American counterparts.  I have been on the Buffalo carrier from
as far away as Welland, Ontario (about 20 miles).  You can usually
tell the carrier by dialing an improper number and then seeing which
carrier's recording you get.

The propagation of cell calls was also a problem for Cantel in
providing 911 service in the "Golden Horshoe" area at the western tip
of Lake Ontario. They set up the service so that the 911 call would be
routed to the Provincial Police office which was closest to the cell
which first processed the call.  Unfortunately, some calls in Oakville
were being routed to the St. Catherines office (ten miles as the crow
flies but thirty miles by car) and vice versa.


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

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

From: "dr. funk" <[e-mail]>
Subject: $99 B&W Cellular Receiver
Date: 11 Sep 91 21:22:37 GMT
Organization: siemens corporate research inc


When I first read about receiving cellular phone transmissions on old
TV sets I thought, "Right. Another berzerko USENET article.  Next I'll
read about a sighting of Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis at the Sportsman's Bar
on the lower east side."

Anyway, I tried it. It works. Anywhere on the high end of the old UHF
frequencies will do. The TV screen even acts as a rather nice aid --
when the snow gets coherent you're gettin' 'er dialed in.

Well, I guess the radio police will kick in my door some night and
confiscate my 1976 $99 black and white Midland TV.

When the ability to freely and independently communicate is gone, all
other freedoms will soon be lost. Write now.


paul j. drongowski
siemens corporate research inc    [e-mail]
princeton, new jersey 08540       [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I haven't heard of any plans to go around arresting
people who have old television sets. But to follow what you say to its
logical conclusion, now that manufacturers of television sets no
longer put channels 80-83 on the dial, most of your freedoms have been
lost, right?  Maybe you can explain what 'the ability to freely and
independently communicate' has to do with eavesdropping on other
people's phone calls.  It is very easy to listen to other people's cell
phone calls. Not only is it easy, it is also boring.  And boorish.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 11:46:35 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers


Adam Krolnik <[e-mail]> writes:

> I read that the area codes are of the form [0-9][01][0-9] i.e the
> middle digit must be a 1 or a 0.

Should be [2-9][01][0-9] ; or in other notation, N0X/N1X.

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

From: Robin Kenny <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers
Date: 11 Sep 91 06:15:11 GMT
Organization: HP Australasian Response Centre (Melbourne)


> If the country is indeed running out of phone numbers, I wouldn't mind
> at all having an eight digit added if it were a check digit on the
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^
> first seven.  This is what is done with the International Standard
> Book Number -- the first nine digits are summed (10 * 1st digit, 9 *
> 2nd, ... 2 * the 9th) and the last character (X is used to represent
> 11) is modulo 11.

> Public Access UNIX at [phone] (1200/2400) Voice: [phone]
> TECHbooks offers many technical books at discounted prices.  E-mail to
> [e-mail] for details, [e-mail] for mailing list.

Wouldn't a check digit be of no effect to the total number of unique
numbers?  As the digit is dependant on the first seven, then for
IDENTICAL LOOKING numbers the check digit must be the SAME; therefore
under the rules of the checking algorithm you cannot make two distinct
numbers with the same first seven digits.

But the idea of a check digit that can be tested before accessing the
telephone system has considerable merit -- perhaps two or three
check/error digits could be published with each phone number to help
rebuild corrupt numbers.  (As discussed by the original author but
deleted above). By cutting down wrong numbers an inter-telco traffic
saving could be realized and surely there'd be a new industry
opportunity in the check digit market?


As always, all my own opinions; not those of my employer.
Robin Kenny (Melbourne, Australia)


[Moderator's Note: The one great thing about check-digits would be
that wrong numbers would be almost a thing of the past.  That alone
makes the idea well worth considering.  PAT]

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problem Reaching AT&T MAIL
Date: 11 Sep 91 14:34:54 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


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

> Someone recently made mention of the fact that there are two different
> addresses for AT&T for mail purposes: ATTMAIL.COM and ATT.COM.  It was
> also mentioned that one is internal and the other is for those who
> want to pay for access to the Internet as an outsider.

> Please enlighten me; which is which?

ATT.COM is the registered domain name for AT&T's internal network,
much like DEC.COM is for DEC and IBM.COM is for IBM, etc.  This name
space is used only for AT&T owned machines, used by AT&T employees and
consultants for company business.

ATTMAIL.COM is the registered domain name for the AT&T Mail service,
which is now part of the AT&T Easy Link business unit (it includes
AT&T Mail, AT&T Enhanced Fax, Telex, and some other services acquired
from Western Union).  AT&T Mail is a commercially offerred electronic
mail service.  The only Internet access provided is email service
through a gateway.  There is a fairly large set of interconnections
with other commercial electronic mail services, through X.400
gateways.  In the US, this includes Tymnet's Dialcom, GEIS's QUIKCOMM,
IBM's Screenmail, MCI's MCI Mail, Sprint's SprintMail, and the other
Easy Link mail service, Western Union 400.  (I beleive the Easy Link
offerings are slated to be merges soon).  There are also a large
number of interconnections to international X.400 services.


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: adams <nvuxl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines
Date: 11 Sep 91 16:51:52 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, radius![e-mail] (bob
lashley) writes:

>> How can only one phone of a multi-party line be rung?  (It also

> As I recall, this used to be accomplished by resonating the ringers
> using different frequencies.  The AC voltage applied to the line would
> vary in frequency for each party on the party line.  The Q of the
> ringers for each phone would have to be adjusted for the appropriate
> frequency by jumpering the coil for another impedance, etc.

I'm afraid not Bob. As Pat T. pointed out the other day, ringer
activation involved connecting the ringer either between TIP, RING and
ground in various combinations in addition to superimposing the
ringing signal on battery voltage levels (+/- 48 superimposed, etc.).
For the most part ringing signals are all 90 v, 20 Hz.


Jack (John) Adams        | Bellcore RRC 4A-253
[phone] {Voice}        | [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]    | [e-mail]

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

From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SOAK vs. Beta-Test
Reply-To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <[e-mail]>
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 06:59:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Bryan Richardson <richard@
cs.purdue.edu> writes:

> In my experience, I have only seen the term "Soak" applied to
> switching software.  It is essentially a beta-test in the classical
> definition; it follows the product and system tests.

At my former employer, Mips Computer Systems, operating systems alpha
and beta release builds are put into "soak" in the Engineering
Computer Center, in parallel with QA testing.


ROGER B.A. KLORESE          +1 415 ALL-ARFF
[e-mail]    {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #725
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08153;
          12 Sep 91 4:25 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10322;
          12 Sep 91 2:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29684;
          12 Sep 91 1:27 CDT
Date:     Thu, 12 Sep 91 1:10:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #726
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Sep 91 01:10:04 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 726

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More on US West and 976 IPs [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Phone Gall [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Sign of the times [Larry Rachman]
    Re: USA Direct List [Michael A. Covington]
    Re: References Wanted on Interface Projects for Phones [Stephen Tell]
    Re: Unix on Switches [Norman Yarvin]
    This AOS Bites the Dust [Jim Allard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 91 09:24:59 cst
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on US West and 976 IPs
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


Steve Forrette wrote:

> US West reportedly cited "business reasons" for wanting to
> discontinue 976 services.

This is typical: We employees are the last to hear of such things!  I
have YET to hear anything INTERNALLY about this.

> [976/900/etc services] will enable telephone subscribers to access a
> wide variety of information right from their home, such as stock
> quotes, lottery results, sport scores, weather reports, etc." Has
> this changed? Are these services no longer available? Nope, they are
> still there. Then why should they be allowed to discontinue them?

I wonder if they intend to quit the SERVICES, or simply quit BILLING
for them?

A while back, US WEST Communications assigned a new 1+ prefix for
those services it deemed were "dial-a-smut" but do NOT provide billing
services for those calls, as it did/does for 976 calls.

I see no reason to quit offering the services, but I think that trying
to earn additional income as BILLING AGENT has soured on US WEST in a
LOT of cases.


JR   Tabby 2.2
MacNet Omaha [phone]  -  O.M.U.G. On-Line    (1:285/14)

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 91 09:13:33 cst
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Gall
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


John Higdon wrote:

> These are the same people who feel that ... service providers should
> just forgive thousands of dollars worth of usage because the callers
> were ignorant, stupid, or simply children out of control.

> What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's own actions?

When I was a Service Representative for (the former) Northwestern
Bell, I encountered a customer whose children were playing with the
TouchTone(r) telephone.  This resulted in dozens of identical, 13-cent
toll calls, all of which were properly billed to the account.

It seems that her children, unattended, were simply dialing 1,2,3,4,
5, etc. which generated a "long" distance call to a neighboring
telco's test line.  When dialed, a recording announced that the caller
WOULD be billed for the call.

I wrote-off the charges.  Although not especially magnanimous of our
company, I'm sure that it cost MORE (paperwork, bureaucrasy, etc) to
do so than the sum of the calls.  The customer politely thanked me and
said it wouldn't happen again.  It did.

Next month - same story.

Again, I wrote-off the calls, but advised the customer that that would
be the LAST time; that future calls would be charged and COLLECTED.

They stopped!

Software is now available in MOST places to block direct-dial access
to these 1+900, 1+976, etc., services.  Indeed, if the line is
configured with PIC NON, 1+ doesn't work AT ALL.  I believe that ALL
calls of this nature should be collected.


JR   Tabby 2.2
MacNet Omaha [phone]  -  O.M.U.G. On-Line    (1:285/14)


[Moderator's Note: Your threat may have been the reason the calls
stopped, or it might be that the first time the woman told her
children nicely not to play with the telephone, but the second time
she slapped the fire out of them so hard they were afraid to ever go
near the phone again or give her any backtalk.   PAT]

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

Date: 11 Sep 91 05:59:42 EDT
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sign of the Times


In a recent issue of the Digest, Marshal Perlman <[e-mail].
du.edu> comments:

> have GTE <Gross Telephones Everywhere> ... and if you dial 1-1-4, it
> says your phone number in a lady's voice.  I was showing my friend how
> it worked ... and it gave back the WRONG number the first time but
> every other time it worked fine ... but that first time it gave a
> number that wasn't even CLOSE (and he has only one line!)

Back when I was a kid (New York Telephone, #5 crossbar), we discovered
that if you dialed 958 (the local line identification number) from two
phones at *exactly* the same time, you'd hear a long pause, followed
by a strange phone number. It would bear no resemblance to either of
the originating numbers and usually didn't even have seven digits!


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX     [e-mail]    Fax: [phone]

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

From: "Michael A. Covington" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Direct List
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 04:40:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Fred E.J. Linton) writes:

> And you may wish to correct or complete the spellings of:

> Dominica Republic (should be Dominican Republic)

Dominica and the Dominican Republic are two different countries;
wonder which one he meant.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D.  |  [e-mail]   |  N4TMI
Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A.

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

From: Stephen Tell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: References Wanted on Interface Projects for Phones
Date: 11 Sep 91 13:41:39 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


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

> I need to detect an open circuit on a line that signals a far end
> disconnect.  Therefore, I am looking for something like an optocoupler
> circuit or whatever, as long as I can get a TTL output.

Below is a circuit I have used with success.  The key is detecting
loss of loop current flow instead of loss of voltage.


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

to phone                            To CO

        ----------------------------+          +---------------------
                    |          |
                    |          |
                    |          |
                    |          |
                    +------------------+
                |  AC         AC   |
                | Bridge Rectifier | 600 volts, 1amp
                |  +          -    |
                    +------------------+
                    |          |
                    |          |
                    |          +--------+
                    |                   |
                    +--->|--->|--->|----+   1N4004 diode
                                    |                   |
                    |                   |
                    |      +---\/\/\/\--+   100 ohms
                    |      |
                +---|------|------+
                    |   +-->|--+      |   Optoisolator
                    |                 |
                    |                 |        ^ to +5 volts
                    |        ----     |        |
                    |        /  \     |        /
                    |       <    |    |        \
                +-------|----|----+        /
                                        |    |           \
                    |    |             |
                    |    +-------------+----- TTL out
                       ---              to input port
                                       ///

Brief theory of operation: The bridge rectifier makes sure we are
polarity-independent.  The three diodes in series cause a voltage drop
of around 1.8 volts when loop current is flowing in the phone line.
This voltage drop turns on the LED in the optoisolator, causing the
transistor to conduct and pull the output low when current is flowing.
When no loop current is flowing because the CO has broken the loop (or
the phone is on-hook), the LED is off and the output is high.

Standard disclaimers about non-FCC-approved devices on a phone line
apply.  It appears to me that there is nothing inherent in this
circuit that would prevent it from being approvable though.  Use an
optoisolator rated for plenty of isolation voltage, and diodes and
bridge rectifiers with plenty of reverse voltage rating.

One side effect of this circuit is that when the phone is ringing, you
get pulses at the output at 20Hz.  If you don't want that, filter the
output in hardware or software.


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

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

From: Norman Yarvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 17:34:25 GMT


[e-mail] (Lars Poulsen) writes:

> The way it was explained to me, each line card with its ADC and DAC
> (that's Analog-to-Digital Converter and Digital-to-Analog Converter)
> shows up as a memory location. So the switching processor basically
> scans all the ADC input byte locations, and for each one it looks up
> which other channel this one is connected to, and stores the digitized
> value into the DAC output for THAT channel. This is of course the
> simple part ... the hard part is updating that table of who goes with
> whom.

As an undergraduate I took a course dealing mostly with switching
networks, in which it was mentioned that the switching framework of
the 5ESS, "AT&T's newest, most powerful switch" is of the "time space
time" variety, i.e. it has three stages, the first and third using
time-domain multiplexing and the second space-domain multiplexing.
The first stage multiplexes the very large number of low-speed
subscriber lines onto a smaller number (about 100, I think) of
high-speed lines.  The second stage has high-speed lines for input and
high-speed lines for output, and can connect the former to the latter
in any fashion. (This might be done with a crossbar type arrangement;
I forget if we were told.)  The last stage demultiplexes the
high-speed lines onto low-speed lines.

Here's a picture, assuming a crossbar in stage two.  X represents a
software-controlled interconnection point, where the lines can either
be connected or disconnected.

   (stage 1)             (stage 2)                    (stage 3)

                                  |   |      |
  --------------------------------X---X------X- line 1
    |   |       |                 |   |      |
   :)  :) ...  :)                 |   | ...  |
    users' mouths                 |   |      |
  --------------------------------X---X------X- line 2
    |   |       |     ---->       |   |      |
   :)  :) ...  :)     data     d| |   | ...  |
                               a| |   |      |
        .                      t| |   | .    |
        :                      a| |   | :    |
                                V |   |      |
  --------------------------------X---X------X- line n
    |   |       |                 |   |      |
   :)  :) ...  :)                 |   | ...  |
                                  |   |      |
                                  |   |      \------------------------------
                                  |   |                        |    |    |
                                  |   |                        :)   :)   :)
                                  |   |                        users' ears
                                  |   |
                                  |   \-------------------------------------
                                  |           ---->            |    |    |
                                  |           data             :)   :)   :)
                                  |
                                  \-----------------------------------------
                                                               |    |    |
                                                               :)   :)   :)

Everything here is digital; the analog signals coming in are
immediately digitized, then converted back to analog on their way out.

The 5ESS can switch -- what, a million? 1/4 million? lines.  The
scheme described in the quoted article seems quite feasible for a PBX,
but definitely not for a central office: the computing power required
would be far too big.  We just heard that 5ESSs were controlled by
3B20Ds.  I used a 3B20.  It was _slow_.  Central offices communicate
through fiber-optic lines carrying gigabits per second; there is no
way a 3B20 could switch that by itself.  As it is, the 3B20 probably
delegates the detailed control of the multiplexing and of the crossbar
to special-purpose processors.

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

Subject: This AOS Bites the Dust
Date: 11 Sep 91 17:33:41 EDT (Wed)
From: [e-mail]


On September 30, 1991, Equicom Communications will cease to exist as a
provider of Alternative Operator Services (yes, you may now cheer).
The reasons are many and varied, but the bottom line is we just
couldn't make the bottom line attractive.

This experience has been one of the most interesting in my career path
and one for which I will never apologize.  Regardless of why AOS
became a reality in American telecommunications, it does exist, for
however long.  I like to think ECI established new standards for AOS's
in that we always charged AT&T rates, gave immediate credit for
mis-dialed calls, provided access to the callers carrier of choice,
and demanded the best in hospitable interaction from our operators.

At our peak, we handled 20,000 calls per day for three mid-western 1+
carriers in addition to our own AOS clients.  My unfortunate
conclusion from this experience is that it probably can't be done (by
an AOS) in a for-profit setting unless higher charges are imposed, and
I don't think that's fair.  The American public has come to expect
(rightly so) a level of service and quality for which AT&T can be
justifiably proud.  And, in general they are the standard.
Unfortunately some of my colleagues in the industry are trying to
reinvent the wheel.  The AT&T trained public by and large are
resisting the change.  For that reason I think the AOS days are
numbered.  In a previous posting I suggested five years, and I think
that's still an accurate prediction.

Yes, there are some sleezeballs in this industry and to a great extent
they are an embarrassment to the others of us who have tried to do it
properly.  The market is in the process of pushing them out.  I'm sure
not fast enough for some of you, but the market DOES work.

One of the biggest reasons AOS exists is due to AT&T's unwillingness
to provide the kind of services our clients wanted.  Whether this has
been for technical reasons or sheer pomposity, I suggest that if they
want to nullify the AOS's they need to take a close look at how they
approach potential customers.  One of our best selling tools was the
question "what do you need."  At that point, we built the system to
their specs.  AT&T says "we can't do that" far to often, hence AOS's
who are willing.

A radical suggestion ... maybe AT&T should look into a division which
provides specialized operator services to these types of clients.
BTW, I'd certainly be available to help.

I'll miss reading TELECOM Digest every day.  It's been extremely
enlightening and helpful at times.  I'm sorry, but I probably won't be
able to respond to whatever follow-ups you may have, the news feed
dies on Friday the 13th (prophetic huh?).


Jim Allard <[e-mail]>  THE BOTTOM FEEDER (until the 30th)


[Moderator's Note: We will miss you. But you don't have to give up the
Digest. Just do as many others and get on the direct mailing list
using any public access Unix site; a public email service such as MCI
Mail or AT&T Mail, a Fido-connected BBS, etc. Once you have an account
on such a system, send Internet mail to '[e-mail]' and I
will send you each issue. Until then, best wishes from us all.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #726
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08479;
          12 Sep 91 5:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08323;
          12 Sep 91 3:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad10322;
          12 Sep 91 2:39 CDT
Date:     Thu, 12 Sep 91 2:02:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #727
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Sep 91 02:01:59 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 727

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Call Home Cards and AOS [Jim Allard]
    Re: Call Home Cards and AOS [John Higdon]
    Re: Local IXC's "CALL ME" Card is Here; Now What? [Bill Huttig]
    Opportunity For Getting Back at AOS's [Joe Konstan]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [Tony Harminc]
    1+ For Toll vs. Area Code [Joe Konstan]
    Re: REA Information Needed [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Telephone Line Status Indicator Box [Todd Inch]
    Re: Unix on Switches [Steve Gaardner]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Call Home Cards and AOS
Date: 11 Sep 91 15:57:43 EDT (Wed)
From: [e-mail]


Our (friend :-) John Higdon writes:

> "...and using an AOS frequently results in the ability to place a call
> anywhere.  This is because the only thing an AOS cares about in placing
> the call is the extraction of the embedded phone number for billing
> purposes.  "Sleazeballtel" could not care less that there is a flag
> in AT&T's database that only allows this number to be used to call the
> phone who's number is embedded therein."

Sorry John, but I beg to differ.  Every "bottom feeder" of which I am
aware, subscribes to a validation source.  In our case, all calls must
be validated for BNS (collect/third pty restrictions), and calling
cards for "call home" restrictions as well as cards we cannot bill
(AT&T CIID).

Our validation source is up-to-date and accurate within a 24-hour
change window.  Further, our billing company and the telcos will
reject calls to restricted numbers/cards.  The point being, if we
don't appropriately validate our calls, we won't get paid for them,
period.  Even "bottom feeders" are smart enough not to give the
service away for free.

In the event anyone wants to flame away at me one more time, you will
need to do so before Friday, September 13, since unfortunately our
news feed will go away then.  If I have time, I hope to elaborate on
the reasons tomorrow.


Jim Allard <[e-mail]> THE BOTTOM FEEDER


[Moderator's Note: Actually Jim, I ran your 'farewell to the net'
message in an earlier issue Thursday morning to make certain it got
around prior to your disconnection. I hope we will hear more from you
from time to time when you establish an account on another site. Next
comes a reply from John Higdon to your comments above.    PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 19:22 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Call Home Cards and AOS


On Sep 11 at 19:00, apple!equi.com!Jim.Allard writes:

> Sorry John, but I beg to differ.  Every "bottom feeder" of which I am
> aware, subscribes to a validation source.  In our case, all calls must
> be validated for BNS (collect/third pty restrictions), and calling cards
> for "call home" restrictions as well as cards we cannot bill (AT&T CIID).

You mean that you use some "call attempt" scam to determine if an AT&T
card is billable. Sometimes you must use this scam because the AT&T
card offered has no embedded phone number. Last I heard, AT&T had no
interest in sharing its data base with the bottom feeders. I'm sure
the telco-issued cards are much easier to deal with since the greed
LECs will take money wherever they can find it.

BTW, I have played extensively with AOS phones using many types of
AT&T/LEC issued numbers. This is what generally happens:

1. Valid "embedded number card" accepted by AOS.

2. Cancelled "embedded number card" accepted by AOS. (So much for your
   twenty-four hour window nonsense.)

3. Made up "embedded number card" rejected by AOS.

4. Valid "non-embedded number card" accepted by AT&T. (Apparently the
   AOS cannot deal with this so it is handed off to AT&T for acceptance or
   rejection.)

5. Altered "non-embedded number card" rejected by AT&T. (See above.)

> Our validation source is up-to-date and accurate within a 24-hour change
> window.  Further, our billing company and the telcos will reject calls
> to restricted numbers/cards.

Then why do many of your brothers in the cloth accept calls billed to
"call me" cards? I have first person experience with this so no
flimflam please.


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


[Moderator's Note: *If* Jim gets a final response here before his
cutoff, I'll run it over the weekend.   PAT]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local IXC's "CALL ME" Card is Here; Now What?
Date: 11 Sep 91 18:08:34 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

> phone number for billing purposes. "Sleazeballtel" could not care less
> that there is a flag in AT&T's database that only allows this number
> to be used to call the phone who's number is embedded therein.

The flag is not in AT&T database it is in the LEC's database ...
Remember that the LEC's are the one that have been creating card
numbers up until this year.  The major IXC's currently honor the LEC
restrictions but the problem is those sleazy AOS's. The AOS problem is
solved with the new AT&T Call Me card but that one has the problem of
the LEC's accepting the card for any IntraLATA call.


Bill

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 21:04:23 PDT
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Opportunity For Getting Back at AOS's


All this discussion of Call-Me cards brought to mind a rather nasty
opportunity to wreak vengeful fraud on AOS's that don't provide full
service.  I'm not advocating this, and because of the hassles I
wouldn't do this myself, but it is academically interesting:

1.  Assume I order a Call-Me card from my local phone company.

2.  To cover myself, I get written, or recorded, assurance that
    I can give out the number to people and that they can only
    charge calls to my phone on the Call-Me card.

3.  Thusly assured, I post this number widely, with messages
    indicating that I'm willing to talk to anyone about topic X
    on my nickel.  I can even run an ad in the newspaper if I like
    to have a record of this.

4.  Amazingly, thousands of dollars (maybe more) of calls through
    AOS's get billed to the card.  I have the hassle of fighting
    the battle but can quite defensibly show no responsibility for
    the fraud since I couldn't even know who made the calls.
    (Of course, that was before I posted this message :-)

5.  Hundreds of callers are likely to get away scot free (as long
    as they called from a pay phone) since it would be impossible
    to track down usage economically.

   <I'm dreaming now>

6.  The AOS's would then realize the errors of their ways and
    start to provide full-service or leave the business.

7.  Repeat as necessary.

Any thoughts?


Joe Konstan   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You would lose; all telcos and AOS's involved would
have a perfect right to sue you to collect, and they would win. You
have an obligation to mitigate potential and actual losses involved
and act in a reasonable way, neither of which you would be doing when
you post a calling card number of any stripe on a public computer
network and 'hope' that the number does not get abused.  You would get
sued to collect the charges if necessary because you knew or should
have known the consequences of your actions. You have no right to
deliberatly add to the confusion, which is what you would be doing.
Now that everyone has given Mr. Allerd once last kick in the pants,
let's say goodbye to him. I hope he is back online again soon.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 17:36:40 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)


John Higdon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Now if people want a movement to decree that the '1' be used to
> denote toll or long distance, fine. But this is not historical; the
> '1' has never been used for this purpose. ....

But this *is* precisely historical (in some areas, of course).  DDD
was introduced in the 416 (Toronto) area in the late 50s/early 60s.
For the reasons John Higdon lists, 1+ was required.  It was (and still
is) listed in the phone book: Long distance - dial 1.  Customers were
certainly not thinking "I dial 1 because my local CO is SxS and can't
handle things without it".  That initial 1 meant long distance, and
long distance meant money.

Now people have had thirty years or so to get used to this idea.  If
thirty years is not "historical time" in this business, I don't know
what is.

Clearly, inconsistencies have been introduced, most notably 800
numbers preceded by 1 where there is no charge.  Also there are now
other (0+) ways of dialing long distance.  But other services (976-
and 900) have been introduced in a consistent manner.  You do have to
dial 1 before a 976 number precisely because it costs money, even
though it's local in a geographic sense.

> But let us not rewrite history to serve personal visions of "how it
> ought to be".

I agree!


Tony H.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 21:19:57 PDT
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1+ For Toll vs. Area Code


This debate resurrects every year or so, but I'd like to put my two
cents back in the hat:

I believe that 1+ dialing should be available for signifying area code
follows, but that callers should have an option for detecting and
avoiding toll calls.  Basically, I see three alternatives:

1.  Class-of-service alternative -

You can order (at the same charge) 1+-for-toll or 1+-for-NPA service.
The 1+-for-toll people dial 1+NPA+number for same NPA toll-calls and
NPA+number for different NPA local calls.  All this requires is that
no NPA is used as a local prefix in an area near local (local to the
same prefix) to that NPA (i.e., if parts of 718 can call 516 locally,
no part of 718 local to those parts can have exchange 516).

Toll can be defined appropriately for the local area (any charge,
time-measured charge, etc.) and should be based on the calling plan
selected.

2.  Call rate alternative -

You should be able to dial a prefix to get rates on any call.  For
instance, 110+number or 111+NPA+number would read back the
first-minute and next minute rates before completing the call.

For local calls this is easy, since local rates are pretty simple.

For long distance calls, this requires intervention of the long
distance carrier who should be able to play "this call will be billed
at Reach-Out America rates of ..." or an applicable rate, though may
not be able to add in all of the relevant discounts.  Let the long
distance carriers compete in the info they provide.

While generally operators provide this information free, I can see
that companies would want to charge for this.  A reasonable charge of
a nickel or so per call that IS NOT THEN COMPLETED would be
reasonable.  Local companies should probably give a dozen or so free a
month.

Another nice feature would be to add in a recording telling the total
bill after completing the call.

3.  Restriction prefix -

Why not have call prefixes (i.e., *XX codes) for "complete toll calls"
and "do not attempt if toll call."  Again, either could be the
default.  In this way, if I want to call a number I see advertised,
but only if it is local, I just *XX+number.

Of course, in any event, I should be able to dial 1 + NPA + number
from anywhere local or long distance in any NPA so that autodialers
and the like can work.

All in all, these seem like such simple problems, why do phone
companies and their customers have such trouble solving them?


Joe Konstan    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 18:58:03 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  REA Information Needed


Craig Harris <motcid![e-mail]> writes:

> Could someone e-mail me a address or telephone number for the Rural
> Electrification Administration.  I need to order a manual called
> Telecommunications Engineering; a Construction Manual.

United States Dept. of Agriculture
Rural Electrification Administration
Washington, DC 20250

REA manuals are normally sold by:

Superintendent of Documents
US Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20402

These addresses are from a REA letterhead.  I believe the ZIP code is
unique to these departments, so no street address is needed.  If you
just need to look at a copy of the manual, try contacting a REA sub'ed
telco.  I've always been able to borrow copies from Contel.  I am not
sure whether GTE uses REA manuals, of if they have produced their own
in agreement with REA specs as Altel has.

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

From: Todd Inch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Line Status Indicator Box
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 19:51:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Proctor & Associates) writes:

> [e-mail] writes:

>>> I am sharing a telephone line with several other individuals that we
>>> use in an async dial-up situation with a separate modem on each PC.
>>> ... or any suggestions you have for our situation.

> [e-mail] writes:

>> If you got the little Proctor exclusion jobbies that only let one
>> phone have the line at a time you would be all set. Try 800 info.

If you're into cheap, easy, and good availability, Rat Shack sells a
little answering machine silencer box which does the same thing -- it
won't connect a given device to the phone line if the line's already
in use.  They say you can put one on each device if you want total
mutual exclusion.  It looks like a surface-mount modular wall jack
with a 4" modular cord sticking out.  Simply plug your device into the
jack.

I use one of these here at work to disconnect Line 5 from the company
key (phone) system when we want to make outgoing modem calls from the
same phone line.  Of course we have to check that nobody's on line 5
first, and I warned people that if this line is dead it just mean's
I'm using it.

These sell for about $12 or $15, but were on a good sale a few months
ago.

I'm sure, of course, that Proctor makes better and more featured
units, but if you're into cheap and easy ...

Of course, my major gripe with Rat Shack is that as soon as you
realize they stock something you use occasionally, they discontinue
that item.  :-(

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 02:17:19 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches


Concerning how digital switches switch voice signals, lars@spectrum.
cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes:

> The way it was explained to me, each line card with its ADC and DAC
> (that's Analog-to-Digital Converter and Digital-to-Analog Converter)
> shows up as a memory location. So the switching processor basically
> scans all the ADC input byte locations, and for each one it looks up
> which other channel this one is connected to, and stores the digitized
> value into the DAC output for THAT channel. This is of course the
> simple part ... the hard part is updating that table of who goes with
> whom.

I would doubt that the CPU actually moves each voice byte around
explicitly.  For a switch with 10000 lines, that's 10,000 bytes 56,000
time a second, or 56,000,000 byte moves per second.  I don't think the
CPU can handle that, certainly not a CPU slightly less powerful than a
Vax 11/780.

I was looking through a Mitel data book one day when I came across a
couple parts designed for digital switching systems.  One was a
"codec", a combination ADC and DAC.  Its digital input and output was
serial, coming as periodic bursts.  64 of these chips could be
connected to a common bus, with each using a different time slot for
its data.

Then there was a switch chip.  This took 16 or 32 of these buses as
I/O.  It could take any byte coming in on any time slot of any input
bus and send it out on any time slot of any output bus.  With 16
buses, that gives you a 1024 x 1024 crosspoint switch in *one* chip --
very slick.


Steve Gaarder                   Ithaca, N.Y., USA
[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #727
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20272;
          13 Sep 91 2:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28878;
          13 Sep 91 1:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04071;
          12 Sep 91 23:56 CDT
Date:     Thu, 12 Sep 91 23:38:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #728
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Sep 91 23:37:56 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 728

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Major Rate Increases Being Proposed by Pacific and GTE [Lauren Weinstein]
    ATM Networks at Risk if ATMs Located in Casinos [John R. Covert]
    A Little "Gossip" About CinBell and Proctor & Gamble [Leonard A. Jaffe]
    WANTED: Ground Start Adaptor for Single Line Phone [William Degnan]
    Real Time Voice on Ethernet [Vinay Kumar]
    NPA 510 From PBX in San Jose [Bruce Schlobohm]
    MCI VisaPhone [Carol Springs]
    SLIP to WAN to LAN  [Bob Fabbio]
    Is GTE Not Totally Beefed? [Nick Sayer]
    A Quirk of the Dutch PTT [Dik T. Winter]
    Cellular Under Scrutiny [Dave Leibold]
    More Pizza, Marketing Research and Telecom (Soap Box) [Dennis Blyth]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 02:11:03 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Major Rate Increases Being Proposed by Pacific and GTE


While details are very sketchy at this time, it appears that later
this month both PacBell and GTE California will be submitting major
rate restructuring proposals to the California PUC.  Officially at
this point, all they are saying is that they will involve three basic
issues:

1) Whether or not there should be competition for intra-LATA toll
   traffic.

2) Proposals to lower telco provided intra-LATA toll charges.

3) Increases in basic service fees.

Care to bet that (3) is going to be the big event?  This has all the
appearances of a major proposal, with several rounds of hearings
scheduled around the state, leading up to decisions around May, 1991.
They're even using the word "major" in their initial writeups.

I suspect (but I hope I'm wrong!) that this is going to be the start
of the big push to dismantle flat rate residential service, through a
restructing of rates to make flat rate service exceedingly expensive
(to push subs over to measured), and then to dissolve flat rate
entirely.  I originally theorized that the big push for this would be
in the 1992 time frame, since by then the vast majority of COs in
California metro areas would be electronic, and capable of handling
local call billing easily for all subscribers.

Details should start appearing later this month.

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe this is just going to be an "innocuous"
incremental rate increase.  But as they say, "I have a bad feeling
about this ..."

California phone users: watch your bill inserts!  You may really want
to stay on top of this one!

 --Lauren--

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 05:53:28 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  11-Sep-1991 0856" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATM Networks at Risk if ATMs Located in Casinos


Citing a law which states that "a contract to repay money knowingly
lent for gambling is void", the Massachusetts Court of Appeals has
held that a couple who took out a $5500 Master Card cash advance from
an ATM located in the gambling pit of an Atlantic City casino need not
repay the loan.

The card was issued by a Connecticut subsidiary of Shawmut.  The court
held that Connecticut law applied in the case.  Both Connecticut and
Massachusetts have identical statutes.

ATMs in gambling pits are common in Atlantic City.  The ruling, if
left standing, may spell serious trouble for banks and ATM networks.

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

From:  Leonard A Jaffe <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Little "Gossip" About CinBell and Proctor & Gamble
Date: 11 Sep 91 12:30:56 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


Over dinner last night, I mentioned some of the articles I've been
seeing lately about P & G's apology to its employees.  My wife then
told me that she'd been talking to a friend who's parents work for
CinBel.  This friend told her that CinBel was not pleased to have its
records subpoened,and although P & G asked only for records for
specific phone numbers, CinBel gave them the whole lump to sort
through out of spite (or whatever emotion covers this sort of thing).

Interesting hearsay ... hmmmm ...


Len Jaffe -       Consulting Engineer        - UNIFY Corporation
On assignment at the DLA in Columbus, OH
[e-mail]            All Conceivable Disclaimers Apply

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

From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Sep 91  00:13:53
Subject: WANTED: Ground Start Adaptor for Single Line Phone


On <Sep 09 22:00> Proctor & Associates ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I am looking for a simple device that will allow a single line phone
> to be temporarily connected to a PBX ground start line.  It does
> not need to generate ringing voltage to the phone.

Simple? How about a two foot piece of cross-connect wire? Probably
some on the floor at the frame. Too simple? How about a single-pole,
single-throw, normally open, momentary contact pushbutton installed
between one leg and ground?


Origin: Private Line - Stealth Opus in Austin (1:382/39.0)
William Degnan,  Communications Network Solutions
P.O. Drawer 9530       | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530  | ![e-mail]  | Voice [phone]

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

From: Vinay Kumar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Real Time Voice on Ethernet
Date: 11 Sep 91 18:14:57 GMT


Has anyone done any research/development/implementation work involving
implementing real time voice on UNIX, TCPIP workstation platform over
an Ethernet?  What is the level of comlexity and effort involved? Any
pointers to some free ftp sites for such a software would be welcome.
Any pointers to relevant literature, any experiences. I plan to do this
for my Masters Degree project.

Also, how about implementing real time voice over ISDN, any experiences?


Thanks,

Vinay Kumar   Graduate Research Assistant
Concurrent Engg. Research Centre  (304)-293-7226  [e-mail]

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

From: Bruce Schlobohm <[e-mail]>
Subject: NPA 510 From PBX in San Jose
Date: 11 Sep 91 22:48:40 GMT
Organization: Unisys Unix Systems Group, San Jose, CA


Here's a slightly different twist to the problems with dialing NPA 510.

Last week I tried calling home which is in the East Bay, 510 area.
This was while I was here at work, where we have (I'm told) an AT&T
Series 85 PBX.  Immediately after dialing the number (9 + 510 + 791 +
XXXX) I was greeted with a fast busy tone.

Having read the TELECOM Digest, I knew that 510 was working, so I
checked with our in-house telecom people, and discovered that sure
enough, they "forgot" to allow 510 as a valid NPA for billing
purposes!

I think I'll send them reminders when 310 and 410 come into existence.


Bruce Schlobohm    [e-mail]

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

From: Carol Springs <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI VisaPhone
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 19:26:00 EDT


Having decided I can't live without yet another calling card, I
decided to return the flyer in my latest Visa bill and sign up for MCI
VisaPhone.  (After all, they said subscribers are charged only for
calls made.)  Today I received my VisaPhone card, which features a
really nifty hologram of a globe "orbited" by a handset and its cord,
along with a full description of the service and rates.  I thought I'd
pass the latter on to Digest readers.

   (From "Helpful Information")

   Each month prior to [your] receiving your Visa statement, MCI will
   send you a Call Detail Summary listing all of your long distance
   calls, including the date, time, duration, and cost.  The total
   charges for your VisaPhone Service will then appear on your Visa
   statement.

   (From "Terms and Conditions")

   Domestic VisaPhone Calling Card calls are charged at the following
   flat per minute rates:

   18 cents per minute for weekday calling -- Monday through Friday
     from 8am to 5pm

   13 cents per minute for evening calling -- Monday through Friday
     from 5pm to 11pm, and Sunday from 5pm to 11pm

   10 cents per minute for night and weekend calling -- Monday
     through Friday from 11pm to 8am, all day Saturday, and Sunday
     until 5pm and from 11pm until 8am Monday morning

   Each VisaPhone Calling Card call includes a fixed surcharge above
   the per minute rate specified above.  VisaPhone Calling Card
   surcharges are $.70 for domestic calls using touch-tone and rotary
   phones, $1.75 for domestic operator-assisted station-to-station
   and third-party billing calls, and $3.50 for domestic operator-
   assisted person-to-person calls.  International calling card calls
   and MCI CALL USA calls are billed at MCI's regular international
   calling card rates and include a surcharge of $.75 for Canadian
   calls, $1.25 for international calls from touch-tone phones in the
   U.S. using our national access number ... and $2.00 for MCI CALL
   USA calls.  There is no surcharge if your call is not completed.


The VisaPhone card includes an 800 access number.  You wait for the
tone, enter 0 and the phone number, then wait for the second tone and
enter your Visa card number followed by a four-digit PIN.  The use of
the # button for additional touch-tone calls is supported.

Best of all, MCI hasn't slammed my home long distance service.


Carol Springs   [e-mail]

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

From: Bob Fabbio <[e-mail]>
Subject: SLIP to WAN to LAN
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 01:30:39 GMT


MEAD has PC's running SLIP or PPP out to 9600 baud modems.  In
addition, MEAD has a X.25 WAN which today does not understand SLIP or
PPP.  We want the PC's to send IP packets over the WAN to a TCP/IP LAN
in Dayton.

We are looking for any insight people may have for a high performance
solution to this kind of telecommunications problem.

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

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is GTE Not Totally Beefed?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA
Date: 12 Sep 1991 03:20:53 UTC


I am moving (ASAP) to Santa Clara County, CA. So far, I've found some
wonderful places, but each has turned out to have some sort of
disadvantage that keeps me from taking it. But let me cut to the
chase. One particular house on the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz county
boundery south of Los Altos sounded particularly fine, until the dread
news was revealed: It was in GTE territory.

With a hard-to-pinpoint sense of unease, I called GTE's 1-800 number.
Suffice to say, the silly person I got on the other end was unable to
answer even the most trivial questions (after asking one particular
question she said she was putting me on hold and disconnected me).
Gee. No, GTE.

So I turn to Telecom.

I have a Unix box. I open it up to the public as a public access Unix
system. That means a newsfeed, which means like three to five hours a
day of connect time to one or two numbers.  Unless this can be
achieved with untimed calls, there's probably no point. With that in
mind:

1. When crossing the GTE/Pac$Bell boundary, must I use an IXC?  If so,
then there's no point in continuing this exercise.

2. Does GTE have unmeasured (no charge per minute or per call inside a
radius) service? Untimed? How much?

3. How far does this radius extend?

4. Is my impression of GTE as total phone hell unjust?


Nick Sayer   [e-mail]   N6QQQ   209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

From: "Dik T. Winter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Quirk of the Dutch PTT
Date: 12 Sep 91 00:00:14 GMT
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam


Normally when assigning DID numbers the Dutch PTT assigns a group of
numbers from the standard set of numbers (just like in the US).
However, not always, once they did assign a complete area-code to a
company!  Hoogovens Steel, area code 02514.


dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 20:19:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Under Scrutiny


 From the past few days in the {Sun-Sentinel} there is word that a
Florida Senate Subcommittee wants to look into regulation of the
cellular industry. Currently, there are two carriers of cellular, Bell
South Mobility and Cellular One. The FCC has ruled that there can only
be two celluar carriers in a given region, one of which is tied to the
regional telephone company (BellSouth Mobility is linked to Southern
Bell). Meanwhile, resellers of cellular services are crying the blues,
stating that they are being squeezed and undercut by the duopoly
situation.

No regional figures were released by the cellular industry, but
nationwide numbers indicate 5.3 million subscribers.

The Senate staff study should be ready by the time the Florida
Legislature re-opens in January '92. Debate is now going on as to
whether state regulation of cellular is needed, or whether the market
should be left untouched by Florida.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]  (and others)--
Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:3609/1
UUCP: !djcl   INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 11:13:47 -0400
From: Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Pizza; Marketing Research and Telecom (Soap Box)


[Moderator's Note: An article similar to the one below was returned
unused to Mr. Blyth. He took issue with me for declining his article.
He response to my rejection is printed below. PAT]

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

(Submitted after an article about pizza and mystery shopping marketing
research that was advertised an promoted with an 800 number was rejected
by PAT.)

Sometimes I think the news on the net is too serious.  My posts about
pizza were intended to both inform (because they are using the
telephone as a tool to market pizza and improve pizza delivery service
using ISDN) AND educate (basic marketing / pricing principles) and
entertain (since 17% of the adult population say pizza is 'one of my
favorite' foods).

When I submit a post, I'm trying to make marketing points, not
technical points, after all, I don't have any technical telecom
experience.

IMHO, the fact that an 800 number was advertised and then was always
busy and when it wasn't busy it would ring steady for five or ten
minutes at a time without being answered IS related to telecom.  But
that was years ago, I admit.  OK, so what, lots of companies appear to
do that with their 800 lines.  It infuriates customers, and costs
money, but so what?  That unfortunately is the attitude.

(climb on soap box / pulpit)

Another thing: most companies in the computer and telecom industries
are NOT marketing oriented, and I am trying to use my posts to stress
the importance of things like customer satisfaction, marketing
research, developing products -- not just because they have the latest
technology bells and whistles -- but because they meet some consumer
need.  Remember the CONSUMER is KING, (not just our Moderator, PAT.)  :-)

Right now, there are a lot of computer firms not making money, and
just last week NCR disclosed that we will not achieve by a 'material
amount' our forecasts that AT&T based its purchase upon.  We have an
excellent product program, but right now the market is extremely
competitive as reported in recent WSJ article.  In Europe, IBM, DEC,
NCR, ICL and Olivetti are profitable just now, the rest are not
believed to be (according to industry consultants/analysts).  Both IBM
and DEC are downsizing in Europe, to the tune of thousands of
employees.

Why are computer firms not making money?  Possibly too many 'me, too'
products.  Too many competitors chasing too little business (improper
forecasting techniques used -- because not enough marketing research
was done or improper marketing research was done).  I contend the
telecom and computer industries don't know how to do marketing
research.  And that topic should be a discussion thread in the usenet
news somewhere.

If comp.telecom is not the appropriate place to post information like
this, then *please* advise if there *is* an appropriate place on the
net to share these insights.  I thought that telecom people *would* be
interested in learning more about the computer business side of
things, due to the acquisition by AT&T and hints by RBOC people of
computer interest.  Am I wrong?

(step down from soap box)

Unfortunately, nobody has accepted the challenge to compare telecom
inflation to pizza inflation on a statistical basis. :-(


Dennis Blyth, Marketing Research, NCR Europe Group
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #728
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21170;
          13 Sep 91 3:40 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24396;
          13 Sep 91 2:11 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28878;
          13 Sep 91 1:05 CDT
Date:     Fri, 13 Sep 91 0:54:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #729
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 Sep 91 00:54:05 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 729

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Help - Need Pointers to Equipment and Line Information [Mike Morris]
    Roomate From Hell Runs Up 900-Number Bill! [Steve Thornton]
    Incoming WATS Information [Sean McLinden]
    AOS Validation (at Least Ours) [Jim Allard]
    New AT&T 800 Srevice [[e-mail]]
    New Fax/Modem Chips [Roger Clark Swann]
    A New Cordless Headset [Roger Clark Swann]
    Computer Security and ISDN - Need Information [Gary N. Griswold]
    Metromedia - Phone Bills on a Floppy? [David Leibold]
    And You Think >YOUR< Cellular Rates Are High? :-( [Jack Winslade]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help - Need Pointers to Equipment and Line Information
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 07:45:24 GMT


I'd like the use of the net.wisdom to help me find three things:

Item 1: Technical info on a NEC 1648 Electronic Key System and the
associated cards and instruments (specifically the "EP" card and the
"16-1" instrument).

About two years ago I was conned into dismantling a NEC 1648 EKS and
then reinstalling it after some serious remodeling of a building was
done (among other things the phone closet was relocated upstairs.)
Now I am called every time some adds, moves or programming changes
need to be done (curious: what is the going rate for this kind of
on-site work?).  Well, I have no technical info except a bad copy of
several pages from a programming manual.  Did NEC ever release
schematics?  Or a hardware manual of any kind?  Or a troubleshooting
manual??  Or <shudder> a source listing of the Z-80 firmware?  I need
some source of a little technical info on the internals of a NEC 1648
EKS.

The current problem is a real $%&@! without decent manuals: When
someone pages on the overhead speakers it's heard (very loudly) by
anybody on hold (drowns out the music-on-hold).

Ideally I'd like to repair the card / problem rather than just buy a
new card, as the outfit is a out-of-pocket funded start-up and still
in it's growing stages (which explains why they are using a third-hand
oversized phone system maintained by a friend of a friend for free).

Item 2: I need a pointer to a source of used Tellabs / Westom / Westel
(and other compatible brands) is needed.  I'm trying to locate three
"4006" cards - they are apparently a compressing amplifier.  I'm also
trying to locate some "bantam" plugs so I can make up some patch cords
and test jigs.  I'm also told that a single card with ring detect, 2w
to 4w conversion, off-hook control, loop current detection, etc is
available i.e. a complete one-card interface to the PSTN.  Down the
road I'm going to need a few SF signalling transciever cards as well.

Item 3: Information on how to order a 4w loop-start phone line and
what it will cost.  I've been told it can be done as residential
service, and was given a legitimate San Francisco residential phone
number (it's a 415-843 number) to use as a "model" (the person said
"tell Pacific Bell to 'make one of these'".  The current SF number is
used as the PSTN port of an amateur radio radio system interconnect,
and the fact that it is 4w makes the interconnecting hardware very
simple.  I'm wondering what something like that costs, and how to
order it.  Or is it only available in ground-start?  For what it is
worth, it will be ordered out in GTE territory, and another one later
on in Pacific Bell territory.


Mike Morris   WA6ILQ   PO Box 1130   Arcadia, CA. 91077  818-447-7052 eves
All opinions must be my own since nobody pays me enough to be their
mouthpiece...

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 09:16:22 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill!


I can't resist adding my two cents. I normally agree with Mr. Higdon
on everything, but I'm curious how he, or anyone, would handle this
one.

Recently I lived in a house with a bunch of good people. None of us
ever dialed 1-900-anything, and most of us weren't even dimly aware of
this type of service. Unfortunately, one of us left and we had to
replace him on short notice with a young man who turned out to be the
Roommate From Hell. He stole from us, never paid his share of the rent
or other bills, etc. He broke up the household, and as I was cleaning
up the mess he left when he left, I found a pile of glossy ads for
various Dial-A-Slut services under his bed, all at $2 or $4 a minute.
The phone is in my name. I have every reason to suspect that he made
lots of calls. I haven't got our final Sprint bill yet, but I dread
it.

Now, since he was a legitimate (though evil) member of the household,
and he was in theory entitled to use the phone, I'm guessing that
Sprint won't even listen to my complaint. This bozo blew out of town
with no forwarding address (he's now wanted by the police for check
forgery) and I'm holding the bag. I'm as much in favor of
character-building and learning-experiences and whatnot as anyone, but
this could easily be a $500 bill that I simply cannot afford to pay.

It is safe to say that he stole those 900 "services". But how do you
draw the line -- did he steal them from me, Sprint, or the service,
uh, providers? (The opinion that the 900 people and Sprint both merit
a good, er, screwing more than I do doesn't have a lot of weight.) Do
I have any grounds at all for withholding payment for these calls when
they show up? I kept the ads, for evidential purposes only.


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


[Moderator's Note: He stole from you, by abusing your good credit with
Sprint and the local telco. It is your problem now, for as the tariff
plainly states, you are responsible for the use of your instruments.
You *might* get Sprint to take pity this once, and condescend to your
inability and/or unwillingness to pay. But as you suspect, don't count
on it. Like ignorant white people in the south three decades ago
talking about black people,  Sprint's response may be that 'all
roomates look the same to them ...'   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 11:47:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sean McLinden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Incoming WATS Information


Here's a puzzle. Any help would be appreciated.

I just received a call fqrom someone who left only a name and a message
stating "He'll know what this is about." Obviously, I don't. With some
prompting the caller left a phone number:

    800-441-0996

which, of course, cannot be dialed from my (412) area code. 800
directory assistance (a misnomer in all senses) cannot (will not) tell
me to whom the number belongs and will not even tell me from what area
codes it can be dialed. The local (Bell of Pennsylvania) operators
cannot (or will not) consider re-routing the call through another area
in order to complete it.

I have considered calling friends in other areas to see if they can
complete the call. My question is: Is there another way to reach this
number with or without the assistance of one or more operators?


Thanks.

Sean McLinden   Medical Applications Group   Information Technology Center


[Moderator's Note: The guy is a goofus. Forget it.   PAT]

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

Subject: AOS Validation (at Least Ours)
Date: 12 Sep 91 11:58:46 EDT (Thu)
From: [e-mail]


John (the protector of all-expert on everything telcom) Higdon writes:

> You mean that you use some "call attempt" scam to determine if an AT&T
> card is billable.  Sometimes you must use this scam because the AT&T
> card offered has no embedded phone number. ..

[I deleted John's usual attack on the LEC's and a bunch of stuff he
tried in his self-appointed role of telcom police.]

John, John, for a moment, try to accept the fact that at least one AOS
(ECI) worked very hard to be a law-abiding telcom citizen.  Further, I
suggest you bring yourself up-to-date on the way us "good guys" do
(did) business.

We use state-of-the-art equipment.  Northern Telecom DMS-250
Supernode, with EOPS software for the operator positions.  (This is an
NT adaptation of the TOPS software of which many of you are familiar.)
Operator positions receive information both from the switch and ANI
specific (customer provided) information via Novell fileservers.
Operator position and database software are NT proprietary,
specifically designed for the AOS industry.  This is what allows us to
provide the specific services AT&T wasn't / isn't providing.

Validation for BNS, calling cards, and major credit cards is via an
X.25 link to a provider in Ft. Lauderdale called CARD*TEL.  They in
turn are connected to a number of databases (i.e., US WEST) with
essentially on-line access to LEC BNS and card status flags.  Of
course we DO NOT have access to AT&T's database and frankly don't need
it because their CIID and other proprietary cards are NOT BILLABLE.

CARD*TEL's software is smart enough to determine that the query we
sent (at 4.3 cents per) could not be found.  Or more to the point,
there are easy ways for them to determine this is another carrier's
proprietary card.  In that case we get a response (usually in 1.5
seconds) indicating the card can't be billed, at which point we ask
what type of card the caller is using and provide instructions for
reaching their carrier of choice.  Now, what could possibly be more
fair? (Other than shoving us all out of business.)

We have never used the scam you mention, although I know of a couple
COCOT operators who have, have been caught, and mightily sued by AT&T.
I am also aware of an AOS (one of the first in the business) who
actually did what you suggest.  As far as I know, they don't do so
anymore, but they do charge outrageous rates, and are currently in
serious financial trouble.

I am not responsible for the illegal and unethical acts of everyone in
the AOS business.  The three other companies I routinely deal with use
exactly the same equipment and generally the same policies.

[end of speech]

Pat, thanks for the kind words and suggestions.  I hope to be back
sometime in the near future as a TELECOM Digest subscriber.  Someone,
for God's sake must provide a balance on this issue, at least until
it's no longer an issue.  BTW, my sysadm tells me we should still be
able to receive mail through Monday, 9/16.  If I don't respond to your
mail or postings to the Digest, believe me it's not because I don't
have an answer.


Jim Allard <[e-mail]> THE BOTTOM FEEDER (for just a little longer)

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Sep 12 13:27:50 EST 1991
Subject: New AT&T 800 Service


On August 1, 1991, AT&T filed a new toll-free 800 service called AT&T
800 STARTERLINE(sm).  ((FCC PASSED)) AT&T 800 STARTERLINE(sm) Service
is an inbound toll free switched-access service that, like 800
READYLINE, will terminate on an existing Plain Old Telephone Service
(POTS) line.

 - The 30 minute AT&T 800 Assurance Policy is inherent in AT&T
   STARTERLINE.

 - Directory Assistance is available with AT&T 800.

 - Billing in 6second increments.

Billing and Pricing:  MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGES 6.00
                      NON-RECURRING CHARGES  30.00
                      Approximatly 30-31 cents per minute.

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: New Fax / Modem Chips
Date: 12 Sep 91 04:16:20 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


{Electronic Engingering Times}, Monday Sept 9, 1991 - Issue 658 has an
article by John Thompson, detailing a new generation of FAX/Modem chip
sets that include many new features. The additional features include
caller identification, integrated fax, and voice capability. The new
modem sets are doing all this with existing analog telephone lines,
rivaling ISDN at a very practical level. The three vendors quoted in
the article are: Yamaha Systems Technology Division, Phylon, Inc., &
Sierra Semiconductor. The result of all this activity is the prospect
of high-performance modems in portable computers that can serve as a
fax, a data communications device and even a standard telephone. With
the low chip set pricing, ($40-$50) the capabilities could be combined
at a fraction of the cost of ISDN equip.

The article then goes on to quote some analyst types as saying this
may spell the demise of narrowband ISDN ...


    Roger Swann      email:  [e-mail]
         @           fax:    [phone]
The Boeing Company   voice:  206-773-5491

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: A New Cordless Headset
Date: 12 Sep 91 04:08:07 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


The Sept 9, 1991 issue of {Eletronic Engineering Times} has a item on
page 19, with the news releases, that may be of interest here.

[ photo with the following caption ]

FREE AT LAST! This cordless headset, purported to be the world's
first, allows the user to move freely about within 50 feet of the base
unit.  Hello Direct Inc. (San Jose, Calif.), which had the Palo Alto
Design Group (PADG) design the product, includes a sleek, dark gray,
7.5-oz.  headset and a matching desk base. The base serves as the
headset holder and recharger, and it can be plugged into any modular
telephone jack.  PADG designed a triangular headband to distribute the
headset's weight proportionally over the head. The HelloSet Cordless
uses the newly available 900-MHz frequency authorized by the FCC. It
provides 32-channel capability, one of which is automatically selected
for best performance.  HelloSet is available from Hello Direct for
$399.  [end text]

The photo shows a mono ear piece with wide headband and a tiny boom
mic, which swings up to allow the headset to drop into the base stand.
The big difference this unit has over previous ones, is that there is
no seperate transceiver pack, everything is in the headset. No wires
or cords.


    Roger Swann       email:  [e-mail]
         @            fax:    [phone]
The Boeing Company    voice:  206-773-5491

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

From: "Gary N. Griswold" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Computer Security and ISDN - Need Information
Date: 11 Sep 91 16:34:04 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: InfoLogic Software, Inc.


Hello,

Now that the telephone companies are starting to sell ISDN (Integrated
Services Digital Network), what are the computer security issues
related to plugging an ISDN wire into ports on our computers?

Are the issues the same as with TCP and OSI?  Or are they easier of
more difficult to deal with?  Does the ISDN 2B+D channel construction
pose a new kind of threat because the D channel is always open to send
and receive connection signals?

Please reply to [e-mail]


Thanks,

Gary N. Griswold           [e-mail]
InfoLogic Software, Inc.   1223 Peoples Avenue  Troy, NY  12180
FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 17:16:13 -0400
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Metromedia - Phone Bills on a Floppy?


I heard an ad for Metromedia on one of the Florida radio stations
today; it seems that they now offer a service that puts billing
information on a floppy for customers who want a machine-readable
phone bill. This would presumably allow for easy processing of costs
and calls in a PC or other system. Perhaps the next step is to e-mail
phone bills to customers?


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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 21:39:02 cst
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: And You Think >YOUR< Cellular Rates Are High? :-(
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


According to the {Omaha World-Herald} in their report on the new
cellular telephone system in Leningrad [sic] which is a joint venture
of US West and others, the service will cost $195.00 per month for
access, which includes 210 minutes of calling, and a one-time
connection fee of $1995.00 !!!  The article states that additional
minutes will cost $.65 each and that phones will lease for $50-$75 per
month.

I see that the fair citizens of St. Petersburg have been introduced to
the capitalist tradition known as 'gouging'.  ;-)

Now if we can get Centel over there in a 'duopoly', maybe the price
will drop to only $175.00 or so per month.  ;-) ;-)


Good Day!        JSW

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #729
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00331;
          14 Sep 91 15:15 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11410;
          14 Sep 91 1:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29091;
          14 Sep 91 0:18 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Sep 91 0:07:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #730
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Sep 91 00:07:16 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 730

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Work Manager Program Used by Baby Bells [Mike Willey]
    Computer Based Caller-ID [Paul J. Michell]
    Advice Wanted on Purchasing Cellular Phone [[e-mail]
    Why Couldn't I Use USA Direct? [David McKellar]
    Still a Few Holes in Telecom Glossary [Jerry J. Anderson]
    What is DMS *28 as Opposed to FMR? [David E. Sheafer]
    AT&T Mail: Internet to X.400 (was Problem Reaching AT&T Mail) [Brad Hicks]
    Three Way Calling Question [Marshal Perlman]
    Caller-ID Box Sought [Marcus Leech]
    Toll Free / Tolled List Revision Underway [Dave Leibold]
    Phone Company's Line Testing Voltage [Jon Sreekanth]
    "Line's Engaged" [Carl Moore]
    Just Desserts [Ken Jongsma]
    PacBell Gets to John Higdon! [Charles Hoequist]
    Telesphere Victim of Voicemail Hacking! [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: mike@uunet!ctbilbo (Mike Willey)
Subject: Work Manager Program Used by Baby Bells
Organization: Communications Technology Corporation Dallas, Texas
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 20:30:38 GMT


My company has asked me to put together a proposal for a system that
will synchronize databases that reside on two or more mainframe
systems on a transaction by transaction basis.  I am now trying to
perform a sanity check on my estimates.

A system that I am familiar with that performs roughly the same
function in Work Manager, which some of the Baby Bell companies use to
synchronize systems such as COSMOS, LFACS, LMOS and CRIS.  I am hoping
that someone who reads this news group will be familiar with this
project and can give me an idea, within an order of magnitude, of the
level of effort it took to develop this system.

If that information is in any way proprietary, please do not send it!

If the information is not proprietary please email me a response.

Thank in advance.


Mike Willey   Communication Technology Corporation   Dallas, Texas

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Computer Based Caller ID
Date: 12 Sep 91 23:20:40 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services


Could someone please email me the names, addresses, and perhaps phone
numbers of some companies that manufacture computer interfaces for the
caller id information.  Typically this would be a software package
which has a database and also a RS232 adapter to hook up to the
telephone line.  Also, if anyone knows of any private companies that
manufacture caller id boxes (no computer interface), could you please
post that information?

The only package I know of now is the Caller-ID+ manufactured by
Rochelle Communications of Austin, TX, which retails for $295.00

Any information would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Paul J. Michell     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Advice Wanted on Purchasing Cellular Phone
Date: 13 Sep 91 00:58:24 GMT
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, Ca.


I would like to purchase a hand-held cellular phone and would like to
know if there were any articles posted about this subject? Experiences
and opinions would also be helpful.


Thanks,

Kenny


[Moderator's Note: There have been many articles here in the past
about cellular handheld phones. Maybe a couple readers with a specific
interest in the topic will pass along appropriate messages to you.  PAT]

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

From: David McKellar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Couldn't I Use USA Direct?
Reply-To: David McKellar <[e-mail]>
Organization: DMN
Date:     Thu, 12 Sep 1991 12:49:44 -0400


I was in Beijing, China a while ago and wanted to place a collect call
to Canada.  I located one of those country direct phones that has a
button for each country you can call.  There was no Canada button but
there was one for USA.  I wasn't keen on trying the Chinese operator
so I tried USA Direct -- after all Canada and the states have the same
number space (or whatever the official term is).

It was actually kind of funny, I told the American operator the number
I wanted and within a few seconds he came back to me with a mock
scolding voice: "Tisk, tisk that's in Canada this is *USA* Direct  :-)".

I wonder if I could have done this if I had had an AT&T credit card.

There may be a Canada Direct in China in a few years, but how long
will Jamicians have to wait?

Does anybody have a definitive answer on why USA Direct couldn't
handle my call?

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

From: "Jerry J. Anderson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Still a Few Holes in Telecom Glossary
Date: 12 Sep 91 19:54:56 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University


I am trying to develop a "Glossary of Telecom Terms" and am nearly
done, but there are still some holes and some terms I'm uncertain of.
If you can fill in any of these holes, please mail your
additions/corrections to:

    [e-mail]

When the glossary is finished I will post it.  Many thanks.

ADPCM           ? ? Pulse Coded Modulation?
ALATA           ? Local Access and Transport Area?
ANSI/EIA (RS)   American National Standards Institute/? ? ? (? ?)?
BABT
BCF
CSU
DMD
DMERT           Dual(?) Multi-Emulator Real-Time (operating system for
                ESS CPU, the 3B-20D, a dual 3B-20S)?
DSU
DTE
EIA
EMF
ENFIA           ? ? ? ? ? (Feature Group B - Trunk Side termination for
                LD carriers)?
EPEC            ? ? Equipment Code (AT&T)?
FEMF            Foreign ? ? ? (q.v.) (a.k.a. Cross Battery)?
Generic 2       telephone switch (or operating system for a switch?)?
GTENW           General Telephone and Electric NorthWest?
G2              Generic 2 telephone switch (or operating system for a
                switch?)?
ILM
IMTS
IXO             ? ? ? (pager protocol)?
IXO/TAP         ? ? ?/? ? ? (pager protocol)?
LDX             Long Distance eXtender?
MCU
NAM             Name and Address Module (cellular phone changeable ROM)?
NAM             Number Assignment Module (cellular phone changeable ROM)?
NANP
NPA             Non-Public Address?
NPA             Number Plan Area (Area Code?)?
NSB             National Standards Bureau?
NTP
OP              Other Place?  Off Premises?
OR
OSDS            Operating System ? ? (operating system for ESS modules)?
PCC
PCME            Packet Circuit Multiplication Equipment?
PIC             Plastic/Polyethelene Insulated Cable?
PTAT            ? ? ? ? (first fiber-optic cable to Japan)?
QRSS
REVAC           some kind of vendor code?
RHBC
RNA
SCR
SLATA           ? Local Access and Transport Area?
SLO
SPC
STD
TAT-8           ? ? ?-8 (first fiber-optic cable to Europe)?
TIA
TWX
UAE
VMAAP
VOX
VSAT            Very Small Aperature ?
X.25/HDLC       X.25 High-level Data Link Control (synchronous
                communications?)?
10xxx           "feature group D" equal access inter-exchange carrier
                code long distance calling port?


[Moderator's Note: Have you checked the various glossary files already
in the Telecom Archives and compared those entries against your list?
Get them using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu.  PAT]

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

From: David E. Sheafer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: What is DMS *28 as Opposed to FMR
Date: 12 Sep 91 14:07:34 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


I read before about something called DMS, instead of FMR.  Is this
widely available and does it only have to activated once with *28, as
opposed to FMR in which you must reactivate as you travel to through
different cellular systems?  Any information on this would be greatly
appreciated.

On a another note, Nynex Mobile New England's last brochure states
that there is no charge for activating Follow Me Roaming for Nynex
customers on other systems.


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 18:15 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Mail: Internet to X.400? (was Problem Reaching AT&T Mail)


[e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr) wrote, in part:

> Someone recently made mention of the fact that there are two
> different addresses for AT&T for mail purposes: ATTMAIL.COM and
> ATT.COM.

[e-mail] (Andy Sherman) replied, in part:

> ATTMAIL.COM is the registered domain name for the AT&T Mail service ...
> AT&T Mail is a commercially offerred electronic mail service.  The only
> Internet access provided is email service through a gateway.  There is a
> fairly large set of interconnections with other commercial electronic
> mail services, through X.400 gateways.

Which brings up a questions of mine, if y'all don't mind.

At MasterCard, it appears that we're only a few months away from using
SoftSwitch Central to connect all of our internal mail systems
together, and then to the vast world of international X.400 mail via
AT&T Mail.  Assuming our main telecom wizard might be at address C=US
ADMD=ATTMAIL PRMD=MasterCard SN=Barsch, what's his Internet address?
And if he wants to subscribe to TELECOM Digest, what X.400 address
does he send to?  Would C=US ADMD=ATTMAIL PRMD=Internet DDA=telecom-
[e-mail] work?

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 23:40:44 MDT
From: Marshal Perlman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Three Way Calling Question


I have a question for ya'...

I have three way calling where I live. Sometimes, if I accidently put
some one on the 'flip side' and hang up it will ring back. If I answer
the phone the person I was talking to will be there but if I don't
pick it up after two rings they are 'gone'.

Why does the phone do this? Why only two rings?


Thanks,

Marshal Perlman   Huntington Beach, California

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

Date: 11 Sep 91 10:36:00 EDT
From: Marcus (M.D.)Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Box Sought


I'm looking for a simple CallerID box that provides an RS-232 asynch
output.  It doesn't need a local display or memory.

Ideally, it would cost between US $40-60, as I need a number of them.

Please e-mail, and I'll summarize for the net.


Marcus Leech, 4Y11    Bell-Northern Research  |opinions expressed
[e-mail]         P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C   |are my own, and not
[e-mail]    Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 21:02:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toll-Free / Tolled List Revision Underway


Please note that I am in the process of doing a revised version of the
list of countries with their toll-free, tolled (like 976, 900)
services ... please note that if you tried to contact me about any of
this stuff from the time of 1-7 Sept, it will likely have been lost
along the way, due to holidays then. Any other submissions since the
first list some weeks back would be appreciated. Some updating has
already been done since the release of the last list.


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

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Company's Line Testing Voltage
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1991 04:23:20 GMT


When I lived in Hudson, MA, I had a commercial fax switch connected to
one of my lines. It was supposed to pick up an incoming call, and
determine if the fax carrier was present, and route the call to the
fax machine outlet.

Its algorithm for ring detection must have been borderline, because it
would quite regularly (though not daily) start ringing in the dead of
night. My theory is it was being tripped by whatever voltage the telco
puts on the line for self testing.

Does anyone have the specs for that? Such as voltage level, frequency,
number of cycles, etc? This would tell me that any gadget that wanted
to pick up an incoming call should wait for at least the amount of
time required to filter out such self test voltage. (If that's indeed
the reason).


Thanks,

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 13:52:16 EDT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Line's Engaged"


A song by the Beatles uses the line "your line's engaged", apparently
a British term for "your line's busy".  The song is "You Won't See Me"
from the Rubber Soul album released in December, 1965.

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

From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>
Subject: Just Desserts
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 20:16:22 EDT


The following was found in Bill Hancock's column in the current issue
of {Digital Review}. I thought the Digest readers might find the first
few paragraphs interesting:

I recently got a call from a computerized telephone calling system.
"Please hold the line. There is an important call waiting for you!"

Not likely. If it were important, there would be a real, honest-to-
goodness person at the other end, not some digital recording telling
me how important the call was.

Well, I decided to fight back. I recorded the message into my
Macintosh using its microphone and digitizing software. I waited for
the "important call," which turned out to be a sales pitch for
swampland somewhere, and then asked for a phone number so I could call
back for more information. The salesman, recognizing a potential fish
to reel in, gave me his phone number. I thanked him, then wrote a
little Hypercard stack that calls the salesman at least once a day and
replays his "Please hold ..." message. I travel a lot, but the Mac can
do this for me even when I am out of town. And, by using my Mac
Portable on the road with Carbon Copy, I can check on the stack while
I am away.

Isn't technology marvelous?

The best part is that I haven't gotten any calls back from the
salesman, and he doesn't know who is pestering him. He'll find out
eventually, I'm sure, but for now, the systems people at his company
are probably going nuts trying to figure out why their cute little
calling machine is calling them back all the time.



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

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

Date: 12 Sep 91 12:51:00 EDT
From: Charles Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: PacBell Gets to John Higdon!


John Higdon (at least, that's what the header said) writes:

> Quite honestly, after reading the last few months of posts, my opinion
> of Pac*Bell has improved considerably.

Okay, telecommies, this is serious. How do you think they got to John?
Money? Wimmin? Threats?  If they can make these cows moo to their
tune, _none_ of us are safe!


Charles Hoequist   |Internet: [e-mail]
BNR Inc.           | 919-991-8642
PO Box 13478
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 22:56 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Telesphere Victim of Voicemail Hacking!


[Moderator's Note: John Higdon notified me that some one or more
persons unknown apparently broke into and vandalized the voicemail
after hours mailbox of Telesphere earlier this week. Apparently it was
noted early the next morning and corrected, but for at least a few
hours during the night callers received the message below, delivered
in a pseudo feminine or falsetto voice.  PAT]

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

For your amusement, here is the text of the Telesphere message:

"Hi, you've reached Telesphere 900 services. We're out spending the
millions of dollars we stole from you. We're buying cars and boats and
taking luxury trips. So, you can leave a message but we won't get back
to you. Or you can call us and we will either be away from our desks,
in an important business meeting, or out to lunch. And to think
you people thought you'd be getting fifteen percent on signing the
papers. Hee-hee, hee-hee. [You may start your message now...]"


JH


[Moderator' Note: Well John, its funny, but it isn't funny if you get
my drift. I can't advocate voicemail (or any form of) hacking, but in
a sense, it couldn't have happened to a finer bunch of people!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #730
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00359;
          14 Sep 91 15:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28351;
          14 Sep 91 2:35 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11410;
          14 Sep 91 1:27 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Sep 91 0:54:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #731
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Sep 91 00:54:37 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 731

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telesphere Bites the Dust [Dave Niebuhr]
    Telesphere Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection [Charlie Mingo]
    CO Switching Technology [Marcus Leech]
    Bandwidth Question [handel![e-mail]]
    Area Code / Echange Software Program [Jack Decker]
    Check Digits [Bob Frankston]
    How do You Find Out if a Phone is Bugged? [Michael L. Starr]
    P&G, Telco, and Privacy [David Gast]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1991 8:53:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Niebuhr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telesphere Bites the Dust


This appeared in today's {Newsday} (9/13/91).

"Telesphere Communications Inc., one of the earliest entrants into the
900-telephone line business, has filed for protection from creditors
under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy code.

The Rockville, Md.-based company also said that it will quit providing
the 900-line service and has begun to focus on such things as operator
services.  The company said the industry has become unprofitable
because of "consumer dissatisfaction and the resulting difficulty in
collecting bills."

Telesphere has also lost ground to other players in the market, which
has begun to decline in popularity.  The decision to leave eliminates
one of four big companies in the $1 bijllion-per-year business.

Tehesphere was once considered the largest provider of adult-oriented
900 lines such as "phone sex," and had what many industry experts
consider some of the least strict rules regarding the content of
messages.

Telesphere handles technical services, billing and administrative
services for hundreds of inforomation providers on its 900-line
network.  It also provides operator services and other
telecommunications services.

The company doesn't actually create the services that go out over its
network.  For a charge, it sets up the lines for the vendors.

Telesphere's reliance on adult lines may have contributed to its
problems.  Charges for adult lines can run more than $10 a minute, but
vendors often have to resort to the courts to make delinquent
customers pay."

     -------

Good riddance as far as I'm concerned.  What started out as a good
idea in some respects was ruined by outfits like Telesphere.


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

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 13 Sep 91 02:39:13
Subject: Telesphere Files for Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Protection


I thought this article might update what is happening to Telesphere in
the bankruptcy courts.

A CHAPTER 11 FILING IS SET BY TELESPHERE

By Anthony Ramirez, {The New York Times}, September 12, 1991 at D4

    Telesphere Communications, Inc., which for weeks had resisted
a liquidation of the company sought by angry creditors, said yesterday
that it would seek protection from its creditors under Chapter 11 of
the Federal Bankruptcy Code and that it had hired a new chief
executive from a crisis-management company.

    The telecommunications company also said it would stop
providing "900-line" telephone services like "phone sex" and
horiscopes, which once producted most of its revenues, because such
services had "become increasingly unprofitible due to consumer
dissatisfaction and the resulting difficulty in collecting bills."

    In Chicago, Dennis M. O'Dea, a bankruptcy lawyer representing
a group of companies providing services to Telesphere, said the filing
was a positive development that ended "the confusion of Telesphere's
status."  But he said he was puzzled by Telesphere's termination of
its "900-line" business.  "We are rather mystified, because it must
have some value," he said.

    Telesphere, which is moving its headquarters from Oakbrook
Terrace, IL, to Rockville, MD, has posted large losses on nearly half
a billion dollars in revenues in the most recent 18 months.  In 1990,
the company lost more than $18 million, on $293 million in sales, and
in the first half of this year it lost a further $17 million on
revenues of $195 million.

    On Aug. 19, ten of Telesphere's programming suppliers filed a
petition to liquidate the company.  They contended that the company
had not paid them and that Telesphere was illegally diverting funds.
Telesphere has acknowledged slow payment because of a dispute with
local telephone companies over the "900" fees, but has denied
diverting funds.

    The company has been hurt by bad debts, slow cash flow and a
decline in the popularity of "900" services, as well as the loss of
such business to its competitors, the American Telephone and Telegraph
Corporation, the MCI Communications Corporation, and US Sprint.

    Four years ago, Telesphere pioneered "900" services and by
last year, such services acounted for 59 cents of each dollar of
Telesphere's revenue.  But more recently, revenues had dropped to less
than 35 cents of every dollar.

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

Date: 13 Sep 91 08:53:00 EDT
From: Marcus Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: CO Switching Technology


> I would doubt that the CPU actually moves each voice byte around >
> explicitly.  For a switch with 10000 lines, that's 10,000 bytes 56,000
                                                                  ^^^^^^
> time a second, or 56,000,000 byte moves per second.  I don't think the

Where do you get this number?

If you're using normal PCM codecs (which the vast majority of line
interface cards do), the sample rate is 64K*bits* per second, or
8Kbytes per second.  Which means that your number is 8192*10000 byte
moves per second -- which is still a lot of required memory bandwidth.
So that isn't the way it's done.

They way it works in the *data* switches that I'm fairly familiar with
is that there's a crosspoint memory array that is handled by a custom
FSM (Finite State Machine).  The CPUs only involvement is to tell the
crosspoint which connections to setup.  The same arrangement is
probably true of telephone switches also.

The crosspoint memory is setup like this:

There are 'N' locations in the cross point, each location is wide
enough to contain the address of a subscriber, and its data (in a data
switch, this would be 2 bits, in a telephone switch, 16-bits).  The
FSM scans this memory, and exchanges the contained data with the
subscriber that appears in the address field.

Assume for example, a switch of 256 subscribers, the crosspoint memory could
look something like this:

   Address
  +==========================================================+
  |76543210|Upstream-Data|Downstream-Data|Control-Information|
  +==========================================================+

In this example, "Upstream-Data" is data destined for the *addressed*
subscriber, and "Downstream-Data" is data destined for the
*addressing* subscriber.

The "Control-Information" would include whether or not the subscriber
was involved in a connection, and possibly other things.


Marcus Leech, 4Y11     Bell-Northern Research  |opinions expressed
[e-mail]          P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C   |are my own, and not
[e-mail]     Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs

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

From: handel![e-mail]>
Subject: Bandwidth Question
Date: 13 Sep 91 13:49:28 GMT
Reply-To: handel![e-mail]
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523


How does one estimate the number of virtual calls a circuit can
handle?  Specifically, if I have a 56Kbps line into an X.25 PSS, how
many virtual circuits can I support on that line?  For the sake of
this, let's say that half the users do interactive work and half the
users do file transfers.

We're just looking for the dimensions of the ballpark not specifics.

Thanks.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 91 20:56:00 EDT
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code / Exchange Software Program


I came across an interesting software program for MS-DOS systems on a
BBS in Milwaukee.  The filename I found it under was AC_11FEB.ZIP.  A
couple paragraphs from the documentation will explain what it does:


                              -  AC  -

                     The Comprehensive Area Code
                        and Exchange Locator

                              <11feb91>

                         (C) Copyright 1991
                         Robert K. Ricketts


     AC is a comprehensive area code, state, city (central office),
and exchange locator.  The data files accessed by AC were compressed
from the telephone company VNH tables which is nearly two megabytes of
raw data containing directory information for our country's telephone
system.  Other area code programs simply show you the state and a few
larger cities.  But AC goes WAY beyond that!

     For instance, you can locate all area codes in a state, display
the central office cities owning those area codes, and even display
all the valid exchanges belonging to the CO city!  Even podunk-hollow
will show up if it has a telephone company central office.

     You can search based on state or area code.  You can narrow the
search by specifying a city search mask.  You can search for CO cities
having a certain number of exchanges -- or search for a range of
exchanges.  You can find a city and it's state even if all you know is
the area code and phone number.  And once all this is found, you can
display either with exchanges listed or not listed.

[...Paramter detail, Example omitted...]

Operational notes

     You must minimally specify either the state or areacode to
search.  All other parameters are optional.


PLEASE NOTE:

     The cities displayed are not technically cities per se -- but
rather the telephone company's CENTRAL OFFICE designation from the VNH
tables.  As it happens, CO designators are generally the city name --
but not always.  Take the Buffalo example above.  There is no Buffalo
in texas (well, maybe some buffalo chips -- wear boots, heh heh).  The
Buffalo CO is *inside* the Houston city limits.  But the CO designator
is Buffalo.  If you make an L/D call to any exchange in that CO,
you'll see Buffalo (not Houston) on your L/D phone bill!  This may
change -- but for now, it's Buffalo!

     Also, some city names may appear to be spelled incorrectly.
Again, this is due to it being a CO designator.  If it appears to be
misspelled, it's not.  The CO is spelled that way.  This is why the
city specific parameter is a search mask - not an exact match.  It
helps you to locate a city that may not be spelled the 'regular' way.

[end of quoted documentation]

This program is shareware for the PC and the registration is $25.  The
sharware version is fully functional except that it displays "an
opening 'register-me' screen that appears randomly (approx.  50% of
the time) at the beginning of execution" until you register.  The
author's contact information is as follows:

Robert K. Ricketts   PC Consultant
P.O. Box 42086   Houston TX 77242-2086
Ph. 713/826-2629  (v-mail no answer)
BBS 713/870-1508  (thats in Buffalo, no chips here!)

Standard disclaimers apply, I don't know the author personally and
can't vouch for the accuracy of the information.  The supplied program
runs under MS-DOS but a cursory examination of the data files leads me
to believe that any competent programmer could write a program to
decode the data under other platforms.

One thing that puzzles me is, if the author had access to the V&H
data, why he didn't include that along with an exchange-to-exchange
distance calculation function.  This would have made the program
infinitely more useful.  As it is, though, it would be of great help
to those readers that have access to an MS-DOS machine and who often
have the question "where is THAT area code and exchange located?"

While I would imagine that the latest version of the program would be
found on the author's BBS, I got my copy from the County Line BBS in
West Allis, WI, telephone numbers [phone] (U.S. Robotics HST
Dual Standard modem) or [phone] (Hayes 9600).  For those with
access to Fidonet file request capability, the node numbers are
1:154/100 and 1:154/101 respectively, and the filename is
AC_11FEB.ZIP. I used the file request method so I have no idea how
much access is given to first time callers on that system.

By the way, if anyone knows where similar data WITH the V&H
coordinates is available, I'd like to hear about it.  I can't
personally do Anonymous FTP through the gateway, but even knowing that
such a thing exists might lead me to some way to get it.


Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

From: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: Check Digits
Date: 13 Sep 1991 14:41 -0400


Check digits in phone numbers are important especially with a growing
number of robot dialers.  But we needn't take the term "Check Digit"
literally.  It can be a fraction of a digit.  Thus 123-4567 might have
7 as a check digit, but 123-4564 might be a different valid number
where is 123-4565 might not be.  This is a bad example, but does make
the point that allocating a whole digit isn't necessary.

The check digit concept needn't take a whole digit.  Once we get past
the n[01]x restrictions on area codes, there is enough breathing space
in the numbering scheme to allow us to reduce the number of available
numbers by some factor to allow for check digits.

An alternative is to use check digits on new exchanges such as 500 for
those who want the additional reliability.  These would really forward
to existing numbers that would otherwise be blocked (to reduce
misdialed direct calls).  A bank, for example, might want a phone
number with a check digit for its FAX machine.

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

From: "Michael L. Starr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do You Find Out if a Phone is Bugged?
Reply-To: "Michael L. Starr" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T HRISO, Morristown, NJ
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 21:03:04 GMT


I have a friend who currently is running for political office against
someone who has a very well organized political machine (i.e., a lot
of people would be out of jobs if he weren't re-elected).

My friend asked me if I know of a way to tell if her home phone is
bugged.  The reasons she gave for being suspicious is that, several
seconds after receiving a call, she will hear a "click" on the line.
However, the real convincer to her is the following which apparently
has happened a few times this past week.  The telephone that she uses
is a two line set with a "line in use" indicator.  After hanging up,
the red LED stayed lit.  She picked up the phone to place another
call, but could not get dial tone.  Experiencing this, she went to the
extention, just to make sure that this was not the culprit, but it was
on hook.  She went back to her phone, and when the LED finally went
out, she was able to place the call.  While she indicated that this
didn't happen all the time (she probably places dozens of calls a
day), the fact that it has happened several times has gotten her
worried.

So, I'm asking the telecom experts, based on this story, is there any
chance that someone is eves-dropping, and if so, how do we find out?

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 19:04:51 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: P&G, Telco, and Privacy


A few months ago a certain individual was canned (or at least the
process begun) by AT&T because he released customer information about
a company that at best was being sleazy.

Recently, Cincinnati Bell which is owned in part by AT&T requested
millions of phone records in attempting to determine who had
"leaked" proprietary information to the WSJ.

Two side notes: The law which was "broken" was a misdemeanor statute
and the it was apparently never intended to apply to leaks to
newspapers.  Many consider the law unconstitutional.

While some may argue that CB had no choice since a warrant was
involved, it seems to me that they could have tried to fight the
warrant if they had wanted to.  One such ground could have been that
the warrant was unconstitutional because it was unreasonable.

More distourbing is the comment by Stuart L Labovitz that "they [P&G]
still appear to have the records provided to them by Cincinnati Bell."
If the records were suboenaed, it seems that they should have gone to
the grand jury, not CB.

The Sunday, September 1, 1991, {NYT} had a very interesting article on
this topic.  Much of the discussion was about the exent to which
Cincinnati is a P&G company town.  Several disturbing lines of
analysis were raised.


David

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #731
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01771;
          14 Sep 91 17:41 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06610;
          14 Sep 91 3:45 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28351;
          14 Sep 91 2:35 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Sep 91 1:39:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #732
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Sep 91 01:39:10 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 732

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [L. Derbenwick]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [John Higdon]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [Steve Suttles]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [Carl Moore]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [Sean Williams]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [Linc Madison]
    Re: A Devious Sort of Guy (was Billing Responsibility) [Jim Redelfs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 17:43:23 EDT
From: Leland F Derbenwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> Now if people want a movement to decree that the '1' be used to denote
> toll or long distance, fine. But this is not historical; the '1' has
> never been used for this purpose.

John Higdon apparently has a west-coast view of history.  Telephone
companies in the northeastern U.S. used '1' to indicate long-distance
(toll) calls, and documented it that way in the phone books.  The '1'
was followed by seven digits for a long-distance call within your own
area code, and by ten digits for a long-distance call outside your own
area code.  Local calls had no '1'; toll calls did.

The "Dial '1' for long distance" interpretation lasted at least into
the early 1980's; I have 1981 phone books from both Southern New
England Telephone (SNET) and New England Telephone (NET) that explain
it that way.  (The NET book mentions an exception, where certain calls
that had to be dialed with '1' would actually be free if they were
within your own town.  So the convention was at least starting to
break down by then.)

Also, at least through the early 1970's (while I lived there; I don't
know the current status), local calls into an adjacent area code
(e.g., from Greenwich, CT, to Port Chester, NY) were dialed with only
seven digits: no '1', no area code.  The NNXes were chosen to ensure that
there was no conflict within the local (toll-free) calling area.  That
maintained the consistency of '1' means toll.


Speaking strictly for myself,

Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ
[e-mail]  or  <wherever>!att!cbnewsm!lfd

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 14:50 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)


Tony Harminc <[e-mail]> writes:

> Customers were certainly not thinking "I dial 1 because my local CO is
> SxS and can't handle things without it".  That initial 1 meant long
> distance, and long distance meant money.

But this is just an ignorant association on the part of telephone
users. Are you saying that if you so perceive something then it is so?
Just because customers "made up" the idea that '1' = "toll charge"
does not give it historical validity. Is this how we should hold
history?  Whatever people "feel" about it is the way it should be
recorded? To pervert a line from "The Ten Commandments", "So let it be
thought; so let it be true."

> Now people have had thirty years or so to get used to this idea.  If
> thirty years is not "historical time" in this business, I don't know
> what is.

Wrong is wrong. I don't care how many years someone "believes"
something. Belief does not a fact make.

> Clearly, inconsistencies have been introduced, most notably 800
> numbers preceded by 1 where there is no charge.

And why? Because an 800 call must be handled just like any other long
distance call -- that is it must be passed to a DDD capable office.
Notice: the '1' has nothing to do with "charging".

> You do have to dial 1 before a 976 number precisely because it costs
> money, even though it's local in a geographic sense.

Do you know that for a fact, or are you just making it up? Most areas
do not require a '1' for 976 calls within the same area code. In those
cases where a '1' is required I would be willing to bet that the
underlying cause is that somewhere an office or two must pass the call
to another office for proper routing and/or billing.

I am not debating the validity of the concept of using a forced '1' to
denote chargeable long distance. I merely pointed out that the
original purpose of having to dial '1' had nothing to do with that.
Nothing in your post refutes that. If you have evidence to the
contrary (other than historical misconception) I would be happy to
hear about it.


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

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

From: Steve Suttles <troi![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)
Date: 13 Sep 91 00:30:58 GMT
Organization: DB Access Inc., Santa Clara, CA


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

> John Higdon <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Now if people want a movement to decree that the '1' be used to
>> denote toll or long distance, fine. But this is not historical; the
>> '1' has never been used for this purpose. ....

> But this *is* precisely historical (in some areas, of course).  DDD

  ...

> ...  That initial 1 meant long distance, and long distance meant
> money.

> Now people have had thirty years or so to get used to this idea.  If
> thirty years is not "historical time" in this business, I don't know
> what is.

> Clearly, inconsistencies have been introduced, most notably 800
> numbers preceded by 1 where there is no charge.  Also there are now
> other (0+) ways of dialing long distance.  But other services (976-
> and 900) have been introduced in a consistent manner.  You do have to
> dial 1 before a 976 number precisely because it costs money, even
> though it's local in a geographic sense.

I'm sorry, I agree.  What I mean to say is twofold.  It IS historical.
And it's the way it had to be.  Even if "they" had known where we
would be now, "they" had to make that decision.

The first digit of a phone number is known as "n", as in NPA or nnx.
N must be 2 through 9, inclusive, and NOT 1, or 0.  X can be anything,
and P must be 0 or 1.  If you examine the possible values, you will
see that NPA represents area codes, and nnx represents exchanges.  And
nothing starts with a zero or a one.  Zero was reserved for the
operator (and boy, did they have fun with double zero).  1 was
 =reserved= for long distance or toll charges.  It was intended to
cause the local equipment to connect to remote equipment.  Remember,
please, these numbering schemes were before computerized
switches -- they were mechanical, and that's why they are CALLED
switches.

Eventually, though, we got smarter equipment (that is, equipment that
had any amount of "smarts" to begin with).  The one was not strictly
required, and was eliminated from most systems as this could be done.
Unfortunately, many of the systems which grew fast enough to do away
with the one had to reinstate it as an escape clause when they ran out
of exchanges and had to use exchanges that looked like area codes.  At
this point the 1 meant "this is REALLY an area code--look in the other
table, use the other rules (like expect ten digits, and so on)".  I
believe Los Angeles (213) was the first area code to discover this
problem, and the way out of it (the first one, anyway -- by now the
term "area code split" is understood by an embarrasingly large number
of people as a part of their personal experience).

Sadly, there are far more inconsistencies than seem to be generally
realized.  Point in fact: I live in the San Fransisco Bay Area (watta
mouthful).  I am undergoing an area code split; my home phone's area
code is changing.  (Those of you who've been paying attention now know
which direction to look from the center of the bay to see my house,
but that's a brownie point.)

 From home, I must dial 1 before any area code.  But not 976 (as of
the last time I tried, but it was well after the institution of 1+
dialing).  I have to dial a 1 before 800 numbers.  When I moved to the
area, I heard gleeful stories about the last split to hit the area;
Telco (back when there was one) had the three area codes carefully
coordinated to make area codes optional between them.  No exchange was
duplicated.  This lasted for about ten years, and then suddenly, an
area code was required to call places not that far away that you could
call before, without one.

My new company got one of the newly duplicated prefixes, and some
employees found considerable glee in taking pizza orders that would
never be delivered, dispatching plumbers that would never arrive, and
so on, until the public adjusted to the idea.  From work, however, I
need NOT dial 1+, and in fact, it doesn't work (an omission I have
never understood).  I don't know if 976 calls need 1+, but I doubt it,
since 900 is just another area code out here (yes, we pay, but we
don't dial any differently).  And in Wisconsin, where my mother lived,
they had older equipment -- 1+ was needed for out-of-town.  And when
unauthorized calls became a problem, they changed it to 1 + X + (7 or
10) where X was randomly assigned to a household.  Unfortunately, they
did this to every line on the system; businesses posted their pass
digit by the phone for employees to refer to, and nothing was done
about failed attempts.  At a neighbor's house, if you needed to use
their phone, but forgot to ask the check digit when you got permission
to use their phone, you simply tried them all.  (This last is an
entirely avoidable situation, but they didn't ask me about the
advisability.  They still don't have touch tone).

This has gone on at some length about specifics, but the bottom line
is this.  The phone "system", as we know it, is a conglomeration (a
network, if you really insist, but you'll see my hesitation soon) of
an un-bleeping-beleivable number of smaller systems.  Each is growing
independently, and without any regard for how the rest of the (city,
county, state, lata, district, region, country, world) is doing, in
terms of needs or desires, or even what would be "nicer" to the "other
guys".  1+ gets installed because it solves a local problem to their
satisfaction, and removed because the customers can't see the value.

It is amazing that you can call across the country and not get dropped
 -- every time you try, get dropped -- because of incompatibilities
between two dialing schemes, or signalling schemes, or billing
difficulties, etc., etc.  And you want it to be more consistent than
dependable?  If I have to remember different rules for work and home,
but I can call anywhere in the world I want to, I feel the rules are
justified, and in fact, quite efficient.

    ... in my humblest of (admitedly wordy) opinion ...

sas

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 11:26:16 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)

Re: 1 + NPA + 7D for all calls.

I believe this is permitted in the Washington DC area (all of 202 area
and parts of 301 and 703), even though all that is REQUIRED for you to
dial for a local call is 7D within your area code or NPA + 7D to
another area code.

Something like this is apparently in effect in the UK.  If I understand
correctly, you can use 0 + citycode + number to call anywhere within
the UK.

Some equipment is capable of handling time-outs, but there is only one
instance where I ever saw DIALING INSTRUCTIONS (for use within country
code 1) which had an allowance for time-out: the instructions for area
213 (now 213/818) said to dial 0 + 7D for 0+ calls within area code,
even though this set up an ambiguity (such as 0-413-xxxx vs. 0-413-xxx-
xxxx).

Where 1 + 7D for within-area toll calls has had to be dropped because
of the coming of N0X/N1X prefixes, some areas have gone to 1 + NPA +
7D in its place.  This is because some people wanted to preserve the
notion of 1+ meaning a toll call.  Some areas have just 7D for
within-area toll calls.

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

From: "WILLIAMS, Sean E." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: 12 SEP 91 13:57:28


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes...

> And how about, rather than the caller having to take some
> pre-action on a toll call, have the CO switch signal with a burst of
> three tones that a toll call has been dialed?

Or even better, how about identifying the company which will be
carrying the toll/LD call by playing the same recording which a
customer would hear when dialing a 0+ number.  (Customer dials number,
hears "Thank you for using company x", then hears ringback.)

This way you would not only realize that you were making a toll call,
but you would also know who was billing you for the call -- your IXC
or LEC.

It seems that the general public thinks that all long distance calls
are handled by their long distance company, when, in fact, the average
person's long distance calls are within his or her own LATA and are
carried by the LEC.  And when I say the "general public" I'm referring
to the non-telecom-enthusiasts.


Sean   Rochester Institute of Technology   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 02:10:49 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


[e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre) writes:

> So there a valid user interface consideration here.  800 (and 950)
> are the accepted 'free call, not even message units' codes, and 1+
> indicates a surcharge; ie, long distance, 900, 976, directory
> assistance for the Area Code, etc.

There are (or at least were) many areas where you were required to
dial 1 + 950-XXXX for 950 service.  There was a blurb about this fact
in the directory of local access numbers Sprint sent out when they
were about halfway through switching over to 950 nationally, around
1985 (?).

On the broader issue of "1+ = TOLL", I guess I have mixed feelings.  I
don't particularly like the "feature" ("bug") of being able to dial
hundreds of miles away to a point that just happens to be in the same
area code, but I don't like the idea of having to dial 1 + 510 + NXX-
XXXX to call Fremont.  As to the point about areas like California
with blurry lines between "local" and "toll," the line isn't so blurry
at all -- there is a sharp distinction between "zone" calls and "toll"
calls in metropolitan areas.

I've given out my number with the "510" area code to several people in
the last few days, and no one -- even out-of-staters -- has batted an
ear yet.  One call was never returned, though -- maybe it went to
Arkansas ...


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

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 91 09:48:02 cst
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Devious Sort of Guy (was Billing Responsibility; 900 Calls)
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


Patrick Townson/TELECOM Moderator wrote:

> One fellow in Chicago uses the free services extensively, and beats
> them at their own game. His gimmick is to get on an 'adult'
> conference line which offers the first minute free; make a quick
> pitch for his particular kink; give out a special phone number under
> his control and disconnect -- all in about 45 seconds or so. He
> repeats his -- ahem -- announcement as required.

[omitted: details of procedure]

What an incredible story, Pat!  Isn't technology wonderful?!

Remember when the biggest phone thrill was listening-in on the
partyline?!


JR     Tabby 2.2
MacNet Omaha [phone]  -  O.M.U.G. On-Line    (1:285/14)


[Moderator's Note: Yes it is, and yes I do. At age 13, my best friend
had a party-line phone. We would talk and say things not precisely fit
to print in a family digest, or Kay Graham's newspaper for that matter.
I'd tell him to be careful; the party-line neighbor might be listening
in. His response was 'she' had been on the party-line for years, and
nothing she overheard shocked her any longer.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #732
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01802;
          14 Sep 91 17:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04830;
          14 Sep 91 4:52 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06610;
          14 Sep 91 3:45 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Sep 91 2:57:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #733
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Sep 91 02:57:15 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 733

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines [Rolf Meier]
    Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines [Tad Cook]
    Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines [Bud Couch]
    Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines [Mike DeMetz]
    Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines [Joe Talbot]
    Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines [Tom Gray]
    Re: Roomate From Hell Runs Up 900-Number Bill! [John Covert]
    Re: Roomate From Hell Runs Up 900-Number Bill! [Edwin Windes]
    Re: Roomate From Hell Runs Up 900-Number Bill! [Bob Frankston]
    Re: New Fax / Modem Chips [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: International Toll-Free Numbers [Jan Richert]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rolf Meier <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines
Date: 12 Sep 91 16:13:34 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> Is ringer frequency selective ringing used on party lines anymore?

It is very common in REA territory.  Even if the switch has no more
party lines, it is possible that several ringing frequencies have to
be supported.  This is because it would be very expensive to change
out all the telephones which are out there.  It is cheaper to provide
a ringing generator for the right frequency.

Frequency selective ringing was a requirement for the REA approval
of the Mitel GX5000.


Rolf Meier    Mitel Corporation

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

Subject: Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines
From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa![e-mail]>
Date: 12 Sep 91 19:23:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, radius![e-mail] (bob
lashley) writes:

>>> How can only one phone of a multi-party line be rung?

>> As I recall, this used to be accomplished by resonating the ringers
>> using different frequencies.  The AC voltage applied to the line would
>> vary in frequency for each party on the party line.  The Q of the
>> ringers for each phone would have to be adjusted for the appropriate
>> frequency by jumpering the coil for another impedance, etc.

adams <nvuxl![e-mail]> responds:

> I'm afraid not Bob. As Pat T. pointed out the other day, ringer
> activation involved connecting the ringer either between TIP, RING and
> ground in various combinations in addition to superimposing the
> ringing signal on battery voltage levels (+/- 48 superimposed, etc.).
> For the most part ringing signals are all 90 v, 20 Hz.

[Moderator's Note: The above text was repeated in several messages in
this issue. It appears just once here; when (quoted text omitted)
appears in later messages today, please refer to the above.  PAT]

                            ---------

Its been a long time since I have seen information that is just plain
WRONG stated as fact here on the Digest.  Its especially surprising
coming from someone at Bellcore.

Actually, both Lashley and Adams are mostly correct.  Its just that
Adams is wrong when he claims that the schemes used in synchronomic,
decimonic and harmonic ringing don't exist.

Adams is describing divided ringing, where ringers are either
connected from tip to ground or ring to ground for two party lines.
One party is referred to as the "tip party" and the other is the "ring
party."  The 48 vdc is still from tip to ring, but I don't know of any
scheme which causes the ringer to ring or not, based upon the polarity
of the dc line voltage that the ringing voltage is superimposed upon.

Lashley is talking about frequency selective ringing, where many more
than two parties can be signalled on the same line.  A capacitor is
tied to the ringer, making it resonate at a single frequency from 16
Hz to 66.6 Hz.  The central office sends the appropriate ringing
frequency for the party being called.


Tad Cook  Seattle, WA  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA  Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544    Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad  or, [e-mail]
or, [e-mail]   or, [e-mail]

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 20:18:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> nvuxl!jadams@bellcore.
bellcore.com (adams) writes:

(quoted text omitted, see earlier message.)

There should be a name for this, Pat, so I'll coin one ;-). The belief
that the sun rotates around the sun is called the heliocentric view,
the belief that the world rotates around Bell standards will be the
BSPcentric view.

Actually, you're both correct. Ma Bell used your scheme, Jack, and the
independents used Bob's (in general - of course, there were/are
execptions).

Frequency selective ringing is accomplished using up to five different
frequencies.  There are three different series of frequencies used in
practice.

The oldest series is called the Harmonic series. This used 16.667 Hz,
25 Hz, 33.33 Hz, 50 Hz, and 66.67 Hz. One of the problems with this
was the construction of a ringer resonent at 16.67. One of the
parameters controlling resonance is the mass of the clapper, so the
start of ringing (after the application of the voltage) was sometimes
very slow. However, the generation of these frequencies was
comparatively simple because of their harmonic relationship.

The next series is called the Decimonic series; very straightforward -
20, 30 40, 50 and 60 Hz. This used the 20 Hz "standard" ringing
frequency.

The last was called the Syncromonic series ( I believe that the words
Decimonic and Syncromonic are tradenames and may be trademarks). It
uses the frequencies of 20, 30, 42, 50, and 67 Hz. Note that NONE of
the frequencies are harmonics of one another; what was an advantage in
generation (the harmonic series) is actually a disadvantage when
trying to construct a ringer.

Changing the ringer frequency was actually quite a bit more complex
than "jumpering a coil", though. Each ringer design assembled as such.

A lot of CO's never actually implemented the highest frequency of
whatever series they were using. The ringers were not very sensitive,
and larger voltages were required to ring them (>150 VAC).

By using these freqencies ringing Tip to ground and Ring to ground, a
ten party line was created.

Ma Bell, on the other hand, never felt the need to standardize on
something that would create a ten party line. (She didn't have many
twenty mile long wires, connecting nine farms who made three calls a
week each.)  So the Bell scheme used what was called superimposed
ringing.

In "standard" ringing (single party service) 20 Hz, 88 VAC is
superimposed on -48 VDC (for ring trip, but that's another can of
worms) whereas in superimposed ringing the 88 VAC is superimposed on
either -40V or +40V DC, not +/- 48V. The telephones had four element
gas tubes in them (originally -- later they used triacs) to
distinguish between the +40 and -40V bias. Add in the Tip to ground
and Ring to ground options and you have the possibilty of four parties
per line ... which was sufficient for Ma.

I've left out the discussion about the earliest form of party
differentiation.  Back in the days of "Number, please", our family
phone was "two shorts".


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

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 17:29:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> nvuxl!jadams@bellcore.
bellcore.com (adams) writes:

(quoted text omitted, see earlier message.)

That is the way the Bell System did it.

Another common method was as originally described above, except that
I've never seen one with taps on the ringer coils to change
frequencies.  Rather the ringer is a split winding with a capacitor
between the windings, which nicely blocks DC through the ringer and
resonates it to the selected ringer frequency.  Harmonic ringing is
what its called, but I can't remember any of the exact frequencies
used (all are in the range of 17 to 40 Hz or so).


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

From: Mike DeMetz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines
Organization: Syscon International - Corporate Headquarters
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 13:51:38 GMT


nvuxl![e-mail] (adams) writes:

(quoted text omitted; see earlier message.)

Well my sister is on a party line and in order to put any other
equipment on that will not ring with any party's call she would need to
buy a "frequency selector" for $50 from the phone company .

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

From: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines
Date: 13 Sep 91 13:42:24 GMT
Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca


(quoted text omitted; see earlier message.)

Thats how the Bell system did it. But GTE and the independents, well,
that's something else! GTE was big on frequency selective ringers,
even in the LA area. When buying old phones, one had to check to make
sure that the ringer was an "SL" or straight line ringer (no attention
paid to frequency selectiveness in design). I ended up with several
funky ringers even when renting rebuilt phones from the "Phone Mart".

There were two different schemes:

  Harmonic: which used 16 2/3 hz, 33 1/3 hz, 45 hz, and 66 2/3 hz
  Decimonic: which used 20 hz, 30 hz, 40 hz, 50 hz

GTE seemed to like harmonic best aroud here, as I somehow ended up
with several 66 2/3 hz ringers in fine classic Automatic Electric
model eighty desk sets.


[e-mail]
Slow mail: P.O. box 1750, Helendale California 92342
Phone: [phone]     Fax [phone]

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines
Date: 13 Sep 91 14:31:32 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> nvuxl!jadams@bellcore.
bellcore.com (adams) writes:

(quoted text omitted; see earlier message.)

Both systems described above were and still are in use. Frequency
selective ringing of different types are used in the independent
market in the US.

AT&T used code ringing on tip and ring but this was and is not universal.


Tom Gray

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 12:31:30 PDT
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Roomate From Hell Runs Up 900-Number Bill!


Patrick,

I'm surprised that in your moderator's note you didn't point out that
it may or may not be Sprint that bills for the 900 calls.  Remember
that the carrier for each 900 call depends on the 900 number called,
not on Steve Thornton's chosen carrier.  Most of these calls will
arrive on the New England Telephone bill, and the Massachusetts DPU
and New England Telephone are the ones who will have to decide what
happens with the bill.


john

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 10:39:13 EDT
From: Edwin D Windes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill!
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL


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

> The phone is in my name. I have every reason to suspect that he made
> lots of calls. I haven't got our final Sprint bill yet, but I dread
> it.

> [Moderator's Note: He stole from you, by abusing your good credit with
> Sprint and the local telco. It is your problem now, for as the tariff
> plainly states, you are responsible for the use of your instruments.
> You *might* get Sprint to take pity this once...

Remember, calls to 900 services are not carried by your default
carrier.  Unless Sprint is the carrier for the services called (not
likely), expect the charges to show up on a seperate page of your
local bill.  This can work to your advantage, because the local phone
company is just acting as the billing agent, and may be more
understanding.

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

From: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill!
Date: 13 Sep 1991 15:41 -0400


This deserves a full response in Risks Digest (which I hope to write).
The very short form is that this another example why the 900/976 is an
illconceived kludge that should be dismantled until it has been
rethought and brought into line with other credit and charging
services.  Unlike a credit card, the phone is shared and contains no
additional authentication when used. (See my previous telecom
submissions for alternatives).

With the usual "not being a lawyer" caveats, in a noncommercial
situation it is not obvious that one is giving unlimited authorization
for all activities.  Abuse of 900 service is a form of vandalism.

I am a technology enthusiast so it pains me to suggest that some
services are better off offed.


[Moderator's Note: I don't know why whenever someone meets another
person they don't like they always accuse the person of coming from
Hell. Hell, Michigan is a pleasant little village of about 800
residents about thirty miles northwest of Ann Arbor and about thirty
miles due south of the Howell exit on I-96, at the southern end of
Livingston County on State Highway 106 in the Pickney State Forest.
I've been through Hell and the residents there are real friendly
people. The US Weather Bureau had a station there for many years that
issued reports during the winter indicating Hell had frozen over.  If
you ever find yourself going through Hell and back, be sure to stop in
the little tourist shop there which sells T-shirts, coffee mugs and
such with the inscription "I've been through Hell" on them. Phone
service in the village is on the 313-229 (Brighton, MI) or 313-426
(Dexter, MI) exchange, depending on where in Hell or the surrounding
countryside you are calling from.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: New Fax / Modem Chips
Date: 13 Sep 91 16:09:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, ssc-bee!ssc-vax!clark@
cs.washington.edu (Roger Clark Swann) writes:

> fax, a data communications device and even a standard telephone. With
> the low chip set pricing, ($40-$50) the capabilities could be combined
> at a fraction of the cost of ISDN equip.

> The article then goes on to quote some analyst types as saying this
> may spell the demise of narrowband ISDN ...

While I'm still not completely convinced that ISDN is not an idea
whose time will never come, comparing "standard" modem/fax chaips to
ISDN is not at all fair. "Narrowband" ISDN is not very narrow! ISDN
(BRI) will provide 128K bits of raw "bit pipe" plus a 16 K bit packet
channel. And this is as "narrow band" as ISDN gets. I have yet to see
any type of modem that approaches this bandwidth over normal dialup
service.

While the average PC user may think that he really doesn't need this
bandwidth, that's only because he is not looking at things like remote
disks and X windows across the phone. Even 19.2 with lots of data
compression is totally inadequate for the job. So this is really an
apples-oranges comparison. I'm looking forward to the new equipment
that will use this modem technology, but I won't really be happy until
I can run an X terminal at home over ISDN. According to PacBell, this
may be available in mid 1992 (at my CO).


R. Kevin Oberman            Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]        [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.

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

From: Jan Richert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Toll-free Numbers?
Date: 13 Sep 91 14:53:41 GMT
Organization: Krefcom UUCP Server, Krefeld, FRG


[e-mail] (B. Rozenberg) writes:

> Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]> writes:

>> The number is [phone] (that's right: country code "95";
>> the place is in Texas).

> I've tried it from the Netherlands but got a 'wrong country code'
> recording.

Calling this number from Germany I get the "network congestion" signal
 -- perhaps this is a temporary problem.


Jan Richert               | Internet:   [e-mail]
Krefeld, FRG              | BTX:        02151399843-0001
Voice: [phone]    | MagicNET:   JRICHERT@QUICKBOX

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #733
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02930;
          14 Sep 91 18:03 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06678;
          14 Sep 91 16:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac04010;
          14 Sep 91 15:17 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Sep 91 14:59:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #734
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Sep 91 14:59:08 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 734

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Review of Short Course on Telecom for Small Businesses [Jane Fraser]
    China STD Codes [Dave Leibold]
    It's Heeerrre ... [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 15:04 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Review of Short Course on Telecom for Small Businesses


On August 29, CAST (the Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications
at the Ohio State University) offered a one-day short course, The
Basics of Telecommunications for Businesses.  The purpose of the
course was to provide basic information on voice and data
communication, information intended to enable smaller enterprises to
improve their use of telecommunications.

In this posting I will summarize the content of the course.  The
technical material we covered would be elementary for most readers of
comp.dcom.telecom, although our focus on business uses of the
technology might interest telecom readers.

As the organizer of the short course, I am a biased reporter, but I
was very pleased with the course.  All the speakers were knowledgeable
in their area of expertise and experienced presenters.  The topics
covered a wide range, but comprised a good introduction to a diverse
field.  The three-inch thick notebook of material and the additional
information and exhibits in the exhibit area were valuable sources of
expertise for the attendees. The results of the questionnaires
confirmed my impression: attendees were very pleased with the content,
with the format, and with what they learned.

In my mind, the only weakness was the low attendance compared to what
we had hoped for, but several attendees appreciated the small size
(about 40 people), since it engendered an informal atmosphere in which
people felt free to ask questions.

We plan to offer the short course again.  We are also discussing plans
to take the show ``on the road" to Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Athens.
Please let me know if you are interested in participating, as a
speaker, vendor, or student in future courses.  I would especially
appreciate suggestions on how to market the course better.  In the
rest of this article, I will summarize the course.

I began the day by introducing the ideas that led us to have this
course.  I quoted James J. Sobczak, vice president for Sales and
Marketing of the Communication Systems of Westinghouse.  Mr. Sobczak
argues that ``Competitive Advantage can only be achieved by developing
an information technology awareness through the entire organization.
Senior management and operating divisions must appreciate and be
comfortable with information technology." Most large companies no
longer depend on a manager of telecommunications or a manager of
information services to set policies regarding the use of information
technology.  Most senior executives now believe such technology must
be an integral part of the business strategy of a company.  I urged
small enterprises to recognize that they must think similarly to
compete.

I also pointed out that some small businesses lead in new innovations,
but most lag. However, small businesses account for most growth in new
jobs in the economy. We at CAST believe that telecommunications, used
wisely by small and medium sized businesses can lead to economic
growth.  That belief led us to offer this course.

I described five levels of use of information technology: from
improving the efficiency of isolated activities in a firm through
redefining the scope of business.  In my section of the notebook, I
provided a list of additional reading on telecommunications basics for
businesses; much of this material was available for examination in the
exhibit room.

My fellow Co-Director of CAST and a professor in the department of
Communication, Thom McCain, gave an overview of the telecommunications
marketplace.  He enunciated three themes: the dynamics of change in
telecommunications; the idea that telecommunications must be
understood as the combination of technologies, policies, and markets;
and the fact that you don't have to be an engineer to understand the
jargon, but, he admitted, it helps.

Thom gave a quick review of 36,000 years of human history of
communication, pointing out that technologies have developed in bursts
and often displaced functions of existing technologies. He also noted
that business applications have generally preceded consumer
applications in voice and data.

Telecommunications technologies can be classified in several ways and
Thom discussed several such classifications: wire versus wireless,
conduit versus content, product versus content, by financial support,
by ownership, by purview, and personal versus public.  He then pointed
out that political, economic, and social factors have resulted in
three major telecommunications industries: voice, text (including
computer), and video. The industries hae been very separate but are
starting to converge.

Finally, Thom defined "ten terms you need to know to be hip in
telecommunicationese:" FCC, PUCO, MFJ, LD Carrier, LEC, LATA, bypass,
PC, modem, and LAN.  Thom urged the audience to recognize that feeling
uncertain about the future of telecommunications is a healthy state of
mind.

Thom's talk set the big picture for the day, giving people a framework
for understanding the changes that are occurring in the industry.

C. Raymond Essex, president of Executone of Columbus, gave an
introduction to customer premises voice equipment. He talked about the
history of telecommunications equipment manufacturing, explaining the
landmark changes represented by the Carterphone decision and the AT&T
breakup.

Ray described different types of telephones and systems that are
appropriate for smaller enterprises: single line, key systems, PBX
systems, and hybrids. He then discussed in more details small key
systems (to about 16 phones), medium key/hybrid systems (to about 100
phones), PBX systems, and Centrex service. In each case he discussed
features available with each and typical applications.

Next, he discussed the players in the system, discussing how the
telecommunications equipment marketplace is maturing and undergoing a
great deal of consolidation.  He discussed the services a customer
should expect to receive from a good equipment company.  Finally, Ray
gave an extensive handout on how to choose a vendor, including how to
go about gathering data and what questions to ask.

During his talk, Ray expressed his sympathy to one attendee who had
just been assigned the task of selecting a new system for her company.
He pointed out that it is hard to use such an opportunity to look
good, only to possibly fail.

Ray's talk was a wonderful one-hour tutorial which many attendees said
they would be using immediately. Ray also provided a short booklet for
the notebook, Telecom Success Guide.

Lunch was a bag lunch from Carolyn's. Attendees and speakers mingled
in the classroom and in the exhibit room.

Leading off the afternoon sessions, Sherry Wells, Director of
Marketing at LiTel Telecommunications Corporation, gave an overview of
the long distance market. She described the different types of
companies and suggested that selection of a company should be based on
two overall factors: value and reliability.  She then carefully broke
each of these into components (such as responsiveness, connectivity,
and so forth), discussing in detail what to ask each carrier in each
dimension of comparison.

She gave details about different cost structures and pointed out
several pitfalls to avoid.  Sherry urged attendees to analyze their
enterprise's calling patterns, both in volume and in distribution in
time and geography. Finally, she discussed other services such as long
distance directory assistance, audio conferencing, 700, 800, and 900
numbers.

Sherry's lecture enable attendees to get a clear sense of the
questions they need to ask long-distance carriers in order to select
one for their enterprise's needs. Sherry also provided a booklet on
direct international dialing services for attendees.

Next the course turned to the world of data communication.  Jack
Anderson is a Principal Research Scientist in the Networking and
Telecommunications Section at Battelle Memorial Institute. He
explained how a modem works and how one instructs a modem through
communications software. He discussed the various parameters that must
set properly so that your computer and the computer being dialed are
in agreement on how they are communicating. One attendee remarked to
me that she had used a modem and such software but had never really
understood what she was doing until Jack's lecture.

Jack next demonstrated several on-line services.  He began by showing
what happens if some parameters are not set correctly (yes, he did it
deliberately!), and then correctly connected to the Columbus
Metropolitan Library Information System.  He then demonstrated the
type of information available on vendor bulletin boards, using as an
example the Datastorm bulletin board, run by the company which makes
the software package he was using, ProComm.

Jack also discuss electronic mail, both small systems for within a
company and larger systems that enable one to communicate with many
users around the world.  Jack's section of the notebook included
copies of his overheads, as well as copies of his example sessions
with two bulletin boards.

While Jack helped attendees understand the technology of data
communication, the next speaker focussed on how data communication can
be used to access on-line systems for business help.

Dave Eastburn, Vice President of Product Marketing for CompuServe
Incorporated, began by presenting data on the growth in ownership of
PCs and modems, two pieces of technology usually needed to access
on-line services. He then discussed in general four types of services:
bulletin boards, general purpose on-line systems, systems that
specialize in some application or some profession, and private versus
public systems.  He then discussed each in turn, giving examples of
specific systems and discussing how each might be of use to a small
enterprise. His handouts included a large list of service providers in
each category.  Dave also talked about the different types of software
used by different systems.  He gave some short case studies of how
specific companies use on-line services in their business.

Finally, Dave gave a brief demonstration of CompuServe, showing the
ability to access the Online Airline Guide to select and purchase
airline tickets. Dave's section of the notebook included an
introductory membership to CompuServe.

Other sections of the notebook included information from other vendors
of telecommunications equipment, other on-line services (from Rusty
and Edie's bulletin board in Youngstown to America OnLine and
Prodigy), and other issues in telecommunications (such as legal
issues, and various courses on more technical aspects of telecomm-
unications).

The final event of the day was a reception in the exhibit room, at
which time many of the vendors joined the attendees.

Overall, I feel that my objective of helping small businesses learn
the basics of telecommunications so they can run their businesses more
effectively was moved forward greatly.  A whole day is a long time to
spend sitting in a classroom, but I think all the attendees thought
their day and money were well spent.


Jane M. Fraser, Co-Director, CAST, Center for Advanced Study in
Telecommunications, The Ohio State University, 210 Baker Systems, 1971
Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, 614-292-4129.

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 00:10:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: China STD Codes


China Routing / STD Codes Listing      13 September 1991

Based on information from a 1991 English-language business directory
of China. These are the routing codes that would be used for dialing
from other countries. These only represent the known dialable
locations and is likely incomplete.

Inquiries with respect to this list should be made to
[e-mail] or via TELECOM Digest / comp.dcom.telecom.

Information herein is subject to change, addition or correction.


China (country code +86)  (many codes serve multiple cities)

Code City/Region        Code City/Region        Code City/Region

1    Beijing        20   Guangzhou        20   Huaxian
2092 Conghua        2096 Panyu        21   Shanghai
22   Dagang        22   Hangu        22   Tanggu
22   Tianjin        24   Shenyang        25   Nanjing
27   Hankou        27   Wuhan        28   Chengdu
29   Xi'an        310  Handan        311  Shijiazhuang
312  Baoding        313  Zhangjiakou    314  Chengde
315  Tangshan        316  Langfang        317  Cangzhou
318  Hengshui        319  Xingtai        335  Qinhuangdao
351  Taiyuan        370  Shangqiu        371  Zhengzhou
373  Xinxiang        374  Xuchang        375  Pingdingshan
377  Nanyang        378  Kaifeng        379  Luoyang
410  Tieling        411  Dalian        412  Anshan
415  Dandong        416  Jinzhou        418  Fuxin
419  Liaoyang        4271 Panjin        431  Changchun
432  Jilin        433  Yanji        434  Siping
435  Tonghua        436  Baicheng        437  Liaoyuan
438  Gongzhuling    451  Harbin        453  Mudanjiang
454  Jiamusi        455  Suihua        4610 Daqing
4615 Shuangcheng    5021 Tongan        5032 Zherong
5033 Fuding        5034 Xiapu        5037 Gutian
5041 Changle        5043 Pingtan        5046 Minqing
5051 Huian        5053 Nanan        5062 Longhai
5063 Zhangpu        5081 Shaxian        5084 Yongan
5091 Pucheng        5094 Jianou        5096 Shaowu
5098 Chongan        510  Wuxi        511  Zhenjiang
512  Suzhou        513  Nantong        514  Yangzhou
515  Yancheng        516  Xuzhou        518  Lianyungang
519  Changzhou        531  Jinan        532  Qingdao
533  Zibo        535  Yantai        536  Weifang
537  Jining        538  Taian        551  Hefei
552  Bengbu        553  Wuhu        555  Maanshan
556  Anqing        557  Suxian        570  Quzhou
571  Hangzhou        572  Huzhou        573  Jiaxing
574  Ningbo        575  Shaoxing        576  Taizhou
577  Wenzhou        578  Lishui        579  Jinhua
590  Jianyang        591  Fuzhou        591  Mawei
592  Xiamen        593  Ningde        594  Putian
595  Jinjiang        595  Quanzhou        595  Shishi
596  Zhangzhou        598  Sanming        599  Nanping
6    res'ved for Taiwan 712  Xiaogan        713  Huanggang
714  Huangshi        730  Yueyang        731  Changsha
732  Xiangtan        733  Zhuzhou        734  Hengyang
736  Changde        737  Yiyang        7401 Yongzhou
750  Haikou        751  Shaoguan        752  Huizhou
753  Meizhou        754  Shantou        755  Baoan Xian
755  Longgang        755  Nantou        755  Shekou
755  Shenzhen        755  Yulin        756  Zhuhai
757  Foshan        758  Zhaoqing        759  Zhanjiang
7620 Dongguan        7644 Chaoyang        7649 Puning
7650 Gaoming        7652 Sanshui        7653 Shunde
7654 Xiaolan        7654 Zhongshan        7656 Xinhui
7658 Kaiping        7663 Sihui        7680 Heshan
7681 Chaozhou        7682 Jiangmen        771  Nanning
772  Liuzhou        773  Guilin        777  Qinzhou
779  Beihai        7892 Hepu        791  Nanching
811  Chongqing        813  Zigong        815  Wenjiang
816  Mianyang        817  Nanchong        8241 Deyang
831  Yibin        834  Xichang        8400 Luzhou
851  Guiyang        871  Kunming        911  Yanan
917  Baoji        931  Lanzhou        938  Tianshui
951  Yinchuan        971  Xining        ---  --------


== end of listing for China +86 ==--


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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 01:40 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: It's Heeerrre ...


At 11:15 this evening it was crossbar. At 11:40 it was 5ESS. For the
next hour things were a little strange. Outgoing calls within the LATA
were completed properly (and quickly with SS7). Incoming from other
offices was inoperative, since apparently the other switches were
still trying to contact the crossbar over the old trunks. No long
distance completed.

By 12:30, most everything worked. Incoming calls and long distance
were operative. However, even at this time (1:30 AM), *67 does not
work in that a reorder appears after dialing '*6'. When incoming calls
were failing, I called 611 to "report the trouble". She took the
trouble report and gave me a "promised repair date". I am a little
disappointed that she did not tell me that a cut was in progress and
that things would be restored shortly. Unfortunately, I have no
features ordered on the lines so I could not test them.

I am told that three-way on 5ESS is inferior to a 1/1AESS and that
Call Waiting is inoperative while on a three-way call. This is
somewhat of a disappointment. But at least the crossbar is gone.


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


[Moderator's Note: If a call waiting comes in first, you cannot
establish a three way call until you get rid of the call waiting.
However if you have the three way call going first, then yes, you do
get the beep and can put the three way on hold while talking to the
call waiting.  At least IBT has it programmed that way.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #734
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11506;
          14 Sep 91 23:18 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14633;
          14 Sep 91 21:35 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13654;
          14 Sep 91 20:29 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Sep 91 19:34:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #735
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Sep 91 19:33:57 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 735

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phonefiche Gaps in NC [Gregory G. Woodbury]
    Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [John Higdon]
    Re: SOAK vs. Beta-Test [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Telemarketing Calls [David Hayes]
    Re: Signs of the Times [Mike Morris]
    Re: Unix on Switches [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Opportunity For Getting Back at AOS's [Joe Konstan]
    Re: Phone Gall [John R. Covert]
    Re: NPA 510 from Tucker, Ga. CO [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: NPA 510 From PBX in San Jose [Carl Moore]
    Re: Help - Need Pointers to Equipment and Line Information [Carl Moore]
    Re: Metromedia - Phone Bills on a Floppy? [Fred E.J. Linton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phonefiche Gaps in NC
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 22:18:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>

> [Moderator's Note: One thing I have found about NC are the large
> number of towns that 555-1212 *cannot* help with on a direct basis.

> The telcos there must all argue and fuss among themselves and with
> sister Bell quite a bit ... that's all I can figure out. Either that
> or they are too cheap to pay Bell to run their directory assistance
> for them (or the other way around!)  PAT]

Its worse than that.  The PUC will not allow one telco to provide
directory assistance for another.  Southern Bell has Raleigh,
Greensboro and Chapel Hill (for example); GTE has Durham, Butner, and
Goldsboro; and United Telecom has Oxford, Hillsboro, Roxboro; Mebane
Home Telephone has Mebane and Haw River; Carolina Telephone has other
parts.  Each has its own versions of LATAs and local calling areas.
Only rarely (and with dispensation from the PUC) can a telephone book
carry numbers from a different carrier's exchanges.

Here in NC it never was "One Bell System".


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 00:48 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls


Walter Dnes <[e-mail]> writes:

> Microsoft's 900 number would continue as would other
> software support lines that actually make 900 worthwile.

The only 900 number I have ever called in my life was the so-called
support number for Microsoft. I spent a great deal of money, talked to
a number of buffoons, and got nothing of any value whatsoever. I ended
up giving the software that was the subject of my inquiry away because
it was useless without some important information that no one at the
Microsoft dial-a-bimbette line could answer.

Sorry, Microsoft's 900 "support" line is a bad example of a "good" 900
service.


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

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SOAK vs. Beta-Test
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 08:16:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mitel!Software!grayt@
uunet.uu.net (Tom Gray) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce
> W. Mohler) writes:

>> What is the etymology of the word "SOAK"?  How is it different from a
>> beta-test?

> Cable insulation is tested in a "SOAK" test. A very large voltage is
> applied to the conductors to stress the insulation as an attempt to
> trigger any inciepient faults in it. This is a common loop testing
> term. I suppose it migrated to the software area from the loop
> testing.

> How stressing insulation came to be called soaking, I guess came from
> the practice of calling loops with applied volateges "WET" (as opposed
> to DRY). Not only were these loops under test "WET", they were
> "SOAKED" to trigger faults.

Another use of the term was the current applied to a relay either in a
test jig or in its normal configuration to give the relay a preset
bias.  This of course was something of importance to pulsing relays
and made a difference in how the first pulse would be handled.  I
guess mechanical switch people did that kind of thing all the time,
but carrier or radio people who only very rarely ever adjusted relays
had to be real careful to read the instructions when they did, or this
business of "soaking" the relay would get missed, and the relay would
be mis-adjusted.  (Being one who always had nasty things to say about
"relay chasers", you can correctly surmise that I mis-adjusted a relay
more than once ... and hated switches until the took the relays out of
them.)

My guess would be that this use derived from the cable testing use of
the term, but I really don't know.  It could have been the other way
around, or that both uses came from something else.  In any case the
people doing software on a digital switch may have picked it up from
either the cable testing or the relay testing.


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

From: David Hayes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Calls
Organization: N-Team, Inc. -- Network Consultants
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 08:31:47 GMT


A previous poster noted receiving a telemarketing call offering to
remove him from telemarketer's lists (is this an oxymoron?), and
wondered if the telemarketers would really pay any attention.

Actually, it has happened. Robert Bulmash, of New York City (I think),
compiled a list of telemarketers. He then sent each of them a letter
saying that if they wanted to use his property (his phone) to conduct
their business (making sales calls), they could do so only by paying
him $100 for each such sales call. Any calls made after receipt of the
letter would indicate their acceptance of his terms.

He got a telemarketing call. He sued. The judge, who had been bothered
by one of these at 9pm the previous Sunday, ruled for Bulmash.

Robert Bulmash now periodically sends out these lists to
telemarketers.  He will put anyone on the list for a small fee. I
believe it's under ten dollars.

Perhaps another reader with more details can supply the number of
Bulmash's organization?


David Hayes, TCP/IP Specialist
N-Team, Inc. Network Consultants  817-929-9179

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Signs of the Times
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 06:42:18 GMT


[e-mail] (Marshal Perlman) writes:

> The best I've seen so far was at my friend's house down the street. We
> have GTE <Gross Telephones Everywhere> ... and if you dial 1-1-4, it
> says your phone number in a lady's voice.  I was showing my friend how
> it worked ... and it gave back the WRONG number the first time but
> every other time it worked fine ... but that first time it gave a
> number that wasn't even CLOSE (and he has only one line!)

> GO GTE!

NO - GTE means "Great Telephone Experiment", or if you've ever seen
one of their installation bills where the installer had to string drop
wire from the third pole down the block, you'd call it "Graft, Theft
and Extortion" as a friend of mine did.


Mike Morris   WA6ILQ   PO Box 1130   Arcadia, CA. 91077   818-447-7052
All opinions must be my own since nobody pays me enough to be their
mouthpiece ...

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unix on Switches
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 18:08:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Norman Yarvin <yarvin-norman@
cs.yale.edu> writes:

> As an undergraduate I took a course dealing mostly with switching
> networks, in which it was mentioned that the switching framework of
> the 5ESS, "AT&T's newest, most powerful switch" is of the "time space
> time" variety, i.e. it has three stages, the first and third using
> time-domain multiplexing and the second space-domain multiplexing.
> The first stage multiplexes the very large number of low-speed
> subscriber lines onto a smaller number (about 100, I think) of
> high-speed lines.  The second stage has high-speed lines for input and
> high-speed lines for output, and can connect the former to the latter
> in any fashion. (This might be done with a crossbar type arrangement;
> I forget if we were told.)  The last stage demultiplexes the
> high-speed lines onto low-speed lines.

Wow!

I'm not going to try explaining how a DMS-100 network is set up in any
detail ... I don't even know what the latest thing is other than it is
smaller, faster, and uses fiber optics to interface it.  The common
one for several years is a series of serial to parallel and then
parallel to serial converters.  One set on each side of the junctor.
It is programable in such a way that any bit going in on one side can
be pushed out the other side in any serial port desired.

The more interesting aspect to NTI's network design is that it looks a
wee bit too complicated to teach to maintenance people (who are not
computer types).  Way back a few years ago when basic maintenance
school was a 6 week vacation in Sacto, I had a lot of fun in a class
by labeling my block drawing with a highlighted square around the
network, and a big "FM" at the top.  (Actually I spelled it out
instead of "FM".) That was because this rather sharp lady teaching the
class wouldn't tell us anything about the network except that it was
"magic".

She also keep refering to the software as "user friendly" for the
first two days.  After she realized that everytime she said that I was
going to ask her if she meant "xyz" part of it? Where 'xyz' was some
horrible abortion of an unnatural way to do things (IMHO).  (It is
really much nicer now than it was a few years ago too.)

Turned out her background was in Cobol programming, and she probably
did think that was user friendly ...


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 10:58:33 PDT
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Opportunity For Getting Back at AOS's


In TELECOM Digest V11 #727 I described a notion of publishing a
call-me card number widely, to examine the liability involved and Pat
replied:

> [Moderator's Note: You would lose; all telcos and AOS's involved would
> have a perfect right to sue you to collect, and they would win. You
> have an obligation to mitigate potential and actual losses involved
> and act in a reasonable way, neither of which you would be doing when
> you post a calling card number of any stripe on a public computer
> network and 'hope' that the number does not get abused.  You would get
> sued to collect the charges if necessary because you knew or should
> have known the consequences of your actions. You have no right to
> deliberatly add to the confusion, which is what you would be doing.
> Now that everyone has given Mr. Allerd once last kick in the pants,
> let's say goodbye to him. I hope he is back online again soon.  PAT]

I have to disagree here.  If I order 800 service, and through no fault
of my own equipment it turns out that phone phreaks can use that to
place calls to third parties that are billed to me (unlikely today,
but not in the blue box days), I would not be liable.  Since in the
above scenario I've been assured that the call-me card will ONLY REACH
MY PHONE, I think I am perfectly justified in publishing the number as
a means for strangers to call me with reversed charges.  [I accept
that I could not do this since I've already shown that I have this
idea, but another person could.]  As a random phone company customer,
I don't believe I can be shown to have known or have a good reason to
have known that the number could or would have been abused.

Of couse, no system such as this would have worked against honest
AOS's such as Mr. Allerd's.  I wish him well and hope he'll rejoin us
soon.


Joe Konstan   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Anyone with a modem who calls BBSs alot and post
messages such as you propose who does *not* know about the extensive
problem of phone fraud in the USA today must be very dense.  I think
it would be impossible to find a person such as you describe.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 11:24:35 PDT
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Gall


> Indeed, if the line is configured with PIC NON, 1+ doesn't work AT ALL.

Indeed it does.

PIC NON has no effect on 1 + 800, 1 + 900, 1 + 976, or any 1 + Intra-
LATA calls.

The only effect of PIC NON is that Inter-LATA calls (not including
calls to numbers where the CALLED party determines the carrier) will
only work if a specific 10xxx code is dialled first.


john

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: NPA 510 from Tucker, Ga. CO
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 17:31:02 EDT


All is well as of at least 6:30 P.M., September 11.  I tried to call
area code 510 and actually got through from my home phone!  It seems
like someone at Southern Bell actually realized that (1) there really
is an area code 510, and (2) it is (was) Southern Bell's problem that
I couldn't reach that area code, and not [insert long distance carrier
here].  With all due respect to the folks at the Southern Bell "We
Care" Center, they called me back to make doubly sure that the problem
was corrected and that I am happy now.  (So just what in blue blazes
is a "We Care" Center?  Shouldn't they care about all customers from
the outset?)

The people at AT&T really deserve some praise for seeing this thing
through for me.  I intend that they get it.  I tend to agree with John
Higdon about AT&T -- they'll go the extra distance to get their
customers working properly rather than pass the buck to some third
party.  My modem line has MCI as the primary carrier and I placed a
trouble call with them, too.  I still haven't heard the first word
back from them.  The modem line gets 510 now, but I can't help but
feel that that is a result of my call to AT&T for the voice line and
the carry-over benefits to all subscribers at the Tucker CO,
regardless of their carrier.


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


[Moderator's Note: Well remember, Bill, a lot of old timers at AT&T
still know a lot of the old guys at Southern Bell and vice-versa.
Despite divestiture, the judge couldn't kill old friendships from
years past. Much of AT&T's progress in working with local telcos still
comes from old friends talking to each other. MCI and Sprint are still
the outsiders where long-time telco employees are concerned.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 9:33:02 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NPA 510 From PBX in San Jose


That's what the permissive dialing is for.  If the new code doesn't
work yet, try to find out where the problem is and get it fixed as
soon as possible, because the new area code will be fully cut over
later.  On Sept. 2, I was not able to reach area 510 from the downtown
Wilmington, Delaware exchanges.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 9:36:23 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help - Need Pointers to Equipment and Line Information


What do you mean, "a legitimate San Francisco residential phone number
(it's a 415-843 number)"?  I have 843 as Berkeley, which is moving to
510.

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

Date: 13-SEP-1991 15:47:29.05
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Metromedia - Phone Bills on a Floppy?


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Leibold)
opines:

> ... Perhaps the next step is to e-mail phone bills to customers?

Certainly AT&T Mail does just that for its customers (like me) with
the "electronic billing" option.  On the other hand, MCI Mail doesn't
 -- or at least claimed to be unable to when I inquired at the
inception of my MCI Mail service; who knows (Paul Wilczynski, are you
there?), maybe they do now.

Fred    <[e-mail]>    <fejlinton@[att|mci]mail.com>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #735
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12619;
          15 Sep 91 0:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17110;
          14 Sep 91 22:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14633;
          14 Sep 91 21:35 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Sep 91 20:44:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #736
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Sep 91 20:44:23 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 736

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: $99 B&W Cellular Receiver [Dave Levenson]
    Re: $99 B&W Cellular Receiver [Bud Couch]
    Re: And You Think >YOUR< Cellular Rates Are High? [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: And You Think >YOUR< Cellular Rates Are High? [Michael Ho]
    Re: Cellphones and 911 [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Radio Shack Pitches Cellular 911 [Mark T. Miller]
    Re: Cellular and Equal Access [John R. Covert]
    Missed Cell Phone Calls [John Gilbert]
    Cell Service in San Diego? [Tom Perrine]
    IBT Misprograms Cell One Prefix [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: $99 B&W Cellular Receiver
Date: 13 Sep 91 12:58:05 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (dr.
funk) writes:

> When the ability to freely and independently communicate is gone, all
> other freedoms will soon be lost. Write now.

And our Moderator Notes:

> ... Maybe you can explain what 'the ability to freely and
> independently communicate' has to do with eavesdropping on other
> people's phone calls.

While I don't want to condone eavesdropping, I would like to offer a
few thoughts on this general area.

Technology and legislation are each good at solving some kinds of
problems.  When we try to use legislation to solve technological
problems, we end up with unenforceable and therefore probably useless
laws like those governing the interception of cellular telephone
traffic off the air.

For most of the history of radio, in the USA, it has been legal to
listen to anything you could receive.  The right to transmit was
legislated; the right to receive was governed only by the technology
available to the receiver.  This was a reasonable division.  A
transmitter made use of a resource allocated by the government.  A
receiver did not.  If the sender wanted to keep the message private,
then the burden of encrypting the message fell upon the sender.

That changed in 1986.  Now, the law forbids the reception of certain
messages by other than their intended recipient.  While they can
regulate the sale of devices intended for eavesdropping, they cannot
actually control the use made of receivers already in the hands of the
population.  They cannot control the activities of people capable of
building or modifying receivers and using them illegally.  They cannot
prevent the accidental reception of messages caused by unintended side
effects of the technology (e.g. reception of messages by TV sets whose
users are only trying to watch television programming).

If users of radio spectrum are expecting privacy because the law gives
it to them, then the law actually does them a disservice.  It grants
a right that it cannot deliver.  A useful communications privacy act
would have required common carriers and portable equipment
manufacturers to encrypt the 'air interface' portion of the cellular
service.

While we do not condone eavesdropping, let's be realistic.  The ECPA
does not make it safe to discuss confidential matters on a cellular or
cordless telephone.  Assume that someone is listening!

Let's hope that our legislators have the common sense not to pass laws
as useless as the ECPA of '86.  Legislate what can be controlled by
law.  Don't attempt to legislate physics!


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: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: $99 B&W Cellular Receiver
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 20:36:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (dr.
funk) writes:

> When the ability to freely and independently communicate is gone, all
> other freedoms will soon be lost. Write now.

> [Moderator's Note:...  It is very easy to listen to other people's
> cell phone calls. Not only is it easy, it is also boring.  And
> boorish.  PAT]

It *is* boring (I think, having had to listen to others LD traffic
while monitoring the service) ... and boorish. But that doesn't make
it a crime, worthy of a jail sentence.  Cell traffic was included on
the bill just to broaden its appeal, but the real intent of that
legislation was the conferral of economic advantage via the coersive
power of the state; i.e. making it illegal to intercept satellite TV
*broad*casts. IMSHO, if you want it private, pay the price. Lease the
right-of-way and run wires, or scramble it.  (And don't try to throw
people in jail for possesion of descramblers).


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

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: And You Think >YOUR< Cellular Rates Are High? : -(
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1991 10:25:58 GMT


[e-mail] (Jack Winslade) writes:

[about high priced cellular service in Lenin ... oops, St. Petersburg]

> I see that the fair citizens of St. Petersburg have been introduced to
> the capitalist tradition known as 'gouging'.  ;-)

Maybe yes, maybe no.  If you are paying in Rubles, it might be cheap.
The offical Ruble-to-Dollar exchange rate values the Ruble much higher
than the See-the-guy-in-the-leather-jacket-around-the-corner exchange
rate.  So if you have dollars, and pay in Rubles, it might be a
bargain.

Of course, given the state of the phone system there, the only guys
you'd be able to call are other guys with cellphones, which means StP
Cellular gets double-airtime on most calls!


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

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

From: "Tiny Bubbles..." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: And You Think >YOUR< Cellular Rates Are High? :-(
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1991 18:11:20 GMT


[e-mail] (Jack Winslade) writes this about
cellular service in what once was the U.S.S.R.:

> the service will cost $195.00 per month for
> access, which includes 210 minutes of calling, and a one-time
> connection fee of $1995.00 !!!  The article states that additional
> minutes will cost $.65 each and that phones will lease for $50-$75 per
> month.

Hmmm ... the only thing I can think of is:

a)  You were right, and US West is engaging in "gouging";  or

b)  US West inflated the prices because it will be accepting payment in
rubles at the "official" exchange rate instead of the "real" black-
market rate.


Michael Ho, University of Nebraska   Internet: [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be
         applied to any university agency.

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellphones and 911
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 12 Sep 91 15:24:45 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: We cannot make 911 calls from cell phones in
> Chicago because there is no central place (in the suburban towns)
> where all calls go. The suburbs cannot even agree among themselves who
> will handle emergency calls for all the towns and villages sharing the
> same phone prefix. Each community has two or three phone prefixes they
> may share with the community next to them. Politics being as they are
> here, they are all afraid if something goes right, the other guys will
> get the praise, and if something goes wrong, they'll be the ones to
> catch hell. The towns with phones exchanges unique to that community
> do have 911 ... the others make do with seven digit numbers.   PAT]

I don't see the problem.  Here in southern 415 (Santa Clara County) we
have some prefixes that serve two communities.  The 911 calls are
directed to the correct agency in all cases.  Maybe you need E911 to
do it, though.

I've always been amazed at how the midwest and eastern parts of the
country, with an additional 100 years to develop, can make such a hash
of things like emergency services.  We have far fewer jurisdictional
problems here in the west.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: "Mark T. Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Shack Pitches Cellular 911
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 18:31:56 EDT


I just got the latest flyer and Radio Shack, and in light of recent
discussions here concerning cellular phones and 911, I had a chuckle
when I read "The Chaiman's Thoughts" column:

The cellular telephone, primarily for the automobile but also for
portable use, has three great attributes -- security, emergency and
convenience.

The security aspect comes from the ability to call for "help" easily
and quickly. In fact, most 911 calls today originate from cellular
phones.

        [and more stuff about cellular phones]


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


Moderator's Note: The Chicago Police Department would find that
comment about 'most 911 calls originate from cellular' to be most
interesting. I think the man is trying to sell cellular phones.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 10:44:26 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  12-Sep-1991 1342" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular and Equal Access


NYNEX Mobile in Boston will allow you to select, as your default
carrier, any one of the following carriers:

AT&T, MCI, Sprint, TDX, ITT, Bay Fiber Optic, or Toll Kall.

In the past, I was able to make calls on other carriers by dialing
the 10xxx code, but since I've never in four years received a bill for
any call placed on one of the other carriers (and the detail billing
entry for such calls lists the airtime and the carrier used with no
charge for the long distance portion unless AT&T was the carrier), I
suspect that NYNEX Mobile can't provide a billing service for the
non-AT&T carriers (their billing software seems to not support it),
and this is why the 10xxx codes (except 10288) no longer work.

Many cellular carriers have argued that they are not required to
provide equal access.


john

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

From: DX531 John Gilbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Missed Cell Phone Calls
Organization: Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 23:45:18 GMT


Here in Chicago, Ameritech only sends a single page to signal a
cellular mobile during a land-to-mobile call attempt.  The system
makes one attempt to contact the subscriber and if the signal is not
good enough on that first attempt you get "The customer you have
called is away from their phone ..." and the call is missed.

My cellular portable has the "failed page" option set so that it makes
a special ringing signal to alert me to a missed call. I know of other
systems that will page once, wait a few seconds, and send a second
page.  This would give me time to remove the portable from the seat of
the car (or my coat pocket) and hold it up in a better position to
successfully receive the second page and complete the inbound call.

I called Ameritech and, not surprisingly, got nowhere trying to get
them to send a second page throughout the system.  They said that
nobody else ever complained (gee, I would think this MIGHT be a useful
system feature) and they mentioned the increased data loading on the
paging channel, increased time to get the intercept, etc.

To their credit, they did suggest a work-around for this problem.  It
seems that if you are willing to pay for no-answer transfer and
transfer to your own MIN, you get three or four pages before the
system sends you to the intercept.  So, you can pay for an option to
make the system work like it should in the first place.

Has anyone else had any experience with this problem?


John Gilbert   KA4JMC   Secure and Advanced Conventional Systems Divsion
Astro Systems Development   Motorola Inc,  Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, Illinois  [e-mail]

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots!tots.Logicon.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Cell Service in San Diego
Date: 13 Sep 91 23:10:08 GMT
Organization: Logicon Inc., San Diego California



Well, I'm planning to finally join the cellurized world, and I have
some questions, and some comments, about my efforts so far.

My main motivation is to provide "emergency/urgent" phone service for
my wife, who is attending late night classes at a local university,
and who also logs a lot of miles for her business (Want to buy some
Discovery Toys? :-)

I am looking at some of the inexpensive hand-held phones, like the
Mobira(sp?) sold by Radio Shack.

My adventures with the two carriers here has been interesting. The
U.S. West saleperson was *very* knowledgable, and when I asked about
programming charges, mentioned that (if I have service with them) they
will re-program any phone, any time, for no charge, or "If you know
what you are doing, we can give you the parameters and you can do it
yourself". (From the comments of others concerning programming, this
seems to be quite a novelty!) U.S.West will be sending me a cell map,
rate (and plan) info, and information things such as cell maps of some
of the other areas of CA and AZ I am interested in, and roam info from
other carriers that they have agreements with.

My call to PacTel was almost useless. They woudn't send out written
information until I really insisted (*very* forcefully), and the stock
answer to any question was: "Well, you really should come in and talk
to one of our representatives, so they can decide what you really
need". Talk about salesthugs!

ANyway, I am open to any suggestions for phones, and any comments
about PacTel or USWest service.

Thanks,


Tom Perrine (tep)   |Internet: [e-mail] |Voice: [phone]
Logicon - T&TSD     | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep     |  or : [phone]
P.O. Box 85158      |GENIE: T.PERRINE               |  FAX: [phone]
San Diego CA 92138

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 20:04:18 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: IBT Misprograms Cell One Prefix


This past week Illinois Bell had a programming error which prevented
north side coin phone users from reaching certain Cellular One phones.

The exchanges 312-415 (Ameritech) and 312-504 (Cellular One) are wired
sort of funny. They are both out in the suburbs at the offices of
their respective carriers, but at the time of the 312/708 split they
were kept in 312.

Calls from the far north side of Chicago (Rogers Park CO) to 312-415
always were charged 25 cents from coin phones, like any call to a
point 'within Chicago'. On the other hand, coin calls to 312-504 were
always charged 35 cents. Cynics would say that Ameritech and IBT are
like two peas in a pod; both being subsidiaries of the same
corporation, and Cell One was an outsider, and unwelcome one at that.

After complaints about this to the Illinois Commerce Commission, IBT
apparently decided to equalize the rates, but in the process,
something went wrong. Calls this past week from Rogers Park Coin to
312-504 were intercepted as follows:

    (Without first depositing 25 cents)
    "Your call requires a 25 cent deposit. Please hang up, deposit
     25 cents and dial your call again."

    (With 25 cent deposit)
    After dialing 504-xxxx the coin was immediatly kicked back out
    to you (as in the past, when the request would then be to
    'deposit 35 cents please') ... but instead of a request for more
    money the recording stated,
    "You must first dial a one when calling this number."

Now we have no such thing as 1 + 7D here. We of course have 1 + 10D,
even when calling across the street from 312 to 708. Dialing 1 + 504 +
of course led the equipment to think the call was destined for New
Orleans!

I put in a call to someone, and later that day the response from
Rogers Park Coin phones to 312-504 changed from the "You must first
dial a one ..." to a rapid busy or re-order signal when dialing those
numbers. But the next morning everything was working okay, and now
calls to Cellular One phones are 25 cents just like calls to Ameritech
cell phones.

Thanks for the quick work, IBT!


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #736
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14466;
          15 Sep 91 1:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20311;
          14 Sep 91 23:49 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17110;
          14 Sep 91 22:41 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Sep 91 22:09:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #737
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Sep 91 22:09:23 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 737

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [John R. Covert]
    Re: Visiting Australia Soon; Need Telecom Info [Michael G. Katzmann
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (Re: Running Out of Codes) [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [David Lesher]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [Jim Youll]
    Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill! [Dave Niebuhr]
    Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill! [John Higdon]
    Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill! [Dave Gresham]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 11:13:16 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  12-Sep-1991 1411" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers


There is an additional, not yet mentioned problem with making U.S. and
Canadian telephone numbers longer:

All cellular telephones would immediately be obsolete.

The AMPS protocol provides 10 bits for the cellular phone's area code
and 24 bits for the cellular phone's seven-digit number.  Period.

This is obviously hard-coded into every AMPS cellular phone.

Although the problem this creates could be worked around by making the
Mobile Identification Number stored in the phone and used in the
protocol something totally unrelated to the mobile telephone number
people call to reach the phone, that would be a mess.

There are many, many things which lock us into ten digit phone numbers
in all of world numbering zone 1 for quite some time to come.


john

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

From: "Michael G. Katzmann" <vk2bea![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Visiting Australia Soon; Need Telecom Info
Date: 14 Sep 91 14:33:25 GMT
Reply-To: "Michael G. Katzmann" <vk2bea![e-mail]>
Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland.


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

> I'll be traveling to Australia in a couple weeks for a vacation and
> would appreciate some telecom-related information. Specifically:

> 1. Is the AT&T USA Direct number my best contact to the U.S.? Can I
> call an 800 number via the USA Direct operator (to check voice
> mail ...)

USA Direct is probably the best way. It may not be chaeper initially
than a direct-dial call but you pay in US dollars when you get home
and thus don't have any conversion costs.  As you probably know you
can't dial an 800 number directly from overseas and I think you might
have a hard time getting an operator to connect you.  (I had alot of
problems trying to get a 008 number in Australia from the US. )

> 2. What dialing method(s) are used (pulse or tone)? Are tones (if
> used) same as U.S. standards? (Again -- I'd like to access my voice
> mail or home answering machine ...)

Some exchanges (probably less than 50% ) have DTMF capabilities but
most phones do not. (I.E. take a poket dialer with you).  If the
exchange is so equiped, Telecom Australia will enable DTMF for free
(unlike the surcharge here). The DTMF tones are Bell compatable.

> 3. For calling within OZ, do I need to carry a pocketfull of local
> currency in change or are phones available that will let me use my
> Visa or MasterCard to charge calls? (This is primarily for checking
> on/making reservations with hotels, airlines, etc.)

Yes there are such phones (Gold Phones?). Telecom began introducing
card-phones (like the French and Japanese) last year.  You buy a $5
card and it deducts the cost of the calls you make until the
face-value is used up. (quite convenient).


Michael Katzmann     Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~     Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A
Amteur Radio Stations:
NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV     opel!vk2bea![e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 22:48 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove 1+ = TOLL (Re: Running Out of Area Codes)
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


> [From the Cincinnati Bell white pages:]

> 'A call to a callular telephone user may result in a charge.  A
> service is available to cellular mobile subcsriber known as "Calling
> Party Pays".  Under this service, charges normally billed to the
> cellular subscriber on a per-minute-of-use basis will be billed to the
> party originating the call.'  ...  'When dialing a "Calling Party
> Pays" customer from the 513 Area Code, you must dial 1 plus the
> seven-digit telephone number. '

This previously undocumented CBT feature has driven me crazy recently:

This means that cellular exchanges can be both 1+ or non-1+...e.g.
both 547-XXXX and 1-547-XXXX have to be dialable.

Ever tried to explain this to a PBX's Automatic Route Selection
feature?  Its not easy to do.

We have one customer in Cincinatti, and getting their PBX to live with
this CBT "feature" has been very painful.  The PBX manufacturer
couldn't believe we were telling the truth when we called their
Engineering Department with this one.

I wonder how CBT deals with billing incoming calls to a Calling Party
Pays number from outside the LATA ... do they bill the IXC?  I bet not,
AT&T and MCI would go crazy dealing with the billing implications.


Regards,

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

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 7:46:16 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


> Do you know that for a fact, or are you just making it up? Most areas
> do not require a '1' for 976 calls within the same area code. In those
> cases where a '1' is required I would be willing to bet that the
> underlying cause is that somewhere an office or two must pass the call
> to another office for proper routing and/or billing.

I don't often disagree with JH, but in Ohio, the PUCO required the 1+
for 976 and 900 usage. And when OBT introduced a "bargain" intra-LATA
calling plan (but neglected to mention that it applied only Bell CO to
Bell CO) they told users: "Don't dial 1+ to these areas." Note these
were still toll calls, just priced at 3x what they should cost, not 5x ;-[

That did not last long. PUCO ruled that those "bargain" intra-lata
calls had to be 1+ dialed.

I suspect that you will find a common thread. If the area is
{predominantly} flat rated, such as OH, the Twin Cities, DC area, and
most of FL, (only naming the ones I have experience in ...) then 1+
means "TOLL."

But in the areas that are already "rape you by the second, and
{usually} don't provide an itemized bill" then I suspect 1+ does not
mean "TOLL" -- the dial tone does *that* job ;-{

If you look at it in a different light, the 1-800 is no exception.
Those calls are not toll-free, merely "automatically collect."  Of
course we could THEN argue for 0 + 800 ...


[e-mail]   (305) 255-RTFM

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

From: Jim Youll <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)
Date: 14 Sep 91 16:16:28 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State Univ.


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

> Tony Harminc <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Customers were certainly not thinking "I dial 1 because my local CO is
>> SxS and can't handle things without it".  That initial 1 meant long
>> distance, and long distance meant money.

> But this is just an ignorant association on the part of telephone
> users. Are you saying that if you so perceive something then it is so?
> Just because customers "made up" the idea that '1' = "toll charge"
> does not give it historical validity. Is this how we should hold
> history?  Whatever people "feel" about it is the way it should be
> recorded? To pervert a line from "The Ten Commandments", "So let it be
> thought; so let it be true."

> Wrong is wrong. I don't care how many years someone "believes"
> something. Belief does not a fact make.

>> Clearly, inconsistencies have been introduced, most notably 800
>> numbers preceded by 1 where there is no charge.

Your points are valid, and the information you present is true in
every sense. But you should also be more tolerant of the fact that
most folks don't have the slightest idea how phones work, don't care,
and won't ever know.

Fact is I was raised in a place where all long distance calls happen
to start with "1". Just because that's the way it is. Nobody came by
from the phone company to explain why we dialed the 1, and we had to
dial it for all long distance calls, so it sure seemed right ...

We even had "no toll" service extended to a city we called a lot.
Amazing thing, when calling there we didn't have to dial "1" (the call
didn't cost us anything) but everyone else in town who didn't have the
service DID have to dial "1" ...

Many people have learned it this way, and some of us like it, even if
we understand that the interpretation is all wrong.

I would like to see SOME indication that a call is going to cost me
more than I expected (i.e. free with unmeasured service or 1-cent for
measured) before I have to pay for the call.

As it is, I can't even get a chart from an LD company that would let
me know the cost of a call based on its distance, time of day and
duration.

Hell, if service providers assume (as I've been told by some
salesswine) that we're too stupid to figure out the cost of a phone
call based on a rate chart, then nobody has any right to expect normal
folk to understand 1+ and area codes and LATAs and [insert favorite
rant here].

When I work with office-people who are new to computers, I sometimes
learn new words for computer parts. For example, the typical computer
system on a secretary's desk consists of three basic components:

   The keyboard, the hard disk (some of us call this unit the
"computer" or "CPU") and the computer (some of us call this the
"screen" or "monitor".)  When we're starting out, it's easier for me
to use their terms than for them to use mine (heck, I understand it
all and can map "A"->"B" pretty easily. They don't.

   LATER, when the computer system seems familiar and comfortable to
them, we can go back and REFINE the prior knowledge, so that the
operator and I work toward "correct" terminology and precisely-defined
procedural stuff.

If this has any point at all, I guess that it's not fair for TPC to
suddenly give people a way of spending money that didn't used to
exist, and whether the interpretation of "1+" = "toll" is semantically
valid or not is not material to the fact that lots of people
understand it that way, and that basic vendor-customer courtesies
should encourage phone companies to give people like me a substitute,
or a better explanation, or something, instead of just a charge on the
bill.


Disclaimer: I'm really not sure why I'm here or what you expect me to
do about it, so please don't take any of this too seriously.

Jim Youll, aka [e-mail], 419/354-2110

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1991 8:29:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Niebuhr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Roommate from Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill!


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve
Thornton) writes:

> Roommate From Hell. He stole from us, never paid his share of the rent
> or other bills, etc. He broke up the household, and as I was cleaning
> up the mess he left when he left, I found a pile of glossy ads for
> various Dial-A-Slut services under his bed, all at $2 or $4 a minute.
> The phone is in my name. I have every reason to suspect that he made
> lots of calls. I haven't got our final Sprint bill yet, but I dread
> it.

Make sure that all of the phone charges show up either this month or
next month.

> Now, since he was a legitimate (though evil) member of the household,
> and he was in theory entitled to use the phone, I'm guessing that
> Sprint won't even listen to my complaint. This bozo blew out of town
> with no forwarding address (he's now wanted by the police for check
> forgery) and I'm holding the bag. I'm as much in favor of
> character-building and learning-experiences and whatnot as anyone, but
> this could easily be a $500 bill that I simply cannot afford to pay.

The first thing to do here and to prevent a re-occurance is to put
900/976 blocking on your phone.  There might be a one-time charge but
it will be worth it in the future.

Number two is to call Sprint and discuss the situation with them in
detail.  You might be able to strike a deal with them where they will
dismiss some or even all of the charges, but I doubt it.

I had an experience in the late '70s when I had to run up a tremendous
bill due to a family death and my phone company was more than willing
to accept payments for a few months.

Since I did that my credit rating was preserved, my reputation was
intact and I didn't lose my phone.  Creditors, in most cases, are
willing to work things out if a problem since they'd rather have the
money a few months late rather than have to take a write-off on it
which will damage your credit rating.

Granted, you have the phone in your name; but if you act first you
just might be able to 'save the day'.  Give them a call; it can't
hurt.

Why don't you go to the Harvard Law School and explain the situation
to them.  It certainly can't hurt and you will have some of the best
legal minds to help you.  They might be willing to add your experience
to one of their courses as a case study.

Remember: Do two things first; get 900/976 billing and call Sprint on
the double.


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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 10:25 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill!


frankston![e-mail] writes:

> The very short form is that this another example why the 900/976 is an
> illconceived kludge that should be dismantled until it has been
> rethought and brought into line with other credit and charging
> services.

I disagree. What this illustrates is the fallacy of sharing phone
service. Since I have been thirteen years old, I have had phone
service in my name, wherever I have lived, anywhere in the country.
When I was in school and shared a house with a number of others, my
first act upon moving in was to order telephone service. In fact, I
typically ordered two lines. One place I lived had to have trenching
done to accomodate my order, so this was not something done casually.

A telephone account is a personal thing. Would you expect two (let
alone four or five) people to share a VISA account? The moment the
telcos start allowing 900 calls to be alternately billed, you will see
pranking and fraud go through the roof. Keeping them direct dial only
settles a lot of issues from the starting gate.

Any housing situation in which the members are foolish enough to have
a "one phone serves all" should have 900/976 blocking, and all the
users of the phone have personal LD accounts. Telephone service is so
cheap nowadays that cost cannot be used as an excuse for a lack of
individual phone lines, even on "starving student's" budgets. What are
the excuses?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Gresham)
Subject: Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill!
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1991 23:16:08 GMT


Aproximately six or so months ago I received a flyer from Pacific Bell
stating the way to go about blocking calls to 976/900 numbers.

There was a section that stated that you can get a one-time credit on
these calls.  You may want to call your local telephone company to see
what their policy is.


dave   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #737
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28263;
          15 Sep 91 11:28 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08027;
          15 Sep 91 10:00 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07152;
          15 Sep 91 8:51 CDT
Date:     Sun, 15 Sep 91 8:17:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #738
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Sep 91 08:17:04 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 738

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Problem Reaching AT&T MAIL [David Leibold]
    Re: AT&T Mail: Internet to X.400? [Joe Jesson]
    Re: Local IXC's "CALL ME" Card is Here; Now What? [Linc Madison]
    Re: Incoming WATS Information [David Leibold]
    Re: Incoming WATS Information [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Incoming WATS Information [John R. Covert]
    Re: New Fax / Modem Chips [Jim Rees]
    Re: Wanted: Ground Start Adaptor for Single Line Phone [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Can Direct Dial Calls be Charged to AT&T Card? [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: How do You Find Out if a Phone is Bugged? [David Lesher]
    Re: Southern Bell on Hold [Colin Plumb]
    Re: Why Couldn't I Use USA Direct? [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Voicemail (was We're Sorry, But the Country ...) [James Elliott]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Problem Reaching AT&T MAIL
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 12:50:17 GMT


I did some telnet and ftp stuff while I was at York recently ... I
tried to telnet over to attmail.com, but it seemed to have connected
to att.com instead, as it wasn't the usual attmail sign-on.


attmail.com!dleibold (at sign doesn't work right now :-<)
bnw.debe.fl.us!dleibold (or convert to at signed domain format)


[Moderator's Note: What happened to you was because 'attmail.com' is
aliased to 'att.com'. If you had tried to telnet or rlogin to MCI
Mail, you'd have wound up connected to NRI, since mcimail.com is
aliased to that site, which is the gateway. I don't think mcimail.com
and attmail.com are real places where the Internet is concerned. I
think they are just pointers at their respective gateways. For fun
sometime, try telnet or ftp to a fido.org address.    PAT]

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

From: joe jesson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Mail: Internet to X.400? (was Problem Reaching AT&T Mail)
Organization: Chinet - Public access UNIX
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1991 15:24:59 GMT


 The joys of X.400! ATTMail X.400 to domain (RFC822) conversion (and
the reverse) is built-in to AT&T's network. For example, my X.400
address on AT&T Mail is:

 Country=US
 ADMD=ATTMAIL
 PRMD=AMOCO
 Surname=JESSON
 Givenname=JOSEPH
 Initials=E

 The identical domain address is:

 mhs!amoco![e-mail]

 Note the conversion:

 C=US  (default)
 AD=ATTMAIL (understood network)
 PD=AMOCO (mhs turns the domain address to X.400)
 S=JESSON (joseph_e_jesson is the entire PN and uses g plus i)

 Anyway, make sure the domain form of the x.400 address is set-up as a
mail alias in your .mailrc file since "mail" will not accept mixed
bangs and @ symbols in-line ...

 Try it! Works great!


Joseph Jesson  mhs!amoco![e-mail] or [e-mail]
21414 W. Honey Lane, Lake Villa, IL, 60046  Compuserve 73707,275
-   Day Telephone - 312-856-3645     Eve. Telephone - 708-356-6817

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 02:25:07 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local IXC's "CALL ME" Card is Here; Now What?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon & PAT write:

> ...and using an AOS frequently results in the
> ability to place a call anywhere. This is because the only thing an
> AOS cares about in placing the call is the extraction of the embedded
> phone number for billing purposes. "Sleazeballtel" could not care less
> that there is a flag in AT&T's database that only allows this number
> to be used to call the phone whose number is embedded therein.

> [Moderator's Note: They'll care when they don't get paid for the call,
> won't they?   PAT]

But how can you tell?  My calls on my Pacific Bell "Call Me" card
don't show up any differently from my regular calling card calls.  Is
any record kept of which calling card number you used for a particular
call, and if so, at what level?  Otherwise, I have to rely on
recognizing the bogus number on my bill, and then trying to persuade
the telco droids that they should stop dunning me for inappropriate
charges stemming from misuse of the "Call Me" card.


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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 17:13:26 -0400
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Incoming WATS Information


Sean McLinden's mystery 800 number has been found; I was able to
contact the number from Florida today and leave a message. It seems
that the 800 number involved is inaccessible within Pennsylvania, as
it was based in 215 NPA while Sean was in 412 (Pittsburgh area). This
is a relic of the old form of 800 service which would be available
intra-state or interstate, but not both at the same time (unless two
separate 800 services were ordered).

Perhaps the ever-competitive carriers should start a service that
announces the regular number which will reach the party should the 800
number be deemed out of area. This option could be made available (or
sold for bonus revenue by the carriers) to those having 800 service. A
canned-voice number announcement would do the trick, much like they do
for changed or disconnected numbers for local service. (Hey, this is
breakthrough thinking ... perhaps I should reserve the right to patent
this, if someone hasn't already thought of it.)


attmail.com!dleibold   sol.cs.fau.edu!djcl  bnw.debe.fl.us!djcl

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Incoming WATS Information
Date: 13 Sep 91 12:43:30 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> Here's a puzzle. Any help would be appreciated.

> I just received a call fqrom someone who left only a name and a message
> stating "He'll know what this is about." Obviously, I don't. With some
> prompting the caller left a phone number:

>     800-441-0996

I called it.  The operator says the name of the business so fast that
I couldn't catch it -- it is a long string of names.  I asked "Are you
a law firm or something?" and she said, "no, we're an executive search
firm".  A headhunter.  So, now you know why they didn't want to say
why they were calling -- because they wanted to talk with you
"privately" about changing jobs, and didn't want to tip off your
current employer.


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: Fri, 13 Sep 91 12:31:39 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  13-Sep-1991 1524" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Incoming WATS Information


The 800 number is located in Philadelphia; apparently it is dialable
from out of state -- I called it from New Hampshire.

It is Garofolo, Lambert & MacLean, an Executive Search company, with a
POTS number of 215 896-5080.


john

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: New Fax / Modem Chips
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 16:31:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, ssc-bee!ssc-vax!clark@
cs.washington.edu (Roger Clark Swann) writes:

> {Electronic Engingering Times}, Monday Sept 9, 1991 - Issue 658 has an
> article by John Thompson, detailing a new generation of FAX/Modem chip
> sets that include many new features. The additional features include
> caller identification, integrated fax, and voice capability...

> The article then goes on to quote some analyst types as saying this
> may spell the demise of narrowband ISDN ...

Nonsense.  ISDN has ten times the bandwidth of analog, and the chips
sets will be much cheaper in quantity, since they are so much simpler.
The only way ISDN will fail is if it gets priced at ridiculous levels
(ten times the bandwidth for ten times the price) or if the distance
limitations kill it, or IXC interconnect doesn't happen, or... but I
don't think the subscriber equipment is going to be the problem.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 23:01 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: WANTED: Ground Start Adaptor for Single Line Phone
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> I am looking for a simple device that will allow a single line phone
> to be temporarily connected to a PBX ground start line.  It does not
> need to generate ringing voltage to the phone.  Can anyone point me to
> a manufacturer?

Mitel, Tellabs and Wescom used to make cards for this purpose.  They
still may, but my catalogs are all sitting on the shelf at the office
30 miles away.

I always used a little red button on the side of the phone, connected
to ground and ring wires ... it was cheaper.

Its also possible to set up a relay timer that will fire on off hook
(using the voltage between ring ground stored in a capacitor) to
momentarily ground the line.


Regards,

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

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Sep 91 19:00:06
Subject: Re: Can Direct Dial Calls be Charged to AT&T Card?


In the TELECOM Digest, hayes![e-mail] (Toby Nixon) writes:

>> Or, for the modem folk, is there a reliable way to dial-up using a
>> calling card, without having to sacrifice a chicken every time?

> Many modems today have the "@" dial modifier, which is defined as
> "wait for quiet answer".  What it does it look for some signal in the
> call progress band, followed by five seconds of silence.  It seems to
> work pretty reliably for me as a separator between called number and
> card number, such as:

>     ATDT 0 404-840-9200 @ 123-456-7890-5555

> (hyphens and spaces being optional).  The "bong" tone triggers the
> "@", at least in Hayes modems.  The only time a problem occurs is if
> you have a particularly bored AT&T operator who doesn't let five full
> seconds pass before picking up on the call and asking what you need.
> They really get a kick out of it when they pick up right at five
> seconds, only to be blasted with your card number in DTMF.

     The only problem with this is the voice saying "AT&T" immediately
after the bong, which US Robotics modems recognize as voice and report
as a VOICE error.  Even if the voice feature set (X5 & 6) is
deactivated, the modem still reports "AT&T" voice as a BUSY signal.
The only format I've gotten to work is:

    ATDT 0 301-946-5032 ,,, 123-456-7890-5555 ,,,

The trailing commas protect against any "Thank you for using AT&T"
message.  Sometimes, a little courtesy can be a troublesome thing.

Spaces and hyphens are for illustrative purposes only; command strings
have a maximum length of 40 characters, so the actual dial string used
would be:

    ATD03019465032,,,12345678905555,,,

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How do You Find Out if a Phone is Bugged?
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 9:49:31 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


> My friend asked me if I know of a way to tell if her home phone is
> bugged.

> So, I'm asking the telecom experts, based on this story, is there any
> chance that someone is eves-dropping, and if so, how do we find out?

Several of us, including Larry Lippman, have been over this before.
Yes, it may well be compromised. No, you have way of proving that it
is or is not.

The call you make goes over a variety of transmission means. It starts
on a capacitive low impedance pair, loaded with inductors, sitting on
DC bias. It then goes to a switch, where it will likely be turned into
a {digital} data stream, mux'ed with three million other calls and
passed hither and yon. Chances are at some point, it get raised in
frequency until it is light, and is stuffed into a fibre.

About the only difficult {but far from impossible} point to intercept
your call is when it's in that fibre. Anywhere else, it's a piece of
cake. And unless the bozo connects a 3.2 ohm speaker across your pair,
you'll never know it. Never.

Tell your candidate to take the advice given to me years ago by
a friend in the Intelligence Community:

    Never say anything on the phone you don't want
    to read in tomorrow's {Washington} Post.


[e-mail]  (305) 255-RTFM

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Southern Bell on Hold
Date:     Fri, 13 Sep 1991 08:53:15 -0400
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> wrote:

> When I asked about the four remaining prefixes in the ANdrews office
> that are presently served out of a co-located 1ESS (723, 978, 879,
> 559), the rep said, "Don't tell anyone I said this, but once the 5ESS
> is up and running, we can move the other four prefixes over to it and
> retire the 1ESS without having to bother the PUC."

So much for not telling anyone!

Colin

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Couldn't I Use USA Direct?
Date: 14 Sep 91 19:49:55 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]> David McKellar <djm@dmntor.
uucp> writes:

[Deleted description of trying to make a call from Bejing to Canada
via USA Direct(R).  His logic was that the USA and Canada share the
same numbering plan, so it should have worked.]

> Does anybody have a definitive answer on why USA Direct couldn't
> handle my call?

Because the tariffs and agreements between AT&T and the Chinese
government relate specifically to phone traffic between China and the
U.S.  Placing a call to Canada would violate that agreement.  And, no,
having an AT&T card wouldn't change that fact.

(R) USA Direct is a registered service mark of AT&T


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

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

From: James Elliott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voicemail (was We're Sorry, But the Country ...)
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 22:17:07 GMT


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

> On this note, do any colleges have on-campus voicemail?  Or are just a
> few of us lucky enough to be left out ...

Caveat: Much of this information I gleaned from residents of the
school when visiting for a programming contest, so it may not be
entirely accurate. What I saw was enough to convince me that it was
essentially true.

Drew University, at least as of three years ago, has a very
sophisticated voice-mail system which is integrated with their
electronic mail. Each student has their own PC, network connection,
and feature phone with a "message waiting" light which illuminates for
either type of mail. In multi-person rooms, different phones ring with
different pitches to help distinguish things but it can still get a
little chaotic.

When dialing in if you don't know somebody's number there's an
automated directory assistance system; you key in the first few
letters of their name, and an audio menu of each person announcing
their name in their own voice allows you to choose who you meant.


Jim Elliott    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #738
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29624;
          15 Sep 91 12:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10512;
          15 Sep 91 11:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08027;
          15 Sep 91 10:00 CDT
Date:     Sun, 15 Sep 91 8:55:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #739
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Sep 91 08:55:15 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 739

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More on US West and 976 IPs [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Real Time Voice on Ethernet [Chris Schmandt]
    Re: Real Time Voice on Ethernet [Andrew Evans]
    Re: How do You Find Out if a Phone is Bugged? [Michael A. Covington]
    Re: Questions About Wire Maintainence Plan [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Same Day Service [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Same Day Service [Jack Decker]
    Re: References Wanted on Interface Projects for Phones [Jon Sreekanth]
    Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill! [Fred E. J. Linton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on US West and 976 IPs
Date: 10 Sep 91 06:23:16 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Steve Forrette) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 713, Message 9 of 10

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

>> If only it were as easy as that. Getting a credit card merchant
>> account for telephone ordered services is quite difficult. Most banks
>> simply refuse, and those that are "generous" enough to grant you one,
>> require a signficant (read: > $100k) bond. This simply puts a typical
>> credit card as a means of collections out of reach for most small
>> businesses.

> This is not necessarily the case.  I am an MasterCard/Visa merchant,
> so I speak with experience, and not net.urban-legend.  On my
> application, I was truthful in indicating that 90% of our sales would
> be telephone or mail order, where we would not have a card imprint or
> be able to verify ID, etc.

    Actually what some small mail order places do is run the
credit card purchases through a buddy who does have an account and
charges a percentage to do so. So you may may buy some computer
ribbons over the phone via mail order and wonder why some out of town
coffee shop has dinged you for $50.00.

    Some of the telephone sex providers do charge via credit
cards.  These are the outfits that usually operate by having you call
an 800 number and give them your credit card details and a description
of your needs. You are then called back.

    I heard of one fellow with a merchant account who was
processing orders for three different telephone sex companies. But I
also know some of the sex IPs that do have their own merchant
accounts.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

From: Chris Schmandt <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!media.mit.edu!geek>
Subject: Re: Real Time Voice on Ethernet
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1991 04:29:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
wvnet.edu (Vinay Kumar) writes:

> Has anyone done any research/development/implementation work involving
> implementing real time voice on UNIX, TCPIP workstation platform over
> an Ethernet?  What is the level of comlexity and effort involved? Any
> pointers to some free ftp sites for such a software would be welcome.
> Any pointers to relevant literature, any experiences. I plan to do this
> for my Masters Degree project.

This is pretty old hat.  For starters check out the Etherphone project
at Xerox PARC.  They started voice over ether a good decade ago.  Many
papers.  Papers by Dan Swinehart, Polle Zellweger, among others.

There's a public domain "vtalk" program floating around for Sun
Sparcs.  The version we found was for 4.0.x Sun audio driver, easily
modified for Sun's much improved 4.1.x audio driver.  Some
Scandinavian folks did a thorough performance analysis, and, starting
from vtalk, came up with some improvements.

> Also, how about implementing real time voice over ISDN, any experiences?

Uh, you mean like when I pick up my ISDN phone, dial another ISDN
number, and talk?  Like 64 kb/second circuit switched voice on the B1
channel?  Either I've missed something, or you don't know what ISDN
is.


chris

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

From: Andrew Evans <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Real Time Voice on Ethernet
Date: 13 Sep 91 19:11:12 GMT
Reply-To: Andrew Evans <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
wvnet.edu (Vinay Kumar) writes:

> Has anyone done any research/development/implementation work involving
> implementing real time voice on UNIX, TCPIP workstation platform over
> an Ethernet?  What is the level of comlexity and effort involved?

Artisoft's LANtastic network operating system for DOS includes both
voice mail and a real-time intercom over Ethernet, if you buy their
$60 voice board for each participating machine on the net.  You may
want to look into what they do.

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

From: "Michael A. Covington" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How do You Find Out if a Phone is Bugged?
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 91 00:30:50 GMT


The only _reliable_ way to find out that a phone is bugged is to
"plant" some misleading information in a phone call, of a nature that
will cause the eavesdropper to take some definite action, and then
watch them act upon it. Apart from this, there are too many different
bugging technologies.

However, your "line in use" problems suggest somebody may be bugging
the line the easy way.  Put a voltmeter (preferably digital) across
the line.  It should read about 48 volts when the phone is on the
hook, and under 12 volts when off hook.  Intermediate values indicate
problems with the line, possibly including another telephone off hook
somewhere.

Digital voltmeters cost about $40 at Radio Shack.  Use the 200-volt DC
scale and you can leave it connected at all times, switching it on
whenever you want to take a reading.

By the way, the "line in use" lights on my Pacific Bell phones are
somewhat flaky.  They often show an incorrect reading for a few
seconds or minutes after any change of state.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D.  |  [e-mail]   |  N4TMI
Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A.

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 01:02:02 cst
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About Wire Maintainence Plan
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


John J. DiLeo wrote:

> Since I knew that the previous owner was break-it-yourselfer 8-(, I
> ordered the inside wire maintenance plan for the new address.

> the technician said that I didn't have inside wire maintenance. When
> I insisted that I did, he confirmed it with the business office.
> However, he said that correct- ing the problem would still cost me
> time-and-materials, because C&P will not repair 1) problems which
> already existed when maintenance was purchased, even if you ordered
> maintenance with your initial service order; or 2) wire that does not
> conform to Bellcore recommendations for type and size (I think he
> said 22AWG or larger, twisted-pair only, etc.). Since the previous
> owner had installed it himself, it was naturally Quad wire 8-(.

> Be very sure that Illinois Bell's plan will cover your problem and
> wiring before you spend the "installation charge" to get the service
> added. In some places, I believe, companies will not sell inside wire
> maintenance to tenants in apartment buildings, because the tenants
> technically don't own the wiring.

In my little corner of the big world (US WEST Communications, Omaha)
our "Linebacker" (inside wire) maintenance plan has been improved
several times for no other reason than to bolster its credibility.

If the customer ordered the optional service at the time of installing
their service, we will repair or replace defective, STANDARD wire and
jacks -- even if the home they just moved into is a real "basket case",
with torn-out jacks and wire used as clothesline.

This is occasionally frustrating for me as a the technician that must
fix all the damage, but hey! ... it helps pays my wage, so I'm not
complaining.

According to THIS WEEK's specifications, as *I* understand them,
"Standard" wire is: 24-26 gauge solid copper (or copper alloy)
manufactured with an overall twist (one complete turn every foot or
so), and grouped in pairs.

Very recently, it was announced that we will no longer use "Quad"
wire, and that four-pair (twisted) will be considered the new STANDARD.
I am reasonably sure that grandfathered installations of quad will
continue to be covered under our Linebacker plan, but that new
installations must be of the four-pair type.

At the VERY least, anyone that is a Linebacker subscriber is NOT
charged for the visit.  It the trouble is a defective set, or
non-standard wire or installation, we will not repair or replace the
stuff, but there is NO charge for the call.

Non-standard installation?  Quad wire BURIED out to the horse barn;
zip cord used to supply the indoor jack mounted OUTDOORS on the deck;
flat "base cord" wire installed in an otherwise standard manner
(stranded, no twist);

I'll disconnect the bogus stuff for the Linebacker customer and then
politely explain WHY I won't fix it.


JR  Tabby 2.2   MacNet Omaha [phone]  -  O.M.U.G. On-Line  (1:285/14)

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 00:18:57 cst
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Same Day Service
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


Christopher Wolf wrote:

> We picked up the receiver on Wednesday morning and found a dialtone
> ... I called someone and asked them to call me back to check it out,
> but they couldn't get through. Seems the number that Michigan Bell
> gave us didn't work.

> the service department told me that they didn't connect anything up
> yet, and that I should not be able to talk to them on that line. They
> had no idea what was connected but promised that everything would be
> O.K. by Friday. Well, everything is O.K. now, but it seems funny that
> I had a phone number, and not even Michigan Bell knew what it was!

It is VERY likely that you were using someone else's service from the
time you first noticed dialtone until the committed due date of your
order.

Did you place any toll calls to the Pacific rim?          (grin)

In all its infalible wisdom (and computer systems), the phone company
regularly reactivates cable pairs, but loses track of the FACT that
there WAS a service attached to that pair ELSEWHERE!

We call it "left-in" service.

I encountered the EXACT condition that you describe on the job only
today.  I was given a (supposed) spare pair to use on my service order
but found that it was open at the desired terminal (close to the end
of the lead).  An inquiry of a MORE experienced clerk in the LPC (Loop
Provisioning Center, formerly known as Assignments) found that there
was indeed a (heretofore) idle service still attached to the cable
pair elsewhere on the loop "behind me" (between my desired terminal
and the SAC box).  The pair had been dedicated at that terminal (hence
my open condition further down the line) and had a drop on it!  For an
hour or so, a residence had my customer's dialtone (probably) working
somewhere in their home.  (The loop had previously served a THIRD line
in a residence, but had been "disconnected" [turned off] some time
previously).

There are millions of cable pairs out there, so I expect that this
happens more than I realize.  The cost of doing business, I suppose.


JR  Tabby 2.2   MacNet Omaha [phone]  -  O.M.U.G. On-Line  (1:285/14)


[Moderator's Note: This is a chronic problem in older inner city areas
of Chicago where pairs in old high rise buildings are in short supply
to begin with.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 22:43:00 EDT
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Same Day Service


In a recent message [e-mail] (Christopher Wolf) wrote:

> So I called the operator and asked her what number I was calling on,
> and she just said I'd have to call the service department.  After
> waiting on hold for another hour, the service department told me that
> they didn't connect anything up yet, and that I should not be able to
> talk to them on that line.  They had no idea what was connected but
> promised that everything would be O.K.  by Friday.  Well, everything
> is O.K. now, but it seems funny that I had a phone number, and not
> even Michigan Bell knew what it was!

In many parts of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, you can dial "311"
and a computerized voice will read back the number you're calling
from.  That doesn't work from all areas (I'm in Sault Ste.  Marie in
the Upper Peninsula and it doesn't work here).  However, there is a
way to get the number you're calling from that seems to work in all
areas of the state.  Simply dial the operator and say "I'd like a drop
wire I.D., please".  She'll say the number and disconnect.

Note that you must say the phrase "drop wire I.D." EXACTLY AS SHOWN.
If you use any other terminology, the operator will likely act as
though she has no idea what you're talking about (although once right
after I learned about this, I got the words mixed up somehow and an
unusually helpful operator said "I know what you're asking for but I
can't give it to you unless you say it right!").  This the phrase that
telco employees use in the field to get a phone number associated with
a line when the computerized answerback isn't available (I first
heard it when I overheard a Michigan Bell installer use the phrase!).

While on the subject of Michigan Bell: They offer a service called
"Multi-ring service" (description from phone book: "Lets you have up
to three phone numbers on one line, each with a different ring."  But
they don't offer it in my exchange (area code 906, 632 and 635
prefixes) and one employee said they couldn't offer it in our exchange
because we have analog ESS (not digital ... I'm not sure what the
switch is but I know it's been here since at least the mid-70's,
possibly longer, and it's probably whatever standard Bell System ESS
was normally used in a 20,000 line office that also served as a toll
center of sorts).  I don't understand why multi-ring should not be
available since it's basically a variant of party-line service
repackaged.  If any of you AT&T folks know what this switch is, maybe
you could comment on whether it's possible to have multi-ring on such
equipment?


Via D'Bridge 1:232/10  09/12 20:04
Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: References Wanted on Interface Projects for Phones
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1991 04:12:01 GMT

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

> Below is a circuit I have used with success.  The key is detecting
> loss of loop current flow instead of loss of voltage.

> Brief theory of operation: The bridge rectifier makes sure we are
> polarity-independent.  The three diodes in series cause a voltage drop

Or, simpler still, use an optocoupler which has two internal LED's.
They cost almost the same as the kind with one LED. Now you don't need
the bridge rectifier, or worry about its breakdown or reverse leakage
current.


Jon Sreekanth

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

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

Date: 14-SEP-1991 23:34:49.45
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill!


In response to <[e-mail]> by frankston!Bob_
[e-mail], the Moderator Notes:

> ... I've been through Hell and ...

Ah, yes, Pat -- but have you ever been through Hell in high water?


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


[Moderator's Note: Uh, no ... but the locals did mention a flood
several years before after some heavy rains which did a lot of damage
to the crops and washed out the roads, etc.  I guess you'd call that
Hell and high water.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #739
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29732;
          15 Sep 91 12:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10512;
          15 Sep 91 11:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac08027;
          15 Sep 91 10:00 CDT
Date:     Sun, 15 Sep 91 9:30:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #740
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Sep 91 09:30:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 740

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AOS Validation (at Least Ours) [John Higdon]
    Re: ATM Networks at Risk if ATMs Located in Casinos [Arthur Rubin]
    Re: Single Chip Rotary Pulse Decoder [Macy Hallock]
    Re: "Line's Engaged" [Michael A. Covington]
    Re: It's Heeerrre ... [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Metromedia - Phone Bills on a Floppy? [Rick Farris]
    Re: IBT Misprograms Cell One Prefix [John Higdon]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [Marc Unangst]
    Re: Computer Security and ISDN - Need Information [John Higdon]
    Re: Is GTE Not Totally Beefed? [John Higdon]
    TCA Evening Follies [Bill Cerny]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 02:34 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AOS Validation (at Least Ours)


[e-mail] (Snidely Whiplash) writes:

> John, John, for a moment, try to accept the fact that at least one AOS
> (ECI) worked very hard to be a law-abiding telcom citizen.  Further, I
> suggest you bring yourself up-to-date on the way us "good guys" do
> (did) business.

By your own admission, the "good guys" went out of business. Lack of
sleaze just doesn't pay, eh? I am perfectly aware of how it is
SUPPOSED to be done, how the legitimate people do it, and probably
unlike yourself, the technology behind it.

Your supersilious and condescending response notwithstanding, I have
yet to encounter the dream AOS as you claim to be. It is not because I
am untravelled or isolated; it is most undoubtedly because the odds of
such an encounter are so low.

As you pointed out, AT&T has set the standard of performance and a
level of pricing. It is impossible to offer reduced service at a
higher price and expect customer tolerance, let alone loyalty. Your
self-serving remarks have only managed to convince me that I have been
right about AOSes all along. The whole principle is flawed; unless
they can gouge, they cannot survive.

I realize that we already had our chance for that one final kick in
the pants, but I am really at a loss to understand why you have
elected to direct a personal attack. Are you saying that I am
untruthful about my AOS observations? Are you saying that I have some
hidden agenda in my condemnation of the principles of AOS? You have
crowed about how upstanding, modern, and honest your firm was. And you
have also announced its demise. Am I seeing a cause and effect that
does not exist?

Although you would appear to not wish the same for me, I bid you
success in future endeavors. My hope would be that you could find an
operation that could prosper and florish by being straightforward and
honest rather than put out of business.


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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 11:29:51 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ATM Networks at Risk if ATMs Located in Casinos
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R.
Covert) writes:

> Citing a law which states that "a contract to repay money knowingly
> lent for gambling is void", the Massachusetts Court of Appeals has
> held that a couple who took out a $5500 Master Card cash advance from
> an ATM located in the gambling pit of an Atlantic City casino need not
> repay the loan.

Actually, not quite correct.  They threw out the lower court ruling
that the couple did have to pay, for consideration of the question of
whether the issuing bank "knew or should have known" that the loan was
for gambling purposes.  I think the lower court could and should rule
that the couple could have picked up cash at the casino for use later,
that the bank could not have _known_ they would gamble with the money.


[e-mail]  [e-mail]
[e-mail] (personal)  [e-mail] (work)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 22:56 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Single Chip Rotary Pulse Decoder
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


> As pointed out earlier in TELECOM Digest, 38% of phone users do not
> have a touch tone phone. I have an application where I would like to
> detect numbers dialed from a rotary phone. Does anybody make a
> single chip rotary pulse decoder?  Ideally it would be nice to have
> a chip that can decode either DTMF tones or rotary pulses.

Several years ago I worked with some older BBL radio paging terminals
that detected the audible rotary dial "clicks" fairly well.

(BBL is still in Atlanta, but has changed hands.  They do not make
these models anymore ... but I have seen them used ... at hamfests)

The primary problem was that when ESS offices were introduced, any
rotary digit longer than a "3" would drop the caller back to dial
tone ... worked great from SxS and Xbar originating CO's, though.

I have seen a voice processing card/software combo advertised recently
that would also detect dial clicks.  The name does not come to mind,
though.  Never thought I would have to worry about it again ...

As a recall, the idea is to recognise the shape of the leading edge of
the waveform and do a little timing.


Regards,

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

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

From: "Michael A. Covington" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Line's Engaged"
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 05:18:17 GMT


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

> A song by the Beatles uses the line "your line's engaged", apparently
> a British term for "your line's busy".  The song is "You Won't See Me"
> from the Rubber Soul album released in December, 1965.

Right, "engaged" means "busy" in British English.  Some other British
telephone terms:

   trunk call   =   long-distance call
   STD          =   Subscriber Trunk Dialing  =  dialing of long-distance calls


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D.  |  [e-mail]   |  N4TMI
Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A.

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: It's Heeerrre ...
Date: 15 Sep 91 11:35:42 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> I am told that three-way on 5ESS is inferior to a 1/1AESS and...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'inferior' here.  Do you refer to the
transmission quality?  The feature implementation?  Perhaps you've
already noticed the following:

I've noticed what I think is a bug in conference calling within a
centrex on 5ESS.  It doesn't always happen, and I don't know how to
make it happen, but it's happened to me on more than one conference
call in the past year or so:

I have received a call on a centrex station line.  After answering it,
I flash and call a third party.  I flash again, and conference the
original caller with the third party and me.  Later, the third party
goes on-hook, and I continue talking with the original caller.  About
fifteen to twenty seconds after the third part has gone on-hook, the
original caller is disconnected -- i.e. the entire call is dropped.
The same has happened when the original caller has hung up, and when I
intended to keep talking with the third party, only in that case, the
call is dropped after only a few seconds.

If I drop the third party by flashing, after that party has gone
on-hook, but before that branch of the conference drops, I never seem
to lose the original caller.

I don't remember ever being treated that way by the 1-ESS equipment we
used to use!


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: Rick Farris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Metromedia - Phone Bills on a Floppy?
Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 01:54:49 GMT


[e-mail] (David Leibold) writes:

> I heard an ad for Metromedia...it seems that they now
> offer a service that puts billing information on a
> floppy.... This would presumably allow for easy processing
> of costs and calls in a PC or other system.

In theory that's true, but if Metromedia's offer is like PacBell's
"Custom Billing Disk" offer, it's not as useful as you think.

PacBell provides a database in a non-standard format, along with an
access program.  This access program may or may not suit your needs.
It didn't suit mine.

I ended up doing some intermediate-level hacking to recover the
original database, and then wrote a few Perl scripts to generate the
reports I need.

I _would_ recommend that you ask the business office sales droids if
the database is in a standard format, (say, dbase, or even plain ol'
ascii), but I assure you they'll just say "huh?"


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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 23:15 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: IBT Misprograms Cell One Prefix


TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]> writes:

> I put in a call to someone, and later that day the response from
> Rogers Park Coin phones to 312-504 changed from the "You must first
> dial a one ..." to a rapid busy or re-order signal when dialing those
> numbers. But the next morning everything was working okay, and now
> calls to Cellular One phones are 25 cents just like calls to Ameritech
> cell phones.

This is EXACTLY what Pac*Bell did to GTE Mobilnet for many months.
From any PB coin telephone that should have been a local ($.20) call
to a Mobilnet prefix, your money was immediately returned and you got
a recording that said, "The call you have made involves toll charges.
Please redial your call and dial the digit '1' before the number." If
you then redialed with the '1', you got reorder.

Now, not only is there no 1+7D here, there is no 1+ANYTHING. This was
bogus through and through. You could usually talk a PB operator into
completing the call, but it took many, many complaints and many months
to correct this nonsense. In the meantime, PB was allowing calls to
PacTel/McCaw's Cellular One to be placed from coin phones for free --
anywhere in the Bay Area, at that!

That has finally been corrected. You can now call local Mobilnet
prefixes, and you must pay to call Cellular One. But one has to wonder
why these things seem to happen to the LEC's competition and not to
the LEC's own businesses. I consider it just another observation that
confirms the fallacy of allowing LECs to compete with their own
customers.


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

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

From: Marc Unangst <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1991 05:57:30 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Michael A. Covington) writes:

> I think that dialing 1 + area code + number should be _permitted_ for
> all calls, even local ones, because there are those of us with

An excellent idea.  There are many times when UUCP e-mail addressing
is compared to the routing of phone calls by the telco -- i.e., you
don't have to tell the phone company how to route your long-distance
call to its destination, so why should you have to tell your Unix
system how to route the mail to its destination?  However, this is one
instance where e-mail has a leg up on the phone system: If I'm logged
onto mach1.foo.bar.baz.org and want to send mail to [e-mail].
baz.org, any of user@mach2, [e-mail], [e-mail], etc.
will work (assuming your mailer is configured properly :-) ).  On the
other hand, it's very much up in the air whether or not dialing
1-313-555-1212 will work inside the 313 area code.


Marc Unangst   [e-mail]    ...!hela!mudos!mju

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 02:39 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Computer Security and ISDN - Need Information


"Gary N. Griswold" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Does the ISDN 2B+D channel construction
> pose a new kind of threat because the D channel is always open to send
> and receive connection signals?

Not in Pac*Bell land. Its proposed offerings eliminate the D channel.
Besides, it is not necessary for Centrex "feature phone" service
(which is Pac*Bell's only interest in ISDN at the moment).


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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 00:49 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Is GTE Not Totally Beefed?


Nick Sayer <[e-mail]> writes:

> 1. When crossing the GTE/Pac$Bell boundary, must I use an IXC?  If so,
> then there's no point in continuing this exercise.

Not at all. My (very Pac*Bell) phone is a local call to the very GTE
exchanges you are referring to. In the other direction (Santa Cruz) it
is an intra-LATA call.

> 2. Does GTE have unmeasured (no charge per minute or per call inside a
> radius) service? Untimed? How much?

GTE has unmeasured residential service just like Pac*Bell, although
the monthly charge is slightly higher.

> 3. How far does this radius extend?

Los Gatos is Zone 1 (local) to San Jose 2, San Jose 3, Campbell,
Saratoga. This includes the communities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and
Monte Sereno.

> 4. Is my impression of GTE as total phone hell unjust?

Los Gatos is all GTD-5 with all the usual available features. As far
as GTE goes, it isn't all that bad. Oh -- one exception to the GTD-5:
the "mountain" office (353) is served by a DMS-10.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: TCA Evening Follies
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1991 14:27:36 GMT


Planning to attend the annual TCA conference and exhibition in San
Diego this year?  Then plan to drop in on a casual after-the-show get-
together hosted by the loal chapter of Telecom Slackers, Ltd. (very)

About 6:30 pm on Tuesday Sept. 24 and Wednesday Sept. 25, we'll start
to congregate over at Dirty Dick's Last Resort, located on the 300
block of 5th Avenue, between J and K streets (Gaslamp Quarter), which
is just a short five minute stroll from the San Diego Convention Center.
Everybody is welcome, even L.A. people.  ;-) If you don't recognize us
from last year, then just look for the table with the blue 2500 set in
the middle.

Dick's has great burgers, an an impressive list of imported and
domestic beers.  Drop by for some great food, or quaff a beer and swap
telecom anecdotes and blonde jokes.  For additional information (there
isn't much else to say, but L.A. people are confused), call 287-5050
when you get into town.  See you at Dick's!


Bill Cerny  <[e-mail]>   |   ATTMail:  !denwa!bill

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #740
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06157;
          15 Sep 91 17:57 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19876;
          15 Sep 91 16:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac18652;
          15 Sep 91 15:17 CDT
Date:     Sun, 15 Sep 91 14:50:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #741
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Sep 91 14:50:25 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 741

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Monkey Business (or Pair-Hunting in Toronto) [Jamie Mason]
    How Do They Change The Equipment Without Disrupting Service? [Peter Sleggs]
    USA Direct(R) is a Registered Service Mark of AT&T [Andy Sherman]
    The So-Called USA-Direct List [John R. Covert]
    Re: USA Direct List [Stewart Clamen]
    PacBell Message Center -- Down Goes the Bit Rate? [Lauren Weinstein]
    Call Waiting vs. Three-Way [Lauren Weinstein]
    Desperately Need Telco Line Interface Circuit [Joe McGuckin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Monkey Business (or Pair-Hunting in Toronto)
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1991 01:20:23 -0400


    About a week and a half ago (on the 3rd), I moved into an
apartment in the vicinity of downtown Toronto.  A couple of weeks in
advance, I had visited a Bell "Phonecentre" to make arrangements for
there to be phone service (two lines) installed the day I moved in to
the apartment.  I finally got the second line connected this
afternoon.  This is the story of the installation of that service.
(John Higdon, the way Bell Canada handled this order makes Pac*Tel
look GOOD!  :-)

    I actually moved in the night before the phone service because I
was told the installer could arrive as early as 8am.  When I moved in,
I discovered that the jack that was already installed ALREADY had a
dial tone on it.  But it was either not mine, or not right, since I
had asked for "touch-tone", but the switch was ignoring DTMF.  The
installer was supposed to install a jack for the second line.

    At about 9am on Tuesday, I suspected something was wrong and
called Bell.  They had completely mangled the order.  They had no
record of an order for a second line.  The order for the first line
showed up as a "Business Office" order, not a "Phonecentre" order.
They transposed two digits of my address.  They got the features
wrong.  They forgot to turn on reference of calls on my old line.  I
spent at least half an hour on the phone straightening the order out.
When the order was straight, the new schedule was that my first line
would be activated that afternoon, and the installer would come out
the next Monday to install the second line.

    At 3pm, an installer showed up to put in a jack for the first
line.  There was already one there, but they had no record of it.
There was dial tone on it, so he did ANI and tried to figure out what
that line was.  After talking to about 12 people on the butt set, he
figured out what the line was.  It was a foreign drop (basically an
off-premises extension, but by mistake) from someone else's line a
block and a half away and they had no record of it.  So he got
instructions on what line transfers to do.

The foreign drop soon went away.  He came back at 6pm saying that he
had finished the wiring, and the rest of the work was "on the inside".
My line should work in a few hours, and if it does not, then he will
be back first thing in the morning.  It did not work, and he was back
at 8am, Wednesday.  At 1pm he came back and gave me a little Bell
Canada card saying basically "We can't install your phone service
right now because we are short of cable facilities to connect it".  He
said he had been up and down about 17 poles, and there was simply no
free pair to connect it to in order to connect it to the switch.  I
wonder what Bell *did* have him do when he was swinging from the
trees, as it were, for eight hours?  Did they have him rewire the entire
neighborhood?  I was told that Bell would get back to me in a day or
so, to tell me what's happening.

    Two days later, on Friday, they still hadn't gotten back to me,
and I had no phone, so I called them when I was on campus.  The
representative told me she would look into it and get back to me.

    On Monday, the installer came to install the second line.  The
first line still did not work.  Rather than drilling a hole, he pulled
out the one-pair wire connected to the jack, and pulled a two-pair
through.  Then he put a new jack on the wall.

    This house is served by a single six-pair drop, and the carbon
terminating block is on the outside of the house.  He connected both
pairs from the two-pair cable going into my room to the block.  Then
he went out climbing trees (umm ... poles) to find something to
connect that to.  He came back a couple of hours later with the same
message as the first installer.

    That night, in the early evening, I suddenly got dial tone on the
first line that had been installed almost a week before.  The second
line was still dead.  So I finally had a phone and started using it.
They even got the features right, and the reference of calls on my old
line was correct.  Wow, they hadn't munged the order a second time!  :-)

    The next morning, Tuesday, Bell called me on the newly-activated
line to check that it was working.  They told me that they are "working
on" getting the other line connected.

    Yesterday morning, Wednesday, Bell called again to make an
appointment to connect the second line.  I told them that the line was
installed already, but not CONNECTED, so they should not need an
appointment.  They said they they need access anyways, so I took the
appointment.

    This morning, another installer showed up to connect the second
line.  What he installed was a multiplexer box on the outside of the
house to allow my second line to ride piggy-back on the pair used for
the line belonging to somebody else in the house.  I don't know why
they didn't just multiplex it onto MY first line.  This was a short
visit, but the could not get dial tone on it.  He said the office
would turn it on in a few hours.  I'd head that one before.  I did
*not* start working.

    He came back in the afternoon, telling me that the line had tested
as shorting.  He found that the multiplexer was faulty.  He replaced
it, and I *finally* got dial tone on the second line, a week and a
half after it was originally supposed to have been installed.

    The installer did not actually call the multiplexer a
"multiplexer".  He called it an "AML".

    The device is an "AML-II", made by "R-TEC Systems".  It is a
plastic box is ten inches high by six inches wide, by maybe two inches
deep.  When it was being installed, I got a good look at the inside.
There is a plastic battery holder for the rechargeable battery.  Then
there are two printed circuit boards with various ICs and other
components on them.  Of note was a rather large transformer.  One of
the boards has a bunch of screws, maybe seven (I won't open it up and
count).  The markings I remember above the screws were as follows: One
pair was marked as "6-8VAC", to which AC could optionally have been
connected.  It appears, however, to be running under battery power,
but recharging the battery continually from the (physical) line on
which it is connected.  Another pair was marked "cable pair", and the
line which I am being multiplexed onto was connected there.  There was
a pair marked "Tip, Ring" to which my line was connected.  There was a
single screw labeled as "Ground".

    Also installed was something which looks a lot like the carbon
block that they install inside the house for single-pair drops as a
lightning arrestor.  This thing is two inches by two inches by four
inches and is called an "Isolation Filter".  It does not appear to be
grounded, so it can't be a lightning arrestor.  My line and the other
person's line were connected to pairs of screws inside the box, at
opposite ends.  I assume this box is to prevent crosstalk, or
something.

    I was told this gadget has its counterpart at the switch: a card
with and edge connector than can be plugged into the DMS.

    Only one of my lines is on this box.  The other half is someone
upstairs.  Although, my other line could be connected this way farther
upstream.  Is there any reliable way of detecting whether you are
*either* party on one of these gadgets?

    One thing I noticed is that the ring given on my AMLed line
differs slightly from the ring I am used to getting from the DMS.  The
other line (one the same DMS) sounds normal.  The difference is hard
to describe.  The ring on this line sounds less smooth: not *quite*
like my phone used to make at my old place (served by a DMS also).
The really strange thing is that my phone is an B-type (indirect)
ringer.  It should 1) detect ringing, and 2) make its own ringing
noise, unlike A-type ringers where the ringing is caused by the ring
current.  So I don't see how a change in the ring signal could change
the noise emitted by the phone.  The (ring - no ring) cycle is the
same as normal, and the ringback that I hear on the calling end sounds
normal.  It is just this subtle difference in the ringing sound.

    What do you people know about these AML-II boxes?  Since this is a
multiplexer, it (by definition) reduces the bandwidth of each of the
lines it is on.  I am told a copper pair has *much* higher bandwidth
than a single phone line, so there should be no problems with my modem
(2400 baud).  Has anyone had experience with this type of installation?

Am I going to get line noise? How good is the isolation: am I going to
experience crosstalk?  Are there any juicy tidbits of information
about these boxes or personal experiences with them which you would be
willing to share?  :-)


Jamie

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

Subject: How Do They Change the Equipment Without Disrupting Service?
From: Peter Sleggs <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1991 12:26:31 -0400
Organization: Bellatrix Systems Mississauga, ONT Canada


My question to all the telecom experts out there:

With all the talk of new equipment being installed, how do they drop a
new system in place without disrupting service for a 'long' time?

Do they connect them in parallel and then pull the plug on the old
equipment?

What happens if you are on the phone at the switchover time?


peter

[e-mail] or torag!beltrix!peters

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: USA Direct(R) is a Registered Service Mark of AT&T
Date: 12 Sep 91 16:33:57 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


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

> [Moderator's Note: Here is the most recent USA Direct listing. I have
> placed it in the Telecom Archives (anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu) under
> the title 'usa.direct.numbers' and will check to make sure it stays
> put this time! :)   PAT]


> Country               Carrier  Operator Number        Customer Service
                        ^^^^^^^
                         NO-NO

Excuse me, but USA Direct(R) is a registered service mark of AT&T.  It
should not be used to describe a telecommunications service of any
other carrier.  Please update the archive file so that the generic
offered-by-any-carrier service is not called USA Direct.  Also, of
course, reference to AT&T's USA Direct service should indicate that
USA Direct is a registered service mark of AT&T.


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 11:31:11 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  12-Sep-1991 1428" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The So-Called USA-Direct List


USA-Direct is a service mark of AT&T, so the presence of other
carriers' Home Country Direct numbers on the list is a violation of
that service mark.  Maybe the list should be called the Home Country
Direct (USA) list.

Please add the new AT&T USA-Direct number from Switzerland to the list:

155-0011.

This replaces 046-05-0011 (which is still in service).  The difference
is that 155 numbers are completely free to the caller, whereas 046-05
numbers are charged at the local call rate.

If you call a 155 number from a coin box, your coin will be returned
at the end of the call.  Unfortunately, you must currently still have
coins, but maybe this will get fixed (and maybe not; there are a lot
of free numbers from coin boxes in Switzerland that require a
deposit).

The really handy thing about the 155-0011 number, though, is that if
you are changing planes at the Zurich airport and don't have or need
any Swiss coins, you can go to the PTT booth and say "I'd like to call
a 155 number" and they will let you do so for free.


john


[Moderator's Note: OK, fine. What I did was pull the file out of the
archives and it will stay unavailable until sometime when I have time
to go in and make these little corrections to please the lawyers at
AT&T.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: USA Direct List
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 22:40:03 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Fred E.J. Linton) writes:

> And you may wish to correct or complete the spellings of:

> Argetina (should be Argentina)
> Czech. (could be Czechoslovakia)

Czecho-Slovakia, if you want to be precise.


Stewart M. Clamen        Internet:    [e-mail]
School of Computer Science    UUCP:          uunet!"[e-mail]"
Carnegie Mellon University    Phone:          [phone]
5000 Forbes Avenue        Fax:         [phone]
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA


[Moderator's Note: These typographical errors will get corrected
if/when I work over the file to remove USA Direct references.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 16:43:14 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: PacBell Message Center -- Down Goes the Bit Rate?


Rumor has it that PacBell is planning (or may already have begun) to
lower the sampling rate for Message Center messages to allow more
messages/traffic within the current hardware framework.  If this is
true, it'll be interesting to see if subscribers notice the drop in
audio quality.

 --Lauren--

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 16:39:25 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Waiting vs. Three-Way


Pat mentioned that IBT allows call waits to interrupt in-progress
three-way calls.  While this is the normal configuration for 1A
switches, it is relatively uncommon, as far as I know, for later
switches (e.g. DMS-100, 5ESS, GTD-5, etc.).  Certainly in the Los
Angeles area the non-1A switches will return a busy to a call attempt
into a three-way.

The "correct" way of dealing with this situation is unclear and
somewhat controversial.  Personally, I consider the current behavior
(no call wait if three-way in progress) to be preferable, because I
don't want to lose control over an ongoing three-way call if another
party tries to call (in the situation where a call wait can interrupt
a three-way, you have no way to drop the second party called during an
ongoing three-way, since your flash would instead answer the call
ringing in on the call wait).  It would seem inadvisable to allow a
random caller, who might keep ringing or calling back, to disable
three-way control away from a person who was in the middle of a three
way-call.

The *real* problem is that too many functions are being controlled via
the flash, and the more interacting modalities permitted the more
likely subscribers are to become confused.

 --Lauren--


[Moderator's Note: If you do not want a call-waiting to arrive while
you are on a three-way call, then use *70 in the process of dialing
the third party into the conversation ... but please do not remove the
flexibility to have both for the rest of us.    PAT]

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

From: Joe McGuckin <oilean.oilean![e-mail]>
Subject: Desperately Need Telco Line Interface Circuit
Organization: Island Software
Date: 14 Sep 91 20:18:17


I'm building a gadget to be hooked to the phone line. I need a circuit
to connect audio out/input of my device to the telephone line.
Ideally, the circuit would meet all the requirements for registration.
I also need a way to tell if the line is off hook.

I spoke to someone earlier this year (I was at DEC then) -- but I've
since lost your name and number.  (You referred me to someone at
Hayes, remember?)  PLEASE get in touch with me if you read this.


Thanks!

Joe McGuckin       oilean![e-mail]
Island Software    [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #741
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13793;
          16 Sep 91 0:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30454;
          15 Sep 91 21:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28007;
          15 Sep 91 20:27 CDT
Date:     Sun, 15 Sep 91 19:28:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #742
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Sep 91 19:28:32 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 742

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Calling Party Paid Cellular Service [John R. Covert]
    Re: And You Think >YOUR< Cellular Rates Are High? [John R. Covert]
    Re: And You Think >YOUR< Cellular Rates Are High? [Kauto Huopio]
    Re: Cellphones and 911 [Dave Niebuhr]
    Canadian Calls From China [Dave Leibold]
    Area Code / Exchange Finder [Dave Leibold]
    "Phonejak": AC Outlet Phone Jack [Nathan Glasser]
    Re: Incoming WATS Information [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Luxembourg Numbering Plan [David Leibold]
    A Friend From Hell [Bob Frankston]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 91 07:53:31 PDT
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Party Paid Cellular Service


I've written about Calling Party Pays service before in TELECOM
Digest; the service is also offered in Phoenix and a few other places.
It is not very popular as far as I know, because it doesn't really
work as the subscriber might think.

>> A call to a callular telephone user may result in a charge.  A
>> service is available to cellular mobile subscribers known as "Calling
>> Party Pays".  ...  When dialing a "Calling Party Pays" customer from
>> the 513 Area Code, you must dial 1 plus the seven-digit telephone number.

> This previously undocumented CBT feature has driven me crazy recently:

> This means that cellular exchanges can be both 1+ or non-1+...e.g.
> both 547-XXXX and 1-547-XXXX have to be dialable.

Calling Party Pays does not work this way, and can't work this way in
the current U.S. telephone network.  The local exchange determines
whether 1+ is required or not based on the next three to six digits
dialed.  To enforce 1+ required on those customers who have chosen
Calling Party Pays requires that Calling Party Pays customers be
assigned to a unique prefix.

Any other scheme would require each central office to have access to a
database of all cellular subscribers, something that current technology
does not do.

In particular, in Cincinnati, Cellular One provides Calling Party Pays
service (which they call Airshare) on the 646 exchange.  You must dial
a "1" when calling 646 numbers.  I don't know whether Ameritech also
offers Calling Party Pays service.  Their customer service office is
closed on Sundays.

Since it is completely impossible to bill anything other than the
normal rate when people call from outside the LATA (and especially
from outside the country), there are only three choices for billing:
block calls to the Calling Party Pays NXX, charge the cellular
subscriber, or let it be free.

Cellular One in Cincinnati will bill the cellular subscriber for any
calls placed to the cellular phone from outside the LATA.  So it's
really "Calling Party Maybe Pays" which is probably why they call it
"Airshare".  I doubt many people subscribe to it, given the great
unknown with reference to the charges.  You can't even ask the caller
where he's calling from, because if the call is being completed via
something like AT&T SDN, the caller may still be in Cincinnati, but
the call isn't being caller paid.

In many countries, including England, Germany, and Australia,
countries other than the U.S. with which I have direct cellular
experience, there are special nationwide area codes for cellular, and
it's always Calling Party Pays.  In these countries, the third option
(it's free) applies on calls from outside the country.

It's actually much cheaper to call a cellular phone in Berlin from
Amsterdam than from Berlin, and at certain times it's cheaper to call
it from Boston.


john

[Moderator's Note: I wonder why cell phones are not assigned TWO
numbers; ie, CALLER PAYS-1234 and CALLED PAYS-1234. The former would
be restricted to local calls where the switch could identify the
caller. The cell phone user could give out either version of his
number as desired, much as I can give out my 312 number or my 800
number, depending on if I want to pay or have you pay. Just as the 800
number can be restricted by areas according to my choice, so could the
CALLER PAYS prefix be restricted to the local exchange.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 91 08:16:02 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  15-Sep-1991 1115" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: And You Think >YOUR< Cellular Rates Are High?


A couple of subscribers wrote speculating that the cellular rates in
Leningrad may not be so high when you consider the exchange rate for
rubles.

Sorry, all bills for cellular telephone service (and for that matter,
all bills for all telephone service provided to foreign companies)
must be paid in western currency.  No rubles accepted, thank you very
much.


john

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

From: Kauto Huopio OH5LFM <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: And You Think >YOUR< Cellular Rates Are High?
Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
Date: 15 Sep 91 21:51:19


> Of course, given the state of the phone system there, the only guys
> you'd be able to call are other guys with cellphones, which means StP
> Cellular gets double-airtime on most calls!

Well, I've heard from somewhere that the St. Petersburg cellnet is
_very_ NMT-compatible. (NMT is the Nordic Mobile Telephone system,
used in Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland (I am not
actually very sure about Iceland being part of NMT.)

Anyway, the story goes that the St. Petersburg net is soon to be
connected to the _real_ NMT. Then cellphone calls to St. Petersburd
would be _very_ quick to connect and rather reliable, too. NMT is
already used in the Estonian capital, Tallinn. And there are quite
many NMT-cellsites near our eastern border, so already one can easily
call with a directional antenna from Vyborg, alhough I don't know if
it is legal to take and operate a NMT-cellphone in Russia at the
moment.


Kauto Huopio ([e-mail])
Mail: Kauto Huopio, Punkkerikatu 1 A 10, SF-53850 Lappeenranta, Finland

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

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1991 14:22:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellphones and 911


In <[e-mail]>> [e-mail] (Marc T.
Kaufman) writes:

I know this is about cellphones and 911 but a point was made that affects
regular phones also.

>> [Moderator's Note: We cannot make 911 calls from cell phones in
>> Chicago because there is no central place (in the suburban towns)
>> where all calls go. The suburbs cannot even agree among themselves who
>> will handle emergency calls for all the towns and villages sharing the
>> same phone prefix. Each community has two or three phone prefixes they
>> may share with the community next to them. Politics being as they are
>> here, they are all afraid if something goes right, the other guys will
>> get the praise, and if something goes wrong, they'll be the ones to
>> catch hell. The towns with phones exchanges unique to that community
>> do have 911 ... the others make do with seven digit numbers.   PAT]

> I don't see the problem.  Here in southern 415 (Santa Clara County) we
> have some prefixes that serve two communities.

> I've always been amazed at how the midwest and eastern parts of the
> country, with an additional 100 years to develop, can make such a hash
> of things like emergency services.

> Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

Mark and Pat both said a mouthfull about the craziness of emergencies.
My portion of the 516 area (Eastern Suffolk Region) is split into over
12 different police departments as an example.

For me to get them (since I'm in the police district), enhanced 911 is
the number.  In the rest of the region (five townships) there are
numbers for the town police, village police and state police.

Some do and some do not have enhanced 911 service.

For fire and ambulance, just call the operator and the call will be
routed to the proper (we hope) agency.

A full-blown Enhanced 911 system would be nice if, as Mark says, the
political powers would forget about taking credit.  The tools are
there, all they have to do is use them

As I tell my kids: In an emergency call 9-1-1 (NOT nine-eleven) and
let them sort it out. A cop will show up, more than likely before the
fire department and/or ambulance anyway.


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

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

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 91 00:34:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian Calls From China


I lost track of the message from someone who tried to use a U.S.
operator to place a call into Canada from China. As it stands, it
appears that no Canada Direct service is available for collect/card
calls from China at this time. Since Telecom Canada likely has no
arrangement with AT&T or MCI or whoever would serve China with a
direct link services, the U.S. carriers would likely see no obligation
to handle Canadian- or Jamaican-bound calls.

However, an international calling guide from Canada lists a few
numbers as being accessible from China.

Beijing    337431
Guangzhou  115
Shanghai   583322

After dialing, the operator should be given the number to be called.
These numbers may be for special English-language operators who can
complete calls to various points.

Direct dial from China is 00 + 1 + area code + number.

However, Calling Card will work between China and Canada. Collect
calls, however, are apparently not accepted, at least as of recently.


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

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

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 91 00:16:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code / Exchange Finder


Jack Decker mentioned a utility that works with area codes, prefixes
and place/exchange names. I wrote a utility based on area code 416
data to allow for finding of place/city name given a prefix, or all
prefixes within a given place, or better yet ... what local calling
areas are available to a given prefix... or place, and also individual
inquiry based on prefix and/or place (these could be mixed inquiries).

Eventually, the T416 program was expanded to allow for an external
data file, and data was made up for 613 and 705 area codes as well.
Other area codes could be represented if data files were to be made up
for them; a listing of prefixes and places followed by local calling
relationships is needed.

T416 is available on Fido-like file request from 1:3609/7 or Imex
89:82/135. Alias name to use on a file request is "T416" (without
quotes). The actual file name is T416-120.LZH, and can also be
downloaded from The Super Continental BBS which can be called at (407)
731.0388 (until late October) and the file downloaded directly as
well.  This works for DOS-based PC systems and seems to work okay on a
386sx as it did on an old xt turbo.

T416-120 should contain the 416 and 613 information. Area 705 data
file can be F'reqed by alias name "AC705".

The program apparently made it onto a package of "almost free
software" that is distributed by a Toronto-based computer publication.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Nathan Glasser)
Subject: "Phonejak": AC Outlet Phone Jack
Organization: MIT LCS, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 91 17:49:13 GMT


I got a catalog from "Joan Cook Housewares" (delivered to current
resident).  Their number is 800-327-3799.

I noticed an interesting device in there. I'm including the text from
the description here. All questionable sentence structure is theirs.

                      ====================

As Many Phones As You Want Anywhere In Your Home

Enjoy the convenience of extra phones anywhere you want them -- in a
teen's room, the basement, the garage. With the new, patented wireless
Phonejak(tm) system, you add as many phone extensions as you want --
wherever you have a 110AC outlet. A small base unit you plug into any
outlet "commands" an unlimited number of extensions. Simply disconnect
the incoming line from a nearby phone and plug it into the base unit.
Converts your household electrical wiring into a phone line. No more
expensive phone company hook-ups; no cutting or drilling walls or
unsightly wires. Works with any type of phone, answering or Fax
machine...even computer modems. Sound quality is superior to even the
best cordless phones. Set comes with 1 base unit, 1 extension. Easy
instrucitons, warranty included. (Phone not included.) Durable
plastic; only 3 1/2w x 5 1/2h x 1 1/2"d.  6748L    Phonejak Set ($129.95)
Sale    $119.95 6749L    Additional Extension Units    $69.95

                    ====================

I'm not seriously considering getting one of these, but I thought
Digest readers might be interested in this. Seems probable to me that
this is overpriced, but I've never seen this product before.


Nathan Glasser
[e-mail],mintaka!brokaw!nathan
Nate on IRC, Forum, and Bitnet Relay  Pulsar on Abermud

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Incoming WATS Information
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 15 Sep 91 16:09:13 GMT


David Leibold <[e-mail]> writes:

>Perhaps the ever-competitive carriers should start a service that
>announces the regular number which will reach the party should the 800
>number be deemed out of area. This option could be made available (or
>sold for bonus revenue by the carriers) to those having 800 service.

It certainly would be bonus revenue if the reported number was the POTS
number for the 800 service.  BOTH ends would be billed for the call.

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 91 14:27:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Luxembourg Numbering Plan


Luxembourg city prefixes   13 September 1991

Luxembourg is a small country where STD/routing codes as such are not
used. The locations of telephone numbers (often 4-6 digits, variable
even within a city or region) can be determined by checking the first
digit or two, however. The following list, then, indicates what region
the initial portion of the telephone number represents.

Information herein is subject to change or correction.

Inquiries about this list should be made to [e-mail]
or to TELECOM Digest / comp.dcom.telecom.

The first digit of a number identifies the region:

2          Luxembourg (city)
3          area surrounding Luxembourg (city)
4          Luxembourg (city)
5          southwest
60, 65-69  southeast
61-64      west
7          east
8          north central
9          far north

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

Luxembourg prefixes (country code +352)

Prefix Place        Prefix Place        Prefix Place
2      Luxembourg (city)30     Kehlen        31     Strassen
32     Mersch        33     Walferdange    34     Senningen
35     Oetrange        36     Hesperange    37     Reckange
38     Garnich        39     Steinfort    4      Luxembourg (city)
50     Pe'tange        51     Burange        52     Burange
53     Esch        54     Esch        55     Esch
56     Te'tange        57     (-- unused --)    58     Differdange
59     Belvaux        60     Remerschen    61     Redange
62     Redange        63     Schwebach    64     Riesenhof
65     (-- unused --)    66     Filsdorf        67     Filsdorf
68     Filsdorf        69     Remich        70     (-- unused --)
71     Wecker        72     Echternach    73     Hinkel
74     Wasserbillig    75     Grevenmacher    76     Wormeldange
77     Roodt        78     Junglinster    79     Consdorf
80     Diekirch        81     Ettelbruck    82     Ettelbruck
83     (-- unused --)    84     Vianden        85     Roost
86     Beaufort        87     Larochette    88     Grosbous
89     Heiderscheidergrund 90  Markenbach    91     Niedhausen
92     Niedhausen    93     Harlange        94     Hamiville
95     Wiltz        96     (-- unused --)    97     Binsfeld
98     Binsfeld        99     (-- unused --)   --     ---------

                    -----------------------------
                      E n d   O f   L i s t i n g
                    -----------------------------


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

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

From: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: A Friend From Hell
Date: 15 Sep 1991 11:12 -0400


I've got a friend who works for Hell.  It's a German graphics company
that owns Linotype.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #742
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14281;
          16 Sep 91 1:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00930;
          15 Sep 91 23:41 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01914;
          15 Sep 91 22:34 CDT
Date:     Sun, 15 Sep 91 21:53:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #743
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Sep 91 22:53:16 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 743

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Discouraging Pac*Bell Rep [John Higdon]
    AT&T Repair Service (Was: 510 in Georgia) [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    MCI Repair and Customer Service [Sean E. Williams]
    LD Company Wants Church to Switch [Greg Montgomery]
    Re: It's Heeerrre ... [John Higdon]
    Re: ATM Networks at Risk if ATMs Located in Casinos [Jonathan_Welch]
    Re: Computer Security and ISDN - Need Information [Dave Levenson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 13:07 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Discouraging Pac*Bell Rep


Now that the crossbar has been replaced with 5ESS I figured it was
time to take advantage of it with my voice and modem lines. Also, I
have been known to want to participate in the latest and greatest.

So I called my Pac*Bell rep. I told her I wanted to change all nine of
the lines currently served in the antiquated 1ESS switch to numbers
now served out of the 5ESS. She indicated that a residential number
change was $20 per line, but if the purpose was to upgrade features,
that charge would be waived. I informed her that it would be nice to
have 'Cancel Call Waiting' and have my calls go through faster (the
1ESS takes on average 0.75 second longer to complete a call outside of
the switch).

She looked through her book. She informed me that the 723 prefix
(1ESS) was considered to be "full-featured" (probably true in
Pac*Bell-think) but that she could probably manipulate the free number
changes anyway.  Then we started talking about my service and what it
was used for. When we got to modems she said, "I understand that
sometimes there are problems with modems in the newer offices that
don't exist with the older equipment--you might want to reconsider
changing those lines."

The long and the short of it was that she was very negative about
changing all the numbers just to get 'Cancel Call Waiting' and faster
call setup times. "It would really be an ordeal to do that. If you
want to do it, I'll place the order, but I don't advise it." BTW, due
to consolidated billing requirements, I cannot just change one or two
lines.

She talked me out of it. At least for now. So all I have that is
making use of the latest in CO technology is my silly experimental
"party line" machine. What a waste!


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

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

Date: 15-SEP-1991 19:07:17.98
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Repair Service (Was: 510 in Georgia)


In a recent response, John Higdon noted:

> ...who will once again let AT&T handle
> the glitches that come up from the interface between LECs and IECs.
> Once the people at SB figure out which end is up regarding 510, it
> will be fixed for every carrier.

> This is SO typical of AT&T -- the dogged determination to track down
> and correct problems including those that are not the company's direct
> responsibility. This is a characteristic that is sorely lacking in the
> other IECs.

Definitely! Presently, Calling Card and operator assisted calls from
New York City to Atlantic City, NJ will NOT go through. Dial
0-609-442-7626 (a roam port!) from certain exchanges in NY, and you
will get a "your call can not be completed as dialed, 212-0T". If you
call the AT&T Operator in NY, even SHE can't process the call. She had
to go to an inward op in NJ to handle the call! (1+ calls work fine,
though.)

I've dealt with some other LD companies (mainly ITT and Sprint), and
the standard answers from them would be: "Are you dialing a 1 instead
of a 0?", "Do you have a touch-tone phone?", "Did you call SNET (local
Bell) and report it to 611?", "Well, if it doesn't go through, maybe
the exchange down "there" isn't working, call XXXX Bell", etc.

With AT&T, I conferenced the AT&T LD repair rep, dialed the call, and
she IMMEDIATELY got on the line with someone from "Network Services",
issued me a ticket number, and told me the problem would be correct by
Monday at 2PM, and I would be called to confirm this.  I've dealt with
AT&T Long Distance repair in the past, and if they say it will be
fixed by 2PM on Monday, it's a pretty good bet that they will be
right!

About the only other LD company with such effective service is Cable
and Wireless, although they seem to have a some trouble correcting a
problem once it is diagnosed, whereas AT&T gets things fixed quite
rapidly (in my experience).

> One of the reasons it is STILL my long distance company.

Mine too.


Doug    [e-mail]    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Mine too; but remember, part of this stems from the
cozy relationship between the Bells and AT&T for many years. A lot of
the old-timers on both sides are still around who are glad to held
each other out with a minimum of fuss. Wait a few more years. (:  PAT]

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

From: "WILLIAMS, Sean E." <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Repair and Customer Service
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology (CAST)
Date: 15 SEP 91 18:52:36


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

> The people at AT&T really deserve some praise for seeing this thing
> through for me ... my modem line has MCI as the primary carrier and
> I placed a trouble call with them, too.  I still haven't heard the
> first word back from them.

Customer service is something which all telephone companies can be
proud of -- at times.  In my dealings with AT&T, MCI, Sprint, United
Telephone and Rochester Telephone I have had the chance to speak with
both the good and the bad in each company.  Of course, United
Telephone and MCI are the two which I have dealt with most and I
obviously will have the most to say about them.

I have never ended a call with United Telephone in anger or
frustration, nor have I ever had any major problems with them.  Many
of the employees there know me by name, and they even called my
voicemail to wish me a happy birthday (how's that for service!)  Their
slogan says it all: "United Telephone, Someone to Depend on!"

Most of the service orders (ie: custom calling features, voicemail
changes) I have placed with United have been taken care of within
minutes.  Worst case is taken care of by 5:00pm the same day.

MCI, on the other hand ... MCI is a creature of contrast.  When
talking to a person in one one department and then being transferred
to a person in another you can tell just by their tone that working
conditions must not be equal everywhere in the same building.  The
differences are even apparent in the same department during different
shifts.  They are not known for consistency in service, in my opinion.

Regarding service calls: I only had to call MCI once regarding a
problem, and that was with my personal 800 number.  A few minutes
after I reported my problem to customer service, a representative from
the "network" department called me.  We clairified the problem, and
she was on her way.  The next day I received a message on my voicemail
explaining that the problem was in the programming at a central office
near my town -- a CO which belonged to United Telephone, of course.

The programming had been repaired, and my 800 service was again
operational from the CO in question.  I called her back to thank her
for following up on the problem so quickly, and she didn't need to
look up my file to remember who I was.

Now most people will say that the Personal 800 service was inhereted
by MCI from Telecom*USA, and that might be why the lady was so
friendly -- but either was it really doesn't matter.  The problem was
taken care of and the customer was happy.

I haven't really had much contact with Rochester Tel yet, but since
I'm a telecommunications major who will be spending the better part of
the next five years in this town, our meeting is imminent.

Have a nice day!


Sean
Rochester Institute of Technology (CAST)             [e-mail]

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

Subject: LD Company Wants Church to Switch
From: Greg Montgomery <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 91 20:23:10 EDT
Organization: Montgomery Consultants, Inc.


Hi! I have a question for you telecom industry experts out there. My
church was recently approached by a long-distance company that would
like our church to try to get our members to switch to it. This
company, called Excel Telecommunications, Inc. is based in Dallas,
Texas and it appears that they buy time from other carriers; in this
case, US Sprint, Allnet, LDDS, and ATC.

According to a pricing sheet they gave us, they offer slightly lower
rates than AT&T, usually differing from AT&T by from a few cents a
minute to a few tenths of a cent a minute. Their proposal is that we
get our members to switch over to Excel, and each member tries to get
more people to switch over to Excel. The church receives 5% of the
long distance usage of all the customers it switches to Excel. Also,
if we get other churches to join this program, we will receive 1% of
all the long distance usage of that church's customers.

They gave us a brochure that is supposed to be a FAQ (Frequently Asked
Questions) list. They say they give instant credit for long numbers,
and we can also use any of the 10xxx codes if we want. They also have
a calling card. Also, according to the brochure, they will switch any
customers back to their previous LDC for free if unsatisifed with
their service.  Also, all the customers that stay with Excel for five
months get free airfare to a few destinations (Bahamas, Hawaii,
Mexico, etc), of course with several catches (You have to stay at
certain hotels, for a certain period of time, etc.).

After this, there are also other "incentive" programs.  Our church has
800 families, so if a few joined up, and got some other people to
join, we could get some money out of this.  My question is does this
sound like a good idea? Our church needs the money, so it sounds
better than if we didn't need the money as bad. But, if this company
is slime, I doubt we'd do it. I've heard all the horror stories about
AOS's, but I believe those are just for COCOTs and similar stuff, and
not long distance, right?

Right now, I'm an AT&T customer, and if this plan was approved, I'd be
kind of hesitant to switch over. I'm used to AT&T's good operators,
good connections, etc., and I'm kind of hesitant about switching, as I
don't know if Excel will be as good.  But for all I know, my fears may
be unfounded.  Please let me know of any feelings, experiences,
suggestions, etc. you might have. I doubt anybody in our church has
any telecom experience, so I'm relying on everyone here for
information.

Thanks!


Greg Montgomery   Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: {rutgers,ogcise,gatech}!emory!turbo!greg


[Moderator's Note: Basically they are offering the church a place in
an MLM (multi-level-marketing) scheme. Amway does this also; I think
through Sprint, and there are others. There are no audit controls over
the commission you receive. You get what they say you have coming.
Some small LD companies do use the service of an AOS if they can't
maintain an operator service of their own, and of course none of the
operator services compare in quality to AT&T's.  I'd be lukewarm at
best. Others might suggest you drive the money changers out of the
temple.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 91 12:49 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: It's Heeerrre ...


Dave Levenson <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'm not sure what you mean by 'inferior' here.  Do you refer to the
> transmission quality?  The feature implementation?

Transmission quality. The level is lower than 1/1A stuff and the audio
is grungy. Speaking of grungy, I notice that the dial tone on my 1ESS
is crystal clear and the dial tone on the 5ESS has a lot of "fuzz"
associated with it.

One very annoying characteristic of three-way on my 1ESS, however, is
its tendancy to drop all parties if you try to release the second call
just as it supervises. If I try to add someone to the call and after
waiting for him to answer hit the hook switch (to release it) just as
he actually does answer, I get initial dial tone. Both my original
party and the second call party are gone. I assume 5ESS does not have
this "feature".

> I have received a call on a centrex station line.  After answering it,
> I flash and call a third party.  I flash again, and conference the
> original caller with the third party and me.  Later, the third party
> goes on-hook, and I continue talking with the original caller.  About
> fifteen to twenty seconds after the third part has gone on-hook, the
> original caller is disconnected -- i.e. the entire call is dropped.

This is not an unusual behavior with many PBXes. I am convinced more
and more that the telcos are trying to emulate all of the "features"
of a PBX in the Centrex offerings. Another one is lack of CPC on
Centrex lines, as is the case with most PBXes. And yet another is
something that GTE is trying to run past the PUCs--the simulated
"limited facilities" mode. On a PBX, not every station can be talking
to an outside party at once since there is, in virtually every case, a
limited number of trunks. There is no such limitation inherent in
Centrex since each line is actually a direct outside line. GTE wants
to limit the number of outside calls that can be made from any
particular Centrex group. And if you need to make more than GTE's
arbitrary limit, then you PAY extra monthly.

> I don't remember ever being treated that way by the 1-ESS equipment
> we used to use!

Although I have not observed it lately, my 1ESS used to do a peculiar
thing with forwarding. Forwarding would sometimes take several minutes
to actually take effect, even though I had received the confirmation
tones. Sometimes when I cleared forwarding, it really was not cleared
 -- again after hearing the two tones. Most bizzare were the times I
would clear forwarding and it would actually clear, but then
re-establish itself later to some previously forwarded-to number.

A first-generation system can sometimes be very amusing!


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

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

From: Jonathan_Welch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATM Networks at Risk if ATMs Located in Casinos
Date: 15 Sep 91 17:13:21 GMT


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

> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R.
> Covert) writes:

>> Citing a law which states that "a contract to repay money knowingly
>> lent for gambling is void", the Massachusetts Court of Appeals has
>> held that a couple who took out a $5500 Master Card cash advance from
>> an ATM located in the gambling pit of an Atlantic City casino need not
>> repay the loan.

Over the weekend I was listening (on a Boston talk radio station) to
an interview with the lawyer who handled this case.  The ATM in
question didn't dispense bills; it gave out a credit chit which could
be redeemed for chips at the window next to it.  This, plus the fact
that it was located in the gambling pit, where presumably one doesn't
just wander into without wanting to do some gambling, where the key
points in his case.


Jonathan Welch, VAX Systems Programmer, Umass/Amherst
Bitnet: JHWELCH@amherst  Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Computer Security and ISDN - Need Information
Date: 15 Sep 91 23:56:10 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

[ regarding ISDN ]

> Not in Pac*Bell land. Its proposed offerings eliminate the D channel.
> Besides, it is not necessary for Centrex "feature phone" service
> (which is Pac*Bell's only interest in ISDN at the moment).

Perhaps I mis-understood something, but isn't it the D channel that
handles the lamps, display, and buttons on the Centrex feature?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #743
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15659;
          16 Sep 91 2:18 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05849;
          16 Sep 91 0:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00930;
          15 Sep 91 23:41 CDT
Date:     Sun, 15 Sep 91 22:49:38 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #744
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Sep 91 22:49:35 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 744

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Update on International BBSing Conference [Marshall Barry]
    Re: Differences Between DMS/*28 and FMR [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: A Friend From Hell [Michael A. Covington]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 05:37:00 MDT
From: Marshall Barry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Update on International BBSing Conference


                                IBECC
                             P.O. Box 486
                      Louisville, CO  80027-0486
                        [voice] [phone]
            [data] [phone] -- [fax] [phone]
                            29 August 1991

Thank You!

Much as we would like to be able to write a personal, handwritten,
thank you to each and every person and organization who attended or
supported the IBECC / FidoCon '91 conference, it is simply impossible.

For those who are interested in statistics, we had over 400 attendees
from around the world, booked over 180 hotel rooms on Friday and
Saturday nights, had 199 people at the banquet (one more than the
maximum seating available -- somehow), gave out four major awards, and
distributed over $10,000.00 in prizes.

There were almost three full days of multi-track sessions, more than
forty (40!) hours of videotape recorded, at least 1500 pastries served
in the VIP Hospitality Suite, and countless cups of coffee, soft
drinks, and tea dispensed.

As enclosed news releases indicate, we're not stopping and standing
on our laurels -- we've taken the next step.

IBECC, and the 1992 International BBSing and Electronic Communications
Conference, is now a non-profit, charitable, society.

Members of IBECC will receive discounts on video (and audio) tapes,
have access to the IBECC BBS, receive the IBECC Newsletter and
conference progress reports, and more!  In addition, members of the
1991 IBECC/FidoCon conference will receive the membership prices on
tapes if ordered before January, 1992.

But (and you knew there was a "but"), to continue the efforts, we
need your continued support -- in the form of membership in IBECC.
Supporting membership, which includes discounts on tapes and a
subscription to the IBECC newsletter, is $25.00 a year!

VIP Membership (includes Supporting membership and the 1992 IBECC
Conference) is only $80.00 (US) through September 30, 1991 ($125.00
October, 1991 through May, 1992).  Vendor's tables are $500.00 (US)
[including two VIP Memberships], and "booths" [including three VIP
memberships] are $1,000.00 (US) through September, 1991.

Now is the time to join!  EVERYONE is noticing us!  [Don't believe it?
Check out the September, 1991 special issue of {Scientific American}
"Communications, Computers and Networks - How to Work, Play and Thrive
in Cyberspace" -- and compare it against the who, what and why of the
1991 convention ...]

IBECC '92 will be held August 13 - 16, 1992 at the Sheraton Denver
West Hotel and Conference Center, 360 Union Blvd, Lakewood, CO 80228.

The theme of IBECC '92 is "Socially Responsible Computing", and will
include panels on such diverse topics as: "Why Should I Care?" [How
does all of this affect me?], "Safe Computing" [What do we need to
know to prevent the spread of computer infection?], "Rumor Control
1992" [Knowing the difference between fact and fiction and When to
take action], "Why Kelly CAN Read" [Exploring Computers, BBSing, and
Education], and "Staying Alive" [BBSing and the physically challenged
and homebound].

We are not neglecting our roots either; there will be function space
and sessions for all participating networks. This is a time for unity
and communication -- we are working to continue the affiliations begun
at this year's conference as well as to strengthen them over the
course of the next year.

The hotel room rate is $62.00 (US + tax) single/double.  Please,
reserve early by contacting the Sheraton directly at 1-800-LAKEWOOD,
or [phone].  Suites and Hospitality Suites are available
through IBECC.

Tickets for the International (theme) Awards Banquet are $35.00 (US,
all taxes and gratuities included).  T-Shirts (all sizes) are $15.00
(US, all taxes included).

We accept VISA, MasterCard, American Express, Cash, Checks, Money
Orders, and even payments.  We support the Handicapped/Challenged -
Please contact IBECC for details and special rates.

IBECC is a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation; IRS 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(6)
pending.

IBECC - Now, More than Ever Before, Your Connection to the World!

    ==================================================

                           August 23, 1991
                        For Immediate Release

Based on the success of the 1991 International BBSing and Electronic
Communications Conference, (held in Denver, Colorado, August 15-18)
the organizers are continuing their efforts by forming a non-profit
corporation called IBECC.

Created as an educational, scientific, literary and charitable
society, the goals of IBECC include "promotion of national and
international electronic communications, education in and improvement
of online services, the scientific advancement of telecommunications
and teleconferencing, scientific improvement of communications between
different electronic networks, and providing a trade association for
users and suppliers of teleconferencing networks and systems."

"IBECC represents the culmination of a dream," stated Michelle
Weisblat, one of the founders.  "A year ago, most of those who
supported the conference said that it was a visionary concept but it
would never happen, couldn't be done, and would result in financial
disaster.  Six months ago, these same people began to truly believe
that it might just happen.  One week ago, it did happen - people from
Europe to Australia gathered here in Denver to prove that not only
could it be done, but that there was a real need to continue and
expand upon it!"

"We decided that a non-profit organization would be the best way to
carry the concept forward," continued Marshall Barry.  "So many
visions have been devastated by the motive of personal or corporate
profits.  By taking this route, IBECC is much more than just another
yearly 'trade show' -- it becomes a people's clearing house for ideas
and information, available to anyone, anywhere."

"We expect to continue to get support from some of the more visionary
companies," added Terry Travis, the third of the founders.  "This kind
of organization benefits them as well.  It provides a showcase for new
products, new concepts, and new directions without the usual media
'hype', getting directly to those who really use the networks and the
facilities."

"As the price of computing continues to decrease, and the cost of
communications drops, more people world-wide are involved in
telecommuting, BBSing, and electronic mail daily.  The boundaries
between countries are disappearing ... we must keep these new lines of
communication open, refine them, and make them secure."

"What we are seeing is the development of the printing press, books,
and the mail system all over again -- on a global scale. If we hide
from it, or ignore it, it will run right over us, leaving behind
confusion and chaos ... or, we can encourage it, guide it, educate
ourselves and others, and use the technology," concluded Marshall.

The founders of IBECC, who are all handicapped, are extensively
involved in computer networks and electronic communications, and run
several electronic Bulletin Board Systems (BBSes).

IBECC is also filing for federal non-profit and tax-exempt status
under IRS 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(6) rules.

For more information, contact IBECC at P.O. Box 486, Louisville,
Colorado, 80027-0486, or [voice] [phone] (9-5 M-F),
[fax] [phone] (24 hours), or [modem] [phone] (24 hours).

    ==============================================

                           August 29, 1991
                        For Immediate Release

The founders of IBECC, a Colorado non-profit educational, scientific,
literary and charitable society, presented their thanks to eSoft, Inc.
for its support and assistance before and during the recent
International BBSing and Electronic Communications Conference held in
Denver, Colorado.

The plaque, presented at the eSoft corporate offices in Aurora,
Colorado says: "In appreciation of eSoft, Inc. for assistance in the
formation of an annual International BBSing and Electronic
Communications Conference and the IBECC Educational, Scientific and
Trade Society."

Phil Becker, President and CEO of eSoft, was also presented with an
Honorary Lifetime Membership in IBECC for his personal support of the
international BBSing community.

Also due to be presented with a similar award and honor is {Boardwatch
Magazine} and its founder Jack Rickard.

"We feel that both eSoft and Boardwatch assisted in making this year's
conference the largest of its kind ever to be held," stated Michelle
Weisblat of IBECC.  "It is our hope that they will continue to be
active supporters in the future."

For information on IBECC, or the 1992 International BBSing and
Electronic Communications Conference (to be held August 13-16, 1992 in
Denver, Colorado), contact IBECC at P.O. Box 486, Louisville,
Colorado, 80027-0486, or [voice] [phone] (9-5 M-F),
[fax] [phone] (24 hours) or [modem] [phone] (24 hours).

    =============================================

 <[e-mail]> is also <[e-mail]>
        Data: [phone] +&+ [phone] 3/12/2400 baud
         Snail Mail: P.O. Box 486, Louisville, CO  80027-0486


[Moderator's Note: My gosh it is hard to realize how much Fido has
grown since its beginning in the early eighties.  And to think only 13
years ago, circa 1978, we were using isolated (from each other),
single-server BBS programs run on Apple II and Commodore PETS at 110
baud. We thought that was really hot stuff and that we were very
sophisticated. And only a few of us were doing that much.  "The
People's Network" ... hmm, no wonder the government is getting so
paranoid about modems, BBS'ing and computer networking. :)  PAT]

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

Date: 15-SEP-1991 18:26:05.71
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Differences between DMS/*28 and FMR


Recently, [e-mail] (David E. Sheafer) wrote:

> I read before about something called DMS, instead of FMR.  Is this
> widely available and does it only have to activated once with *28, as
> opposed to FMR in which you must reactivate as you travel to through
> different cellular systems?  Any information on this would be greatly
> appreciated.

I'm not sure exactly what "DMS" stands for (Digital Messaging Service? :)
but the *28 system is used on the CA "B" (wireline) system to turn ON
their interactive roaming system. As I have indicated in some posts, I
suspect that the CA "B" systems have something analogous to the "DMX"
that exists between the Motorolla-based "A" systems back east (Cell
One/Boston, Metro Mobile/CT and RI, Cell One/South Jersey, Metrophone/
Philly, Cell One/Atlantic City, and Cell One/Wilmington).

Basically, paging (ringing) signals, phone status (busy, call-waiting
enabled, etc), and Custom Calling (forwarding, three way calling,
etc.) info is passed from company to company along the system, which
can enable a customer from one company to have ALL of his features
work in another company, to be reached via any of the roam ports, and
to get calls without the need for a roam port. (It is a bit more
complicated than this, but that's the general idea.)

So *28 on the CA "B" systems will turn on these "DMX" like features, and
allow you to use all of them in any of the CA or Nevada markets, except
for a few Central Valley systems which I can't recall at the time.
(Check out my earlier post called "CA Roaming" or something similar
which I wrote up about a month ago.)

If you want to turn OFF your DMS/DMX features, just hit *29, and this
seems to prevent the Motorola from sending out paging signals to your
phone if you are not in your home area. I never tried *29 to see if it
stopped the ability to use call-forwarding; I know back east all they
can turn off is ringing, all the other features, such as call-forward-
ing, are always "useable". (In the East, the cusotmer can not turn the
system "on" or "off" - it is always on, and your cell company
predetermines in what systems you will be able to receive calls.)

Note that the *28 system is fundamentally different from the *18
system (Follow Me Roaming) and thus is not subject to the same
problems which FMR can have.

As an aside, GTE/SF is switching to an AT&T swtich in the 1st Quarter
of 1992. How will this affect the "*28" system, which seems to be
based upon the interconnect abilities of the Motorolla switch?  (If it
is anything like the Metro One/NY conversion, from a Motorola to an
Ericsson in July, then I would STRONGLY suggest that you get an
account on the "A" side in CA if you do a lot of traveling!

Presently, in NY, *two months* after the conversion, the ability for
Metro One customers to receive calls outside of NY (CT and South
Jersey, for example) is severly limited. NONE of your features will
work, there is NO No-Answer-Transfer or Busy-Transfer anymore (at
least not controllable by the customer), and if you roam out of NY,
your Metro One phone can EASILY get "hung" at the switch, resulting in
a permanent busy signal to all callers, which can only be corrected by
calling Metro One (and waiting 1/2 and hour to get through!).

The system is a total mess, and I would HOPE that GTE/SF does
something (anything!) differently when they cut over to the AT&T!)

> On a another note, Nynex Mobile New England's last brochure states
> that there is no charge for activating Follow Me Roaming for Nynex
> customers on other systems.

Ha! Are they kidding? Unless something has recently changed, NYNEX/
Boston would not only have a "caveat emptor" approach to roaming
outside their system ("If you roam you pay, no exceptions"), but DARE
you suggest that you not pay a charge for activating FMR in a foreign
market. They would laugh and say "We do it, so it MUST be OK." Typical
of NYNEX/Boston's attitude -- soak all roamers, and never credit NYNEX
customers for incorrect roaming charges since NYNEX will (heaven
forbid!) be forced to absorb the costs!

I've written, complained, called, yelled at, and in general wasted too
much time with GTE/SF and NYNEX people in attempts to tell them why
charging for *18/FMR activations is wrong and unfair to their
customers that I've just given up, and got an account with Cell One
instead. Free off-peak airtime from Cell One makes my monthly bill a
lot less than it was with NYNEX.

Perhaps NYNEX is absorbing the charges for *18 (and the $3 daily roam
charge if the roamer/NYNEX custor makes/receives no call that day),
but that would be atypical of NYNEX. THEY are one of the few companies
that levy such a charge, which is why this sounds so hypocritical of
them.  Perhaps my letter have done some good, and they have deciced to
change their policies? :)

Just the usual load of fun which roamers are continually burdened
with.  Maybe Bell Canada can get a third franchise in the US and show
the present (mainly incompetant and greedy) duopoly how to run things?


Doug  [e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

From: "Michael A. Covington" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Friend From Hell
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 01:18:29 GMT


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

> I've got a friend who works for Hell.  It's a German graphics company
> that owns Linotype.

Ja wohl!

I'd read William Blake's "Marriage of Heaven and Hell" but was
surprised to read recently of the marriage of Linotype and Hell.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D.  |  [e-mail]   |  N4TMI
Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A.


[Moderator's Note: Henry Ward Beecher thought he abolished Hell back
in 1870 from his pulpit at Plymouth Church in Brooklyn, NY. I guess he
was mistaken: instead of being abolished, it just merged into a new
conglomerate. I'm sure many people feel the company they work for is
one of its subsidiaries. They even run a few telcos now, don't they
JH?  Hell's Bells  :)  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #744
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26530;
          16 Sep 91 11:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29513;
          16 Sep 91 10:00 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21353;
          16 Sep 91 8:52 CDT
Date:     Mon, 16 Sep 91 7:56:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #745
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 16 Sep 91 07:56:43 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 745

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Monkey Business (or Pair-Hunting in Toronto) [John Higdon]
    Re: Monkey Business (or Pair-Hunting in Toronto) [Len Popp]
    Re: Computer Security and ISDN - Need Information [John Higdon]
    Re: Discouraging Pac*Bell Rep [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Why Couldn't I Use USA Direct? [John R. Levine]
    Re: Opportunity For Getting Back at AOS's [Linc Madison]
    Re: Radio Shack Pitches Cellular 911 [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill! [Linc Madison]
    Re: A Friend From Hell [Jim Haynes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 91 18:58 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Monkey Business (or Pair-Hunting in Toronto)


Jamie Mason <[e-mail]> writes:

> What do you people know about these AML-II boxes?

I am shocked. It is incredible that a class act like Bell Canada would
stoop to such nonsense. What you describe (in fact the whole story) is
GTE through and through. Subscriber carrier is the worst disaster that
could befall you and your house. The unit you describe encodes and
decodes a subcarrier on a pair. The 'metallic' customer is the
non-muliplexed phone and the 'carrier' customer (you) uses the
subcarrier.

My first suggestion (short of demanding the thing be ripped out by the
roots) is to supply that "6-8 volts" you mentioned from a suitable
transformer. Any old "princess" or "trimline" transformer will do.
Why?  because if you use the phone a lot and get a lot of calls, the
NiCad will eventually die since it can only charge when you and the
metallic customer are off the phone. You will know the battery is
dying when there is so much noise and distortion that you can no
longer converse over the line.

The reason you detect a difference in your ringer sound is that
instead of a nice, hefty twenty hertz ring current coming from the CO,
you are getting a locally produced (in that box) ring current that is
a ghost of what comes from real CO equipment. Also, the ring will
sound different depending on the charge in your battery at the moment.

I was the carrier subscriber once. What I did not know was that at one
point GTE terminated the service of the metallic customer, battery and
all. Slowly, but surely, the quality of my telephone conversations was
going down the tubes. Finally, suspicious that the battery was
croaking, I checked the pair and found no dial tone or battery on the
metallic side. Connecting a transformer to the unit perked up my
telephone once again, but I finally got GTE to convert my service to
metallic.

> Since this is a
> multiplexer, it (by definition) reduces the bandwidth of each of the
> lines it is on.  I am told a copper pair has *much* higher bandwidth
> than a single phone line, so there should be no problems with my modem
> (2400 baud).  Has anyone had experience with this type of installation?

I never tried using a modem over the blasted thing. In theory there
should be no problem. But who knows how good the phase integrity is or
how linear the response is? If no one else responds, you can report
back to us.

> Am I going to get line noise? How good is the isolation: am I going to
> experience crosstalk?  Are there any juicy tidbits of information
> about these boxes or personal experiences with them which you would be
> willing to share?  :-)

It will be more noisy than a straight phone line, but not much. You
will lose CPC (loop signal) from the CO. There is no crosstalk. The
"isolator" that you found simply protects you (the carrier customer)
from anything that the metallic customer might do such as short the
line, etc.

These boxes are known in the biz as "GTE's substitute for adequate
facilities". Again, it is almost impossible to believe that any
company with 'Bell' in the name would stoop so low. You are right:
this is way beneath Pac*Bell, who has never failed, albeit after much
moaning, to provide requested facilities in a timely manner. And PB
has NEVER used those rotton subscriber carrier devices!


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

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

Date: Sun Sep 15 17:14:16 1991
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Monkey Business (or Pair-Hunting in Toronto)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA


Jamie Mason writes:

> About a week and a half ago (on the 3rd), I moved into an
> apartment in the vicinity of downtown Toronto.

("In the vicinity of downtown" - isn't that where people from
Scarborough say they live? :-) )

[many tribulations later...]

>    This morning, another installer showed up to connect the second
> line.  What he installed was a multiplexer box on the outside of the
> house to allow my second line to ride piggy-back on the pair used for
> the line belonging to somebody else in the house.  I don't know why
> they didn't just multiplex it onto MY first line.  This was a short
> visit, but the could not get dial tone on it.  He said the office
> would turn it on in a few hours.  I'd head that one before.  I did
> *not* start working.

I had some problems that were apparently related to one of these
multiplexors.  I had three bouts of trouble with my line over a
two-year period.  Each time the problem surfaced after a period of
damp weather, and each time GTE Northwest found it difficult to locate
or fix the trouble.  The symptoms included intermittent noise and
dropouts, and failure of incoming calls to ring (once it took me a
couple weeks to notice anything was wrong!)  And each time GTE first
said it couldn't find anything wrong, then said it was fixed, then
finally fixed it for real.

The last time this happened, the repair person said that my line was
multiplexed with someone else's, and since there was now a free line
sitting around, she'd try switching me to my very own line.  That
seems to have done the trick, and the difficulty hasn't recurred since
then despite more spells of soggy weather.  Maybe the multiplexor was
a model designed for drier climes.

(Yes, the person who finally fixed my phone properly was a woman.  I
don't know if there's any significance to that beyond the fact that
GTE seems to be hiring quite a few women these days.  And I don't know
if they get any uncouth comments about "butt sets".)


Len Popp   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has quite a few women working now in
outside plant; an area that for years was strictly a male domain. At
first the women were given a hard time, but more recently have been
accepted on their own merits and for their own ability.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 91 23:32 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Computer Security and ISDN - Need Information


Dave Levenson <[e-mail]> writes:

> Perhaps I mis-understood something, but isn't it the D channel that
> handles the lamps, display, and buttons on the Centrex feature?

Yes, and since ISDN is only available with Centrex, that does not
leave a lot left over for the customer to use in the D channel.
Pac*Bell has strange ideas for ISDN outside of Centrex, if the company
ever makes it available at all.


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

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Discouraging Pac*Bell Rep
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1991 12:53:20 GMT


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

> Now that the crossbar has been replaced with 5ESS I figured it was
> time to take advantage of it with my voice and modem lines. Also, I
> have been known to want to participate in the latest and greatest.

> So I called my Pac*Bell rep. I told her I wanted to change all nine of
> the lines currently served in the antiquated 1ESS switch to numbers
> now served out of the 5ESS.

> She talked me out of it. At least for now. So all I have that is
> making use of the latest in CO technology is my silly experimental
> "party line" machine. What a waste!

Oh this is just too good to pass up, and besides it is hunting season,
and there must be a limit on John.

YOU LET A SERVICE REP TALK YOU OUT OF IT? !

What was that PAT said awhile back about learning to take control of
phone conversations right from the start to avoid all these hassles
with service rep types???

:-) :-)  chuckle grin etc.


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

Subject: Re: Why Couldn't I Use USA Direct?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 15 Sep 91 12:36:06 EDT (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> Does anybody have a definitive answer on why USA Direct couldn't
> handle my call [to Canada]?

Sure, it's because it's provided by AT&T.  International service to
and from Canada is provided by Canada.  Toll rates in Canada are kept
much higher than in the U.S. to subsidise local rates like in the
pre-breakup U.S.  People are always looking for ways to route Canadian
traffic through the U.S. because it is so much cheaper, but it's
illegal and the Canadians stop it whenever they notice it.  For
example, MCI and Sprint have access numbers in Canada for calls back
to the U.S., but if you try to place a call to a third country that
way, it fails with a most peculiarly worded recording.

It's certainly true that the U.S. and Canadian phone systems share
dialing plans and have reciprocal billing for calls between the U.S.
and Canada, but that doesn't affect their fundamental separateness.
Indeed, I expect that Telecom Canada uses AT&T to carry a lot of their
international traffic, but AT&T still can't accept Canadian business
directly from you.

The term for carrier of a third country handling such traffic is
"cabotage."  Cabotage is a chronic sore point for ocean-going ships
and airplanes as well as telecom carriers.  (Ever notice that on
flights from, say, Paris to New York to Los Angeles on a non-U.S.
carrier, they can't accept passengers between New York and L.A.?  Same
issue.)


Regards,

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 02:45:06 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Opportunity For Getting Back at AOS's
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


[idea: get a "one-number" calling card, post the number widely, and
then burn AOS's when other people fraudulently use that calling card
number for calls other than to your number.  Problem: you're knowingly
setting up the abuse and might therefore be liable.]

PAT, I have to disagree with you about the idea that the person
setting up this scheme would be liable, for the simple reason that the
phone companies have encouraged companies to get "one-number" cards
and advertise them publicly, as an inexpensive alternative to "800"
service.  Also, if the AOS doesn't check for the restriction on the
card number, they've got no business accepting it in the first place,
and they deserve whatever fraud befalls them.  If they check with the
LEC at all, it's no more difficult or expensive to check for the
"one-number" flag.  If they don't check, they should fold up, go home,
and let the grown ups play phone company.


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


[Moderator's Note: Even though the telcos advertise their one-number
cards widely, they *do not* encourage their subscribers to same to
advertise the assigned number widely. What has been suggested is the
same as saying I can print my VISA number here and then hope no one
uses it for illegal purposes. Of course it is wrong when they do (use
it illegally), but it was irresponsible of me to print it here to
begin with.    PAT]

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Pitches Cellular 911
Date: 15 Sep 91 19:01:40 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark
T. Miller) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 736, Message 6 of 10

Stuff from Chairman Roach of Rat Shack deleted.

> The security aspect comes from the ability to call for "help" easily
> and quickly. In fact, most 911 calls today originate from cellular
> phones.

[and more stuff about cellular phones]

> Moderator's Note: The Chicago Police Department would find that
> comment about 'most 911 calls originate from cellular' to be most
> interesting. I think the man is trying to sell cellular phones.  PAT]

    Certainly when it comes to traffic and street related stuff,
the vast majority of 911 calls are now cellular related. In fact, if
you see an accident or assault from your car it is certainly easier
and safer to call in from your yuppiemobile than drive to a gas
station and make a call from a phone booth.

    I remember an ex Bellcore employee giving some numbers for 911
calls from cellular phones - they were staggering.

    I do not have a cellular phone, but I do recommend them to
women who drive alone for the safety aspects, even if just as a
security blanket.


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: This may be my urban-Chicago mentality at work.
Most people here hide in their homes after dark (including me) and
frequently call 911 from their wired phone.  We had another 14 violent
murders over the past two days ... a typical weekend here.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 04:38:08 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill!
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <[e-mail]>  John Higdon ([e-mail].
com) writes:

[chafing at the suggestion that 900 service should be abolished, and
suggesting instead that the problem is sharing telephones ...]

> Any housing situation in which the members are foolish enough to have
> a "one phone serves all" should have 900/976 blocking, and all the
> users of the phone have personal LD accounts. Telephone service is so
> cheap nowadays that cost cannot be used as an excuse for a lack of
> individual phone lines, even on "starving student's" budgets. What are
> the excuses?

You've obviously never met a starving student, John.  While I
personally don't qualify (I made *almost* enough money last year to
owe income tax) I know plenty of people here at Berkeley to whom a $40
installation charge plus an $80 deposit plus inside wiring charges if
applicable is a pretty damned good excuse for not having individual
service, especially if the setup cost only gets amortized over three
or six or nine months and then gets repeated.  I've also lived in a
three-bedroom apartment that had two and only two pairs into it -- one
for me and one for the other two roommates -- and it would've been
extraordinarily expensive to get wiring for a third line.  No, the
$4.45 a month isn't much, but the installation cost is often
prohibitive.

Your recent comments about AOS service (if an honest AOS can't stay
afloat, that should tell you something) apply quite well to 900/976
service: you've argued that disallowing this form of "casual billing"
would drive most of these IPs out of business.  If they can't make it
without this abusive form of billing, that should tell *you*
something.  Kick *everybody* (including what's left of Western Union)
out of my phone bill except the people who provide telephone calls.
Period.  At the very least, impose much stricter limits on the dollar
amounts -- say, maybe $0.75/minute -- that can be charged for
non-telephone-call services.


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

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Friend From Hell
Date: 16 Sep 91 04:51:52 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz



The German company has been around quite a long time and is named for,
as I recall, Dr. Ingr. Rudolf Hell.  Back in the 60s a couple of their
products were named Hellschreiber and Hellfax.


[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #745
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18903;
          19 Sep 91 6:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id bb14750;
          18 Sep 91 11:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27033;
          17 Sep 91 20:34 CDT
Date:     Tue, 17 Sep 91 20:34:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #746
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 16 Sep 91 21:21:18 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 746

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    How do YOU Read the Digest? [TELECOM Moderator]
    Getting Dropped When Waiting For Party to Answer [Pat Mancuso]
    Telephone Wires and Voltages [Gabe M. Wiener]
    COCOTs on U.S. Federal Government Installation [Bill Berbenich]
    Bandwidth Question [Dave Boutcher]
    UCLA Participates in a 900 Number Scam [David Gast]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 20:40:36 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do YOU Read the Digest?


Really, it is sort of a rhetorical question, and I'm not looking for
messages in response ... the last thing I need is more messages here.

But I bring this question up for one main reason: the amount of
traffic in the Digest in recent weeks has been at an all-time high.
Over the past weekend for example, about 300 messages were received,
from which I culled about a hundred which were sent out to the mailing
list in the form of more than a dozen issues of the Digest on Saturday
and Sunday. And even with that flurry of message activity, I
disappointed about 200 message-senders by returning their submission
unused, either because it repeated what others were saying (that I was
printing) or because the thread was very old and overworked, or in
some cases, because the message was so poorly constructed it would
have taken a lot of work for me to edit it and prepare it for the
Digest. A few were just totally too far off the topic for consideration.

Regular readers will note in the past month as often as not there have
been four issues of the Digest daily, and always at least three.

So how do you keep up with all this reading, or do you?

Someone wrote me today and said regretfully they had to cancel their
subscription 'because there was just too much to read ...' and that
they were backed up to June with unread Digests ...

I can surely sympathize with the loyalty that calls for reading every
word in every issue of the Digest -- but I consider that MY job -- not
yours! In your daily newspaper, I'm sure you don't read every article
in each issue. You pick and choose the items of interest. You do not
cancel your subscription to the paper because you can't read it all
every day; if you tried, you would still be reading last year's papers!

And so it goes with TELECOM Digest and all of the more popular news
groups on the networks ... be selective in your reading. None of you
are going to offend me because you don't read and follow religiously
every word I write, or everything I publish from another reader.

It has been suggested the Digest be broken into segments; perhaps a
list for technical stuff, a list for 'basic questions', a list for
social issues discussion, etc ... but the problem there is that I see
telecom as a multi-faceted discipline. How can one discuss and
appreciate the newest technologies without an understanding of the
older ways of doing things?  How can one understand the complexities
of a modern day telephone central office without knowing about the
politics which make some things they way they are?

So if telecom were divided into segments, my feeling is most of you
who read the Digest would wind up subscribing to three, four or five
'little Digests' just to make sure you did not miss something you
really wanted to read. Also, some central person (me?) would have the
additional chore of sorting things out into categories and forwarding
them around in different ways. More work for me, more lists for you to
subscribe to, little accomplished. As it is, I try to cluster items of
a similar nature in the same issue when possible now, just to make it
a little easier for you to pick and choose. With <Re:>plies, I do the
same thing, clustering all the replies for one day together when it is
possible. That's so you can *toss out* large amounts of stuff of
little or no interest without missing other things.

Be selective in what you read, be it TELECOM Digest or any of the many
other news groups available. If reading the Digest, check the index
carefully at the start of each issue. See nothing you want to read?
Then pitch it!  If reading comp.dcom.telecom, use the command
available in your newsreading program (usually '=') to scan all new
items. Be ruthless about how you spend your time here or anywhere on
the net. Don't be afraid to skip ahead several issues if needed in
order to basically stay current with the news even if you did not read
all the replies to some earlier thread.

The only other option I see available is for me to gradually print
a smaller and smaller percentage of items, and I would rather continue
to print as wide a variety of things as possible.

No one goes to a smorgasbord and eats everything in sight! They taste
a little here, and take a sample there ... and that is precisely the
way you should deal with telecom, it being a veritable smorgasbord of
ideas and people behind the ideas.

You won't offend me if you skip large segments of it: TELECOM Digest
is here to serve and enlighten you ... not make you a slave of
netnews!

And the volume IS getting humongous ... never three years ago did I
anticipate anything remotely close to the volume I get now.

Cheers,


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 09:31:27 EDT
From: Pat Mancuso <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting Dropped When Waiting For Party to Answer


How do I avoid getting dropped when I have to let the phone ring for a
LONG time for someone to answer?  (Yes, I know it has annoyance
potential, but read on...)

A local radio station has a 'telephone classifieds' show on, where
callers get to advertise stuff.  The phone line is usually busy (as
the show is popular) so it's a stroke of luck when you finally get a
ring instead of a busy.  The problem is that after 2.5 minutes or so,
the ring changes to a fast busy to let you know you've been dropped,
then it's back to redialing another few dozen times or so to get a
ring again.  Since they answer several lines, and run songs and
commercials as well, 2.5 minutes usually isn't long enough.

Is there a way to avoid the 'drop' feature?  I'm calling to a local
number, although some of the other numbers are 1+ from my house.
Would using one of the 1+ numbers work any better?  (I tried them, but
couldn't even get a ring started to test this theory)

Help!  Before I wear out the redial on my phone!


Pat Mancuso - [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The radio station isn't really supposed to be
handling calls in that way. They are supposed to pick you up even if
just to say "hold .. <click>". Larry King was doing that and getting
really abusive about it, letting calls ring for 20-30 minutes before
answering. Telco finally programmed around it. Now either the called
party answers or you get cut off. No work-around is possible.  PAT]

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

From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Wires and Voltages
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1991 15:44:21 GMT


Could someone explain the exact nature of the voltage and modulation
in the subscriber loop?  As I recall, it isn't just a regular audio
signal (such as that used in recording, which is purely AC with a
standard operating level of -10 or +4 dBv).  I've always heard that
the audio signal in telephony has a DC component, so I assume there is
some sort of a "bias" voltage upon which the AC is superimposed.

What is the voltage?  I remember hearing 48v at one point, but I also
remember hearing something about the voltage dropping to a very low
level (like 6v) when the receiver is lifted.  Can anyone give the
decisive word?  (I'm talking about subscriber loops here, not about
tandems or any form of inter-office trunking, where there are lots of
ways of doing it).

Also, why is the DC component necessary?  Is there a technical reason
why a pure AC system wouldn't work?

And while we're on this topic of voltages and all that, somewhere I
remember reading in an _old_ project book that "the American telephone
system works on a three-wire system."  As we all know, phones today
are simply tip and ring.  Was there ever a third wire?  Was this just
an extra ground reference?  or was the book wrong?


Thanks...

Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.  [e-mail]
N2GPZ in ham radio circles    72355,1226 on CI$

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: COCOTs on U.S. Federal Government Installation
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 11:44:38 EDT


I just spent last weekend, warrioring at the Navy Submarine Base at
Kings Bay, Georgia, which is about a 45 minute drive north of Jackson-
ville.  This isn't the first (nor will it be the last!) time I have
been there, but it is the first time that I have gone head-to-head
with one of the COCOTs on the base.  Here is my story.  It isn't all
pleasant, so small children and those with weak hearts may want to
move on. :-)

Apparently, the entire Kings Bay base is filled with COCOTs and there
isn't a BOC pay-phone anywhere to be found there.  The base is quite
large, land-wise, and there are many, many COCOTs.  I didn't find out
for sure over the weekend, but I believe that the COCOTs are owned by
NAVRESSO, which is the parent organization for Navy Exchanges worldwide.
A Navy Exchange is similar in function to an Army PX or a civilian
department store.  The AOS which these COCOTs use is a company called
"Intellicom," but my spelling may be a bit inaccurate.

Please note too that many of these phones are in restricted areas of
the base and don't likely get many long-distance callers using them,
or too many callers at all.  I believe that BOCs commonly end up
charging money each month to install and maintain pay phones in
low-usage areas -- so you can't really blame the government for not
wanting to spend even more money than they already do.  This way, they
even get a little extra money from the deal, which I assume goes back
into the NAVRESSO pot.  So here's the blood and guts of it.

The phones looked like the old reliable BOC-type coin phones, but were
lacking any Southern Bell logo or even the words "Southern Bell."
There was no printed information on the phones that I used which
indicated who the phones were owned by and who the default IXC is.
These phones do NOT allow 10xxx at all.  1+ inter-LATA calls are
handled by what appears to be an internal, pre-programmed database of
rates which are quite reasonable, actually (for a pay phone).  I
called back to Atlanta on Sunday morning and the rate was only an
initial 50 cent deposit.  I never did get asked for any more money,
but I seriously doubt that I talked for over a minute and a half.

0+ dialing goes into a voice menu that tells the caller to "either
press 1 for collect billing or enter your calling card number now."
The collect billing option asks you to speak your name "after the
tone" and then it dials the number and awaits the recipient's approval
or disapproval.  I attempted a collect call, but got no answer.  I did
NOT try a calling card call because I was afraid that I might get
SOAKed.  950- dialing was also NOT allowed.  The tone pad AND mouth
piece went dead after speaking ones name for a collect call,
presumably until the recipient approved charges.

Simply dialing 0 would get an internal recording (but I forgot what it
said) which sounded as though it was recorded onto a voice chip of
some sort.  00 would get the AT&T operator, who was happy to place a
calling card call at the customer-dialed rate once I explained the
situation.  She would even allow AT&T-handled collect calls, so
bypassing the COCOTs internal defenses was very easy and probably
intentionally set up to be that way.  The big trouble is that one
would have to be somewhat telecom-literate to make the phone do what
one wanted and even then the 10xxx-type dialing did not work.  As I
said, 950- did not work, so I just called MCI's 1-800-950-1022 port.

I did not try 911, so I can't say what would happen if one did do so.
For anyone who is interested, the local switching equipment is a
Northern Telecom DMS-102.  Anyone know the general specs of the
DMS-102?  I assume it is a close-relative of the DMS-100, but designed
for rural areas without a lot of subscribers.


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

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

Date: 16 Sep 91 12:48:55 EDT
From: Dave Boutcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bandwidth Question
Organization: IBM Canada Laboratory
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM

handel![e-mail]> writes:

> How does one estimate the number of virtual calls a circuit can
> handle?  Specifically, if I have a 56Kbps line into an X.25 PSS, how
> many virtual circuits can I support on that line?  For the sake of
> this, let's say that half the users do interactive work and half the
> users do file transfers.

The normal answer to this is "Impossible to predict, it depends on the
amount of traffic each user will generate, the network delays, what
the users consider to be adequate response time, and many other
factors."

All of this is true.  My PERSONAL rule of thumb is that you can take
the bandwidth of the dedicated line that would satisfy the user, and
split that among eight users on an X.25 link.

So if your users would be happy with a 19.2kbps dedicated line, you
could share an 19.2 kbps X.25 line among eight active users, or a
56kbps line among 24 active users (56000 / (19200/8)).

This is what I use as a starting point.  If people complain, allocate
some more bandwidth.  If no-one complains, add some more users ;-)

A lot of this depends on what the people do.  NFS or X-Servers chew up
bandwidth like crazy (and annoy the interactive users on the same
link.)  Occasional file transfer (i.e. FTP) generally doesn't seem to
bother people (especially if the packet size is kept small.)

I would be interested if anyone else out there has other opinions on
this.


Dave Boutcher     [e-mail]
1150 Eglinton Ave E, North York, Ontario   M3C 1H7
Voice: [phone]         Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 16:01:45 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: UCLA Participates in a 900 Number Scam


The other day while waiting in line, I picked up a little card about
the UCLA Women's Volleyball Team.  On the card, there is a 900 number
without any charges listed.  Perhaps someone can say whether or not it
is a requirement to list the charges.  I thought they had to.  AT&T
says they have to.  Sprint did not know anything and they matter
because it is a Sprint 900 number.  The CA PUC says that interstate
calls do not have to, but (CA) intrastate have to.

Anyway, after making about five phone calls, I able to get the price.
Another phone call, told me that the company operates out of LV, NV.
The charges are 1.25 for the first minute, 1.00 per minute after that,
and then something about five minutes.  Sprint could not tell me
whether this five minutes is the minimum time charge, the maximum time
charge (highly unlikely), or the average time of a call.  (It would be
cheaper to go to the game, than call this number).

I was pleasantly surprised, however, that it was not $35.00 per
minute. :-)  (The Athletic Department has a huge debt.)  The Athletic
Department did not know the cost of the call nor did they know how
much they get of each call made.  The card has to be approved by the
Athletic Department.  UCLA is very strict about protecting its
"trademarks".

I stand by my earlier beliefs that I have never seen an honest 900
provider, where honesty includes providing good value for the money.
(If you are offering a rip off in a free market, you are supposed to
go out of business).  We see postings that there are some, but I have
never heard what they provide and how much they cost.

BTW, 1-900-555-1212 is now out of service (due to a network
architecture change).  One is now referred to an AT&T 800 number,
which only has information on AT&T 900 numbers.

The Sprint number to call for 900 number info is 1-800-366-0707.

It never crossed my mind to call the number although the person at the
CA PUC suggested that I should call it and then see if I was unhappy with
the bill.  Talk about being in bed with those you regulate!


David Gast


[Moderator's Note: For AT&T 900 Information, call 1-800-243-0900.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #746
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14726;
          18 Sep 91 13:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id bc14750;
          18 Sep 91 11:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28021;
          17 Sep 91 20:43 CDT
Date:     Tue, 17 Sep 91 20:42:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #747
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 16 Sep 91 22:20:24 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 747

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Watson and ANI [Jerry Wallace]
    St. Petersburg Stock Exchange Needs Advice [Sergey Zhitinsky via C. Plumb]
    Enhanced Directory Assistance [[e-mail]]
    US West Minneapolis - St. Paul Phone Bill [Dan Meyer]
    British Telephone Glossary Begins [Scott Dorsey]
    Ten Years Ago in TELECOM Digest - September, 1981 [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Telesphere Bites the Dust [Gary W. Sanders]
    Re: How Do You Find Out if a Phone is Bugged? [Mickey Ferguson]
    Re: Its Heeerrre ... [Peter Thurston]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jerry Wallace <[e-mail]>
Subject: Watson and ANI
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1991 17:26:04 -0500


Mr. Townson,

As I've followed discussions in this group concerning Calling Number
ID, I wondered if it would be possible to program my Watson answering
machine to decode this information.  It seems that during a time when
I wasn't able to keep up with the volume in this group, I may have
missed a discussion about this very idea.

Where might I find more specific information on how to do this?  What
extra software might be needed, modifications to the board, etc.?  I'd
check thru the archives, but I don't have access.

Thanks for your help.


Jerry Wallace   [e-mail]   Technix, Inc.

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: St. Petersburg Stock Exchange Needs Advice
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1991 10:51:36 -0400
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


This showed up in comp.misc and biz.misc.  I'd like to help, and I
think TELECOM might have some knowledgeable experts.  Heck, the fact
that St. Petersburg is on Usenet and is building a stock exchange is
of interest.  (Remember when Vadim came on from Moscow?  It wasn't
that long ago.)


Colin

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

Could anybody help me with information about processing streams of
information on Stock and Commodities Exchanges?

I'm a representative of St.Peterburg's Stock Exchange from Russia.  We
want to use modern technologies for technical support of our work.  It
involves internal operations and telecommunications with partners.  If
anybody knows about such technologies, please, give us information
about best ones (in your opinion). We shall consider this information
for possible business contacts.


Sincerely,

Sergey Zhitinsky
Please, reply to [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 01:13:15 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Enhanced Directory Assistance


Several of the Ma Bell fragments were looking at a system a while back
whereby, after getting a positive ID on your desired number from DA,
you'd have the opportunity to pay n cents and be connected to it then and
there.  My question: has this actually been implemented anywhere?


andrew

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1991 18:02:41 -0500
From: Dan Meyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: US West Minneapolis - St. Paul Phone Bill


I have seen several other local phone bills here, so I thought I
waould add this one to the fray.

Here is my phone bill - 612-835-xxxx - US West is my local phone
company.


$27.51 US West Communications monthly service - Sep 4 thru Oct 3
$ 3.50 Federal Access Charge
$  .38 911 / tel assist / communication-impaired surcharges
$ 4.80 US West Communications Itemized calls
$ 3.47 Tax -  Fed $1.07  State $2.40

$39.66 Total

The next page goes on to break down the monthly service as follows:

835-xxxx (main number)
Basic Services
     one party residence     $14.61

Optional Services
     Touch-Tone per line     $ 1.20
     Custom Calling Services $ 6.75
       Call Waiting
       Call Forwarding
       Three Way Calling

835-xxxx (secondary number / same line)
Optional Services
     Custom Ringing          $ 4.95

The bill also explains the diffenence between optional services and
basic services (must be the communcations - impaired surcharge at
work 8-) ) and also itemizes my calling card calls.


Dan Meyer
UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!rambler   INET: [e-mail]

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

From: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: British Telephone Glossary Begins
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1991 12:56:33 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Michael A. Covington) writes:

>   engaged     = busy
>   trunk call  = long-distance call
>   STD         = Subscriber Trunk Dialing = dialing of long-distance calls

Alternate trunk call = person to person call

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 21:47:39 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ten Years Ago in TELECOM Digest - September, 1981


Here's some stuff the telecom crowd was discussing ten years ago this
week in the Digest ... after almost a monthin existence, sixteen
issues had been published!


  Date: 14 Sep 1981 2250-EDT
  From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at RUTGERS>
  Subject: TELECOM Digest V1 #16
  To: Telecom: ;

TELECOM AM Digest     Tuesday, 15 Sep 1981       Volume 1 : Issue 16

Today's Topics:
            Overhead Vs. Cost of Usage
            New Bell System Computer(?)
       Billing Errors - Pseudo-Automatic Toll Billing
   What Happens When EVERYBODY Picks Up The Phone At The Same Time


 Date: 12 Sep 1981 1428-PDT
 Subject: Phone company overhead vs cost of actuall use...
 From: BILLW at SRI-KL

I don't understand why, but....  I have a phone bill from Bell of PA
for $0.18    I dont think Ill pay it until they send me at least 3 or
4 "reminders"...

Bill W


  Date: 14 September 1981 09:22-EDT
  From: Andrew Tannenbaum <TRB at MIT-MC>
  Subject: New Bell System Computer
  cc: "mike@rand-unix, unix-wizards" at SRI-UNIX

Dear, dear.  The Bell System is very touchy about its employees
divulging proprietary information about its products.  You can't get
fired from Bell Labs for being incompetent, just for screwing your
secretary or smoking dope or drinking beer in your office, or
divulging proprietary information.

Sooner or later, the Bell System will be able to release its computers
for sale.  Sooner will be in more than six months though, you can rest
assured.  The wheels of justice turn S-L-O-W-L-Y.

If some Bell System drone reports on proprietary products he does so
at personal risk (possibly great).  I can say that the MAC32 is NOT an
array processor, and that Bell Labs is working on processors to use in
their switching systems, even ones that run UNIX (our
telecommunications support operating system).  Have fun generating
rumors, just don't attach your names to them.  And do try to make them
somewhat accurate.  Should the Bell System just start offering its
computers for sale (without clearing up small legal details), it would
be sued several times.  When the Bell System decides let you know
about its computers (as soon as the government lets us sell them to
you), we'll let you know.

    Andy Tannenbaum
    Bell Labs Whippany, NJ


 Date: 14 Sep 1981 0734-PDT
 Subject: International Calling
 From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)

I just received a little freebie phone number log and calling guide
from my local Telco.  On the page where it explains direct-dialling
international calls, there's a table of country codes.  By Korea (code
82) there is a footnote, to wit, "Military bases cannot be dialled
directly."

Can anyone explain the reason for this situation?  I would assume that
the majority of telco traffic between the US and Korea would be calls
between those same military bases and the US, either personal calls
between family members, or official business of some sort.  (If not
truly the majority, at least a large proportion.)  One would think
that anything which would make that large segment of the calls easier
for the telcos would be installed, and they would have been among the
FIRST Korean areas to get IDD access.

I can only think of two possible reasons for this situation: 1) The US
military bases are on a separate telephone system of some unique or
old kind, and IDD cannot automatically connect to them -- it requires
human operator intervention; or 2) Some security restrictions, either
imposed by the ROK host government or self-imposed by the US military,
require all overseas calls to and from the bases go through operators
(and make monitoring easier).  (Some sort of drug traffic problem
would explain the latter approach, but I didn't think Korea was much
of a drug smuggling center, as the Southeast Asian countries are.)

Explanations would be welcomed.  (Korea is the only country with that
particular footnote, by the way.)

Will Martin


 Date: 12 Sep 1981 02:51:28-PDT
 From: purdue!cak at Berkeley
 Subject: the Bell Computer


I suspect that the computer that Bell will announce as their first
product is the 3B<simplex>. As far as I have heard, the 3B is a
machine that was patterned somewhat after the VAX, but with high
reliability for ESS applications in mind. It can run either in a
simplex/single processor mode, which is probably what will be sold, or
in a duplex/dual processor mode, each processor watching the other
(like Tandem NONSTOP systems), for ESS applications. They hope for
something like 1 day in 40 years downtime. It does run unix, I talk to
people in the Labs who use it every day.

    Chris Kent (purdue!cak)


 Date: 14 Sep 1981 13:36:46-PDT
 From: menlo70!hao!cires!harkins at Berkeley
 re: Mike Wahr's query about the "bell machine"

I have not seen anything announced, BUT... about 3 months ago there
was an ad in Computerworld I think that was asking for marketing types
for a "new line of mini and micro computers" ergo, the rumor nearly
has to be true.


 Date: 12 Sep 1981 03:18:43-PDT
 From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
 In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
 Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
 Subject: Telco billing errors

Before GTE installed automatic number identification on their long
distance circuits in Durham, you had to give the calling number any
time you made a long-distance call.  Rumors abounded that they had no
way of checking what you said, which, if true, would have led to
wide-spread fraud.  Regardless of that, there were quite a few billing
errors, and there were claims made that they would randomly assign
unclaimed calls to subscribers' bills.  No evidence was ever cited, of
course, and I doubt that even the North Carolina State Utilities
Commission would tolerate such a thing.  But... there were some
curious occurrences.

For example, a call once showed up on our bill to "%FAYETTEVILLE".
Now, I know that we had never called Fayetteville.  When I complained
to the service representative, she found a copy of the bill and told
me that that call was one that previously appeared on our bill, had
been investigated, and found to be correct.  That, of course, was
totally false -- we had all our bills for the last year or more, and
there were no calls to Fayetteville on any of them.  We told here
that; she told us they'd check further, and nothing showed up again.
I keep wondering what that "%" was about....


 Date: 12 Sep 1981 03:25:31-PDT
 From: ucbopt!quarles at Berkeley
 Subject: Strange telephone problem

    Here is an interesting problem for the telephone experts.  I
have been getting calls all day long recently that are driving me
crazy, and Pacific Telephone can't seem to figure out what could be
happening or how to stop it.  My phone rings, I pick it up, and find
that the person on the other end was in the middle of a conversation
with someone else and suddenly, the other party was cut off and I was
on the line.  Some additional facts:

    The party I am speaking to was the recipient of the original
        call.
    The recipient (in the conversations that lasted long enough)
        has always said they don't know the identity of the
        original caller.
    The problem frequently occurs when the original caller puts
        the called party on hold.
    The conversation I can hold with the person I am connected to
        varies in length from about 10 seconds to ~3 minutes.
        (Then I get a dial tone.)
    The person I am talking to may be anywhere in the US (Many
        won't give me any information, but I have had several
        conversations with people in New Mexico, and at least
        one with someone in 'the southeast US').
    The originator seems to be a business on the west coast since
        the calls start very shortly after 9 AM Calif. time
        and continue at varying intervals until I leave
        for the day.
    I can place and receive calls normally and my phone line
        checks out correctly by all of PT&T's tests.

PT&T's only suggestion is to put a 24 hour a day trace on my phone (at
MY expense of course) to try to find out where the calls are coming
from, but it seems to me that that wouldn't help find the problem
since that would find the other recipient of the call, not the
originator and I suspect that problem must be with the originator
since the problem started very suddenly and occurs with great
regularity but always a different person on the other end of the line.
Anybody got any ideas?

        Tom Quarles (ucbopt:quarles at berkeley)



 Date: 14 Sept 1981 2206-edt
 From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSOL at RUTGERS>
 Subject: I can't resist

Sorry - I just can't resist. I remember when I was about 12 years old
and had ESS to play with (yes they *had* ESS in them days), and I used
to use the 3-way calling feature to do just that. I used to call up some
friend of mine and then call another one and let them talk

        "But you called me!"
        "no I didnt, you called me"

    and so forth, until I got tired of listening then I just hung
up.  I can just imagine some young prankster (who happens to be left
alone at home from 9 to 5) calling some random place (and not paying
for it of course) and then calling you and watching you and the other
party call. The "putting on Hold" is what someone with 3-way calling
does when he wants to call someone else.

Of course I'm only speculating...


 Date: 14 Sep 1981 07:38:53-PDT
 From: allegra!phr at Berkeley
 To: allegra!telecom@Berkeley
 Subject: When thousands all pick up their instruments at once...

During the Las Vegas MGM Grand Hotel fire last year, it was impossible
to get a telco line to Nevada for a while.  SPC's Sprint service made
it through just fine, however.  This is not an editorial (after all,
how many out in the real world know about Sprint?); just the facts,
ma'am.

                    Paul Rubin (allegra!phr)

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

Another edition of 'ten years ago' later this week.


PAT

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 08:39:48 EDT
From: Gary W Sanders <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telesphere Bites the Dust
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> This appeared in today's {Newsday} (9/13/91).

> services.  The company said the industry has become unprofitable
> because of "consumer dissatisfaction and the resulting difficulty in
> collecting bills."

Imagine that ... people not willing to pay for overpriced garbage.
People are finally wising up to the fact that $2 first minute/$1
minute really adds up fast, or better yet $.50 per 1/2 minute, or to
beat all $.50 per 1/2 minute 30 minute minimum. I have heard only a
few quality services offered by 976/900, but they quickly get greedy
and it goes down hill from there.


Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio
[e-mail]         614-860-5965

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 10:42:41 PDT
From: Mickey Ferguson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Find Out if a Phone is Bugged?


One thought which comes to mind which might explain why the "in-use"
light stays lit for several seconds after she hangs up: If it was a
call she had received, the line stays busy until the *caller* hangs
up, not until *she* hangs up.  So she should try to notice if this
scenario she is describing happens if she originates the call, or if
it only happens when she receives a call.


Mickey Ferguson      Rolm Systems      [e-mail]

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

From: Peter Thurston <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 09:26:11 +0100
Subject: Re: It's Heeerrre ...


Many congratulations to John Higdon on his new baby.


Peter Thurston

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #747
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19297;
          19 Sep 91 6:51 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id bd14750;
          18 Sep 91 11:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05990;
          17 Sep 91 20:46 CDT
Date:     Tue, 17 Sep 91 20:46:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #748
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 16 Sep 91 22:56:08 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 748

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why Couldn't I Use USA Direct? [Stewart Clamen]
    Re: USA Direct [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: USA Direct(R) is a Registered Service Mark of AT&T [Julian Macassey]
    Re: LD Company Wants Church to Switch [John Higdon]
    Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Codes) [Linc Madison]
    Re: How do You Find Out if a Phone is Bugged? [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Motorola Opens Museum of Electronics [Craig Ibbotson]
    Re: Same Day Service [Christopher Lott]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Why Couldn't I Use USA Direct?
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 04:57:13 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

[David tried getting USA Direct to complete a call to Canada.]

> It was actually kind of funny, I told the American operator the number
> I wanted and within a few seconds he came back to me with a mock
> scolding voice: "Tisk, tisk that's in Canada this is *USA* Direct :-)".

> I wonder if I could have done this if I had had an AT&T credit card.

Nope.

> Does anybody have a definitive answer on why USA Direct couldn't
> handle my call?

This doesn't answer your question, but I tried the same thing last
summer from France and Italy, to no avail.  (In those cases, I only
knew the USA Direct number, having lost my wallet where I had recorded
the Canada Direct number.)


Stewart M. Clamen        Internet:    [e-mail]
School of Computer Science    UUCP:          uunet!"[e-mail]"
Carnegie Mellon University    Phone:          [phone]
5000 Forbes Avenue        Fax:         [phone]
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Sep 91 15:39:50
Subject: Re: USA Direct


In the TELECOM Digest, [e-mail] (Stewart Clamen) writes:

>> And you may wish to correct or complete the spellings of:

>> Argetina (should be Argentina)
>> Czech. (could be Czechoslovakia)

> Czecho-Slovakia, if you want to be precise.

   It's the "Czech and Slovak Federative Republic", as of last
September.  If you're not going to call them by their full, proper
name, then you might as well call them by their traditional English
name, Czechoslovakia.

   Czechoslovakia changed it name from the "Czechoslovak Socialist
Republic" to the "Republic of Czechoslovakia" to the "Republic of
Czecho-Slovakia" (for about a month), and finally to the "Czech and
Slovak Federative Republic."  As you may know, Slovakia is considering
secession from Czechoslovakia, which explains the problems with the
country's name.

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Direct(R) is a Registered Service Mark of AT&T
Date: 17 Sep 91 00:52:35 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy
Sherman) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 741, Message 3 of 8

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

>> Country               Carrier  Operator Number        Customer Service
>                        ^^^^^^^
>                         NO-NO

> Excuse me, but USA Direct(R) is a registered service mark of AT&T.  It
> should not be used to describe a telecommunications service of any
> other carrier.  Please update the archive file so that the generic
> offered-by-any-carrier service is not called USA Direct.  Also, of
> course, reference to AT&T's USA Direct service should indicate that
> USA Direct is a registered service mark of AT&T.

    I think we have a surfeit of esurient lawyers.

    Do these people have nothing better to do than worry about
cutsey slogans thought up by marketing dweebs?

    Will any of this posturing by ambulance chasers improve my
service or lower my costs?

    When I pay my bill I am paying for phone service, not for
cutsey slogans.

    Why don't AT&T lawyers work on the paybacks they give overseas
telcos for connections. That should keep the reptiles busy and
customers (The bill payers) would benefit.

    Yes, I am sick and tired of all this (c) (R) (TM) rubbish. It
hasn't saved me any money yet. It hasn't given me superior technology.

    Ever wonder what all the lawyers are doing now the IBM and
AT&T vs the Feds cases are ancient history?


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 91 23:51 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: LD Company Wants Church to Switch


Greg Montgomery <[e-mail]> writes:

> My question is does this sound like a good idea?

If it is anything other than FGD (equal access) do not even think
about it. If it involves 950 or any such outdated stuff, walk away.

> Our church needs the money, so it sounds better than if we didn't
> need the money as bad.

So donate some more money to the church and encourage the other
brethren to do the same. Give five percent of what you spend on long
distance in addition to what you normally contribute. That way you
will be guaranteed of the continued quality and service you now get,
and your church will be quaranteed to really get that five percent.

Or, you can be creative with other money-raising ideas. As long-time
readers of this forum know, I have very strong feelings about mixing
charitable contributions with business and personal necessities. You
should get the very best combination of price/service that you can in
the market place and then contribute what you feel is appropriate to
the groups or causes of your choice. If the quality of your telephone
service is important to you, and you want to maintain the ability to
hold the actual provider of that service directly accountable, then
keep your telephone service and your religious obligations separate
and distinct transactions.

Recently, I was approached by some multilevel marketing group that was
proporting to be an environmental group. The offer was that I could
buy cellular service through them and that they would make
contributions to environmental causes. No, thanks. I will deal
directly with Mobilnet as I always have and I will make contributions
directly to those very causes that I deem worthy and needy. To do
otherwise is to have someone else "handle" an aspect of my life, the
control of which I would rather keep.


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 04:16:58 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Remove the 1+ = TOLL (was Running Out of Area Codes)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> Tony Harminc <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Customers were certainly not thinking "I dial 1 because my local CO is
>> SxS and can't handle things without it".  That initial 1 meant long
>> distance, and long distance meant money.

> But this is just an ignorant association on the part of telephone
> users. Are you saying that if you so perceive something then it is so?
> Just because customers "made up" the idea that '1' = "toll charge"
> does not give it historical validity. Is this how we should hold
> history?  Whatever people "feel" about it is the way it should be
> recorded? To pervert a line from "The Ten Commandments", "So let it be
> thought; so let it be true."

No, John, *CUSTOMERS* did not "make up" the idea that 1 = toll; THE
PHONE COMPANY made it up and advertised it HEAVILY for MANY YEARS, in
many areas of the country, and in many cases CONTINUES TO DO SO.  The
idea that "1 = toll" is REPLETE with "historical validity," all of
your arguments to the contrary notwithstanding in the least.

This idea is anything but "an ignorant association on the part of
telephone users," John.  Whatever the technical reasons that prompted
the use of "1" for toll calls, the fact remains that in many places it
was a matter of WRITTEN POLICY that you dialed a 1 or a 0 in front of
a POTS number IF AND ONLY IF it was a toll call.  Maybe you didn't get
saturated with the commercials with the jingle "Dial 1, plus the area
code (if it's different from your own), and then the number!" but that
doesn't mean that your experience is universal or representative.

Just because *YOU* perceive that the only valid reason for a "1" is if
network technical considerations require it, does *THAT* make *IT* so??


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

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How do You Find Out if a Phone is Bugged?
Date: 15 Sep 91 18:18:48 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> "Michael L. Starr"
<[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 731, Message 7 of 8

> My friend asked me if I know of a way to tell if her home phone is
> bugged.  The reasons she gave for being suspicious is that, several
> seconds after receiving a call, she will hear a "click" on the line.

    This is an emotional and tricky subject. Having your phones
tapped is a violation that is as traumatic as finding a stranger going
through your drawers.

    Also tapping phones can be simple or sophisticated. Simply
speaking, a pair of high impedance headphones (WW II style) will do a
reasonable job. At the other end fancy automated equipment can be
attched at the CO, or even at another location miles away via an OPX
(Off Premises Extension).

    Yes, a simple physical examination can often uncover clumsy
local attempts at tapping, but not sophisticated ones. So there is no
100% guarantee that any line is free of listening devices. There are
charlatans that claim for large chunks of change that they can "sweep"
your line for bugs. They never respond when I ask how much they will
pay me to bug their lines in a manner they can't detect. As an aside
the spy John Walker made his living checking peoples phones and
offices for bugs. The Feds had him bugged for 18 months and he was
unaware of it.

    Bottom line, if someone with access to money and technology
wants to tap your lines, it can be done and you will never know. No
clicks, no hum, no hope. If someone is doing a local clumsy job, then
getting a phone savvy type to look around will turn it up. But don't
expect well connected organisations to use simple devices.

    If you are paranoid, just consider that phones are not secure.
I was in a British Embassy located in a "friendly" country once and
they had posters on the walls saying "Telephones are not secure".  If
the British Gummint doesn't think it can assure tap free phones,
neither should you.

    If you have something important to discuss, do it over
payphones and move them around. See the early chapters of the Leon
Uris book "Topaz" for details. You can also meet in public places,
noisy streets are best. Noisy restaurants are OK, but keep moving the
locations. I knew of one Cafe in Europe that was permanently bugged by
the local spooks - Useful to know if you are planting false info.

    We now return you to normalcy, love and trust.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

From: Craig Ibbotson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Motorola Opens Museum of Electronics
Date: 16 Sep 91 15:56:06 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] writes:

> If you or someone else visits, I'd like to hear a review.  That's very
> close to my parent's house, and I'd be interested in visiting next
> time I'm up there, but I'd like to hear more about it first.

Since I am a Motorolan, you might think I would have a biased view on
the museum.  To be honest, I was very skeptical of this museum and
thought it would be a waste of money.

However, I went during a two week inauguration which was reserved for
Motorolans and their families.  I was truly impressed.  They spent in
excess of $20,000,000 on this museum, and it shows in the final
product.  For any of you Chicagoans, it reminds me of a small-scale
Museum of Science and Industry.

The tour starts off in a theater with a short film about the history
of Motorola and electronics in general.  Then you move on to the outer
portion of the very large museum hall.  This contains all kinds of
historical information on Motorola and electronics.  Many of the
displays are accompanied by video demonstrations and sound effects
(you know, "Push this button to see a three minute film on how the
Handie-Talkie was used during WWII").  All of this was very
interesting and very well done.  This outer wall covers Motorola from
the first radio ever made, to the latest microchip releases.  LOTS of
stuff to look at, listen to, watch, poke and touch.

They have a display on Robotics which will make "custom" souvenir
plastic PC boards with your choice of red, blue or yellow plastic
CPUs, DSPs and RAM chips.  Great fun for the kids, and it's
interesting for the adults.

The tour ends in the middle section, which is an interactive area
designed to teach basic engineering principles and show how certain
technologies work.  These are all very well done; some are on
interactive video screens where you are appearing on a game show and
competing against other contestants.  This last area is one where you
are encouraged to play around as much as you want.  This area has an
EMX-100 switch along with a display (albeit very basic) of how
cellular works, and interactive "games" on semiconductors and a bunch
of other topics.  We ran out of time when we got to this section, so I
didn't get to see how functional the switch is or what types of
interactive games they had in this section.

One of the primary purposes of the museum is to create interest in
engineering in middle school and early-high school children.  I
believe just about every eighth grade class in the area plans on
attending the museum this year.  Many of the interactive activities
are geared towards this age group.

Finally, you can either have a tour guide take you through the museum
or do it on your own.  The tour guides were really friendly and
helpful, but I always like to explore on my own so I can spend more
time on those things that interest me and glance over those that
don't.  I spent around two hours there, and that was not enough time.
Plan on spending about four hours to cover everything in the museum.


Craig Ibbotson, Motorola, Inc.        ...uunet!motcid!ibbotsonc
Cellular Infrastructure Division, Radio Telephone Systems Group

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 12:31:51 -0400
From: Christopher Lott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Same Day Service
Organization: University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science


In article <[e-mail]> Jack Decker wrote:

> Simply dial the operator and say "I'd like a drop
> wire I.D., please".  She'll say the number and disconnect.

Would someone please explain why telco makes it so difficult (in this
day of caller ID) to get the number from which you are calling?

My new service was installed (in MD) under a different number than the
one I was originally told.  Lacking a ANI number, we had to wait until
the biz office opened to find out our number.  Why???  What is the
potential for fraud and other trouble here?  Color me clueless.


Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
[e-mail] /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg  301 405-2721 <standard disclaimers>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #748
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13929;
          18 Sep 91 13:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20747;
          18 Sep 91 11:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21666;
          17 Sep 91 20:49 CDT
Date:     Tue, 17 Sep 91 20:48:58 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #749
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 16 Sep 91 23:45:31 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 749

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Monkey Business (or Pair Hunting in Toronto) [Paul Cook]
    Re: Monkey Business (or Pair Hunting in Toronto) [Tad Cook]
    Re: Just Desserts [John R. Covert]
    Re: Just Desserts [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines [Jack Decker]
    Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill! [Steve Thornton]
    Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill! [John Higdon]
    The Absolute *Last* Hellish Comment [Robert J. Woodhead]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 19:29 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Monkey Business (or Pair Hunting in Toronto)


Jamie Mason <[e-mail]> writes:

> What do you people know about these AML-II boxes?  Since this is a
> multiplexer, it (by definition) reduces the bandwidth of each of the
> lines it is on.  I am told a copper pair has *much* higher bandwidth
> than a single phone line, so there should be no problems with my
> modem (2400 baud).  Has anyone had experience with this type of
> installation?

> Am I going to get line noise? How good is the isolation: am I going
> to experience crosstalk?  Are there any juicy tidbits of information
> about these boxes or personal experiences with them which you would
> be willing to share?  :-)

I don't know about this particular brand of subscriber line
multiplexer, but often these things use an idle line voltage lower
than standard 48 vdc.  This can cause problems with line status lamps
on line-powered electronic telephones, because they stay lit when they
see some value of DC voltage lower than 48 volts.

This is the same reason devices using voltage sensitive exclusion
modules would not work.  It would be interesting to hear what DC
voltage Jamie measures across the line when it is idle.  I'll bet that
its between 15-24 VDC.

You may not be able to power a full five standard ringers off this
device.  It should work fine with one standard 500 or 2500 set.

A friend served by US West was hooked up to a similar device, and his
answering machine no longer detected CPC pulses, so it could not tell
when the calling party had gone back on hook.  He also had a problem
with his teenage daughter.  She talked so long on the phone that the
battery in the box could not stay properly charged!

I doubt if you will get line noise, but because of possible bandwidth
limitations caused by the multiplexing scheme, I would not want to run
a 9600 bps or faster modem on it.


Paul Cook   Proctor & Associates  Redmond, WA  98052
206-881-7000   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Monkey Business (or Pair Hunting in Toronto)
From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa![e-mail]>
Date: 16 Sep 91 22:55:12 GMT


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> Again, it is almost impossible to believe that any company with
> 'Bell' in the name would stoop so low. You are right: this is way
> beneath Pac*Bell, who has never failed, albeit after much moaning, to
> provide requested facilities in a timely manner. And PB has NEVER
> used those rotton subscriber carrier devices!

Wrong!  Our local Bell company here in Seattle uses them all the time
when they run low on cable pairs.  Last year a friend in San Francisco
had one on his line, and he was served by "Pac*Bell"!

Also, I wonder if there are some of the same disadvantages when the
service is from an RSM (Remote Switching Module) off of the main CO?
I know that this type of service often uses lower than 48 volt battery
feed, and there is no metallic path to the host switch.


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA  Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544     Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or, [e-mail]
or, [e-mail]   or, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 11:02:40 PDT
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Just Desserts


> The following was found in Bill Hancock's column in {Digital Review}:
> ... I wrote a little Hypercard stack that calls the salesman at least
> once a day and replays his "Please hold ..." message.

 From the front pages of any telephone directory: "It is a crime under
both state and federal laws for anyone to make obscene or harassing
phone calls."

Unfortunately for us, salesmen may call us as often as they wish to
try to sell us something, but that doesn't give us the right to make
repeated nuisance calls back to them.


john

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

From: Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Just Desserts
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1991 18:08:30 GMT


    From the San Luis Obispo county PacBell phone book:

    Recorded Message Calls

    Calls using a recorded message must be preceded by a live
person who:

1. Identifies him or herself.
2. States the nature and duration of the message.
3. Asks whether you are wlling to listen to the message.
4. Disconnects if you refuse.

    These rules do not apply to calls from outside the state of
California or to calls placed by businesses to preexisting customers.

    If you receive a recorded message which fails to do all of the
above and wish to make a complaint, your local business office will
need to know the name of the individual or business making the call.

    After "turning in" a couple companies in California, all the
calls I get now are from outside the state.


Harold

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 09:43:00 EDT
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selective Ringing on Party Lines


In a recent message, nvuxl![e-mail] (adams)
writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, radius![e-mail] (bob
> lashley) writes:

>>> How can only one phone of a multi-party line be rung?  (It also

>> As I recall, this used to be accomplished by resonating the ringers
>> using different frequencies.  The AC voltage applied to the line would
>> vary in frequency for each party on the party line.  The Q of the
>> ringers for each phone would have to be adjusted for the appropriate
>> frequency by jumpering the coil for another impedance, etc.

> I'm afraid not Bob. As Pat T. pointed out the other day, ringer
> activation involved connecting the ringer either between TIP, RING and
> ground in various combinations in addition to superimposing the
> ringing signal on battery voltage levels (+/- 48 superimposed, etc.).
> For the most part ringing signals are all 90 v, 20 Hz.

To paraphrase the old breath mint commercial, STOP! YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT!

The Bell System never (to my knowledge) used frequency-sensitive
ringing.  On a two-party line, they would put the bell of one party's
phones across tip and ground, and the other party's between ring and
ground.  If more parties were added, then coded ringing would be
employed.  As an example, when I was a small boy in Grand Haven,
Michigan, we were on a four party line, but we only heard the rings
for two of the parties ... one that had a single long ring (similar to
what's used today on most lines) and our code, which was two short
rings.  We didn't hear the rings for the other two parties at all.

However, GTE and some independant telcos made extensive use of
frequency-selective ringing.  When we moved to North Muskegon,
Michigan in 1975, our ring signal was 50 cycle EVEN THOUGH we were on
a PRIVATE line (due to an error at the business office, they had
initially put us on a four-party line, and when they switched us to
private we still had the 50 cycle ring).  A standard ITT-type 500 set
with conventional ringer placed on this line would not ring at all,
until I disconnected the gray and gray/red wires that connected the
ringer to the capacitor in the network block and inserted an external
capacitor with a different value in its place (so, apparently even
"straight-line" ringers are somewhat frequency sensitive, and can be
"retuned" by changing the capacitor value).

I also have sitting near me an old phone from the Wawina, Minnesota
phone system (before my friend Bob Riddell took it over) that has a 30
cycle ringer in it.  This is a North Electric Company phone.

I've heard that there were three different systems of frequency-coded
ringing, which if I recall were referred to as harmonic, synchronic,
and decimonic, with each using different frequency groups (decimonic
was so named because the frequencies were all multiples of 10, e.g.
20, 30, 40, 50, 60, etc.).  And in some cases both frequency selective
ringing AND split ringing (tip to ground and ring to ground) were BOTH
employed, which meant you could have as many as ten parties on a line
and no one would hear any other party's ring.  This was obviously
superior to the Bell System scheme, which would let you be awakened at
night by the ringing for someone else's calls, but for some reason the
Bell folks never adopted it (the Not Invented Here syndrome, probably
 -- or maybe they were just to cheap to buy all those frequency
sensitive ringers!).


Via D'Bridge 1:1/211  09/16 02:08
Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 10:40:27 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill!


On Sat, 14 Sep 91 22:09:24 CDT John Higdon said:

> Any housing situation in which the members are foolish enough to have
> a "one phone serves all" should have 900/976 blocking, and all the
> users of the phone have personal LD accounts. Telephone service is so
> cheap nowadays that cost cannot be used as an excuse for a lack of
> individual phone lines, even on "starving student's" budgets. What are
> the excuses?

Well, John, I think your facts are influenced by your living in
PacBell land. Here in New England Telephone territory, a phone line
costs about $24 a month. Add in an astronomical installation fee. If
you think that's cheap, you haven't been a "starving student" (or just
a common phone user) for a while. Why a whole household of occasional
phone users should each require their own line is beyond me.

I think that your arguments here tend to ignore some basic facts about
most phone users. I make about ten local calls a month, and so do most
of the people I know. I rarely use my modem, and the vast majority of
folks don't even know what they are. What I want is POT service. Until
recently I wasn't even aware you could get anything more. Oh sure, I'd
heard of Call Waiting, but I never felt like spending $3.50 a month to
find out if it was any good.  But 1-900-sex numbers? People with
sixteen phone lines at home? Eight-hour international data calls? I
had no idea. Neither does my mom, or about 95% of the population, who
have come to regard telephone service, Plain Old Telephone Service, as
a basic feature of life, one that until recently hasn't required a lot
of thought. Like electricity. This may be a _wrong_ perception,
nowadays, but it wasn't always one. Most people do think of it this
way, and they have for oh, a mere fifty years or so, longer in big
cities.

I'm not arguing against technology. I'm just saying that on this forum
there a lot of people who are "pushing the envelope" of "telephone"
performance, and that the phone system, by which I mean not just the
companies but the hundreds of millions of subscribers, is not prepared
for it, and for the most part they don't need or want it. It seems odd
to me that we should arrange things for the convenience of a tiny but
vocal minority of experts at the expense of the other 99%.

I repeat: I'm not arguing against technology. If you want it it should
be available to you. But why should everyone be unwittingly exposed to
the risks without even knowing about it? Here I am inclined to blame
the phone companies, who, having been coerced into providing fancy
services to the Telecom Gurus, are trying to force it on everyone else
with misleading sales tactics. (You should see the way Harvard's
internal phone providers have marketed ISDN, for example. They have
actually told people that (1) ISDN will be _required_ for access to
data, and (2) ALL data is available on ISDN.)

OK, so now I know better. 900 blocking, here I come. But in the
meantime, I got robbed. It is _not_ like leaving the front door open,
either. It's more like coming home one day to find out that gremlins
can crawl in through the electrical outlets.

If anyone had ever asked me if I wanted my phone line to have access
to 1-900 sex numbers, I would have said "hell, no, get outta here with
that." I feel the same way about most super-duper phone features.
Unfortunately, No one ever asks. And even when they do, I get them
anyway (thank you New England Telephone for charging me for Call-
Waiting and the inside wiring insurance when I clearly and distinctly
refused them _three times_ when placing my new service order.)


Steve Thornton

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 10:23 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Roomate From Hell Runs up 900-Number Bill!


Linc Madison <[e-mail]> writes:

> No, the $4.45 a month isn't much, but the installation cost is often
> prohibitive.

Pac*Bell charges $37 plus internal wiring (which you can do yourself).

> Your recent comments about AOS service (if an honest AOS can't stay
> afloat, that should tell you something) apply quite well to 900/976
> service: you've argued that disallowing this form of "casual billing"
> would drive most of these IPs out of business.

Bad analogy. An AOS faces you (without recourse) on a dark, dreary
night when your car has broken down on the side of the road. Or in
your room at the Peppertree Hotel in the middle of the night when your
pager goes off. You must use it; you cannot avoid it. If you get
dressed, go down sixteen floors to the payphone, you find it there as
well.

900 service, on the other hand, is purely optional. You may elect not
to use it anytime. If you do NOTHING, you will never experience it. If
you want to be extra cautious, you can get blocking. But you do not
have to play. You do not even have to suffer any inconvenience to not
play.

As far as this entire thread is concerned, the original problem was
the roomate who came from Hell. It has nothing to do with 900
services, any more than it would have to do with long distance service
if the fellow had run up zillions of dollars calling Japan. The
problem is about trust and sharing accounts. Unfortunately, many used
the platform to make the usual, mindless rants against 900 service.


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


[Moderator's Note: But John, you have recourse against the AOS also
don't you?  Its called having a cellular phone in your machine or on
your person. I haven't had to use a payphone, genuine Bell or
otherwise for more than a year.   PAT]

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Absolute *Last* Hellish Comment
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1991 02:53:08 GMT


"I'm sure that, when he was a child, PAT was taken to Hell in a
handbasket.  The people from Illinois Bell probably wish he'd been
left there!"


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


[Moderator's Note: So do a lot of people. But that's life in the big
city. Speaking of hell and the big city, if I don't move out of
Chicago soon I'll probably get killed here. As you may have read in
your newspapers, we are dodging gunfire night after night here from
the gangs and the drug lords. I'm a prisoner in my own home at night
this summer, as are many other Chicagoans. Our once beautiful city is
gone; indeed, there is hell on earth. I've seen it here.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #749
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17315;
          18 Sep 91 14:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id bo14750;
          18 Sep 91 13:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad26748;
          18 Sep 91 11:07 CDT
Date:     Tue, 17 Sep 91 0:44:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #750
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Sep 91 00:43:56 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 750

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Something's Plugged Up Again [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Real Time Voice on Ethernet [Darren Alex Griffiths]
    Re: Real Time Voice on Ethernet [Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.]
    Israeli Hacker Caught [Stephen Storey; Indep. News Service via D. Leibold]
    Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Jack Decker]
    Rochester Tel and ISDN [Jeff Wasilko]
    Voice Mail and Extra Lines [Jeff Wasilko]
    How to Phix Phone Phright [New York Daily News via Dave Leibold]
    Re: Telesphere Bites the Dust [Bob Yazz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 23:52:54 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Something's Plugged Up Again


Monday night none of the mailing list copies of the Digest would move
out of the system for some reason. The 'checkmail' command shows me
what is waiting for delivery at any given time. As of 12:40 AM
Tuesday, the four issues of the Digest previously processed this
evening are hung there for some reason. This issue will make number
five stuck in the pipe. Stuff going to comp.dcom.telecom is working
fine. I guess subscribers will have to wait for the postmaster to come
in Tuesday and massage the pipeline.  When they get out, everyone will
get several issues all at once.  Sorry.


PAT

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

From: Darren Alx Griffiths <unisoft![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Real Time Voice on Ethernet
Date: 16 Sep 91 23:25:39 GMT
Reply-To: Darren Alex Griffiths <unisoft![e-mail]>
Organization: Open Systems Solutions, Inc. -- UNIX R Us.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
wvnet.edu (Vinay Kumar) writes:

> Has anyone done any research/development/implementation work involving
> implementing real time voice on UNIX, TCPIP workstation platform over
> an Ethernet?

I seem to remember that the Wellfleet gateway/router had a board with
a handset attached that let you talk to other Wellfleet boxes across
the network.  It was marketted as a network management tool, allowing
you to speak to other adminstrators on the network while setting up
network connections.


Darren Alex Griffiths    [e-mail] (for now)  [e-mail] (RSN)

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Real Time Voice on Ethernet
Date: 16 Sep 91 18:44:24 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
wvnet.edu (Vinay Kumar) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 728, Message 5 of 12

> Has anyone done any research/development/implementation work involving
> implementing real time voice on UNIX, TCPIP workstation platform over
> an Ethernet?

Etherphone was a research project at Xerox.  PARC techreports should
have some details.

> Also, how about implementing real time voice over ISDN, any experiences?

Well, the phone company has had some experience in this area :-).
They digitize your voice at the earliest opportunity (usually at the
CO) and ship it across their circuits-switched networks.

If you want packet-switched voice in real time, then that's more
interesting, especially if you want to use the an asynch say 19.2 kbps
channel.


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. (N3FGW, [e-mail])
Alternate e-mail: [e-mail]   Phone: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 91 00:52:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Israeli Hacker Caught


[Moderator's Note: Forwarded to the Digest by David Leibold.  PAT]

 From   : Stephen Storey
 Subject: Israeli Hacker cracks military, credit codes

This is a file I personally thought was VERY! interesting.


ISRAELI `HACKER' CRACKS MILITARY, CREDIT CODES

    JERUSALEM (Speacial) - While his compatriots were in their sealed
rooms, taking refuge from Iraqi Scud missles in the gulf war, one
Israeli teenager let his fingers do some walking.

  Deri Schriebman, an 18-year old computer whiz from Carmiel in
northern Isreal, "hacked" his way into the Pentagon's computer system,
reading and copying classified information on the Patriot missle
defense system and other top secret U.S. military programs.

  When the war was over Scriebman switched his attention over to the
computers of VISA International credit company, penetrating the
security codes into the files of individual customers.

  Boasting to a network of American and Canadian teenage computer
addicts, Schriebman supplied them with the names and numbers of the
VISA accounts into which he tapped.

  Some of his computer colleagues embarked on a telephone credit card
spending spree, defrauding VISA and it's clients of tens of thousands
of dollars. The police finally came calling late last week after a
Quebec father caught his two sons -- members of Schriebman's computer
network -- in mid-telephone purchase, using a supplied VISA number.

  Israeli detectives, helped by the national telephone company,
tracked down Schriebman by monitoring heavy users of the international
phone lines and found in the process he had rigged up a homemade
system that allowed him to make long-distance calls without paying.

  Isreali police say Shriebman is the most talented computer hacker
they have come across and have emphasized he broke through computer
defences for pleasure not gain.

  Detectives say there is no evidence suggesting he knew colleagues in
the United States and Canada -- six of whom have been arrested -- were
profiting from the VISA information he transmitted to them.


THE INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE---

 * Origin: The GameBoy BBS [phone] (89:485/213)

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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 08:59:00 EDT
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls


In a recent message [e-mail] (Jim Redelfs) wrote:

> Steve Forrette wrote:

>> I do not keep my phone under lock and key, and live in an apartment
>> complex which refuses to lock the punchdown boxes, so I feel the need
>> to have blocking.

> This is curious, Steve.  Do you not lock your home, or do you have
> roommates that you can not trust?

He wouldn't be the first.  There have been all too many cases of
parents who found out that their kids were making 900 calls, or folks
who threw a party and found guests making sex-line calls from the
bedroom, etc.

> As for locking the punchdown boxes, I approve completely.  As an
> installation technician, I find it especially frustrating and
> time-consuming to find the building terminal room locked and/or the
> cabinet otherwise inaccessible.

 ... and I'm sure elevator repair people find it inconvenient to have
to run down the manager to get access to their equipment, as do
heating and air conditioning people, etc. etc.  What makes you think
YOU should be exempt from this?  You bill for your time, don't you?  I
think the security of the phone equipment is far more important than
your "convenience".

> Unless there is an RJ11C jack on your line, available to the public, I
> wouldn't worry about it AT ALL!  I've found that the 66-block concept
> eludes even "EXPERIENCED" (independent) technicians.  Many security
> system installers (many of whom were pumping gas a few weeks earlier),
> among others, wouldn't know ring from tip, one pair from the other, or
> a bridging clip.  To fear that they would be able (if even inclined)
> to locate your pair, then make all manner of toll calls, borders on
> paranoia (IMHO).

Well, unfortunately, it only takes ONE knowledgeable person, and if
your pair happens to be the topmost or bottommost pair on the block,
then I'd really worry. Yes, there ARE dumb technicians in the world.
There are also some very bright kids who have time on their hands to
experiment.

But I think you miss the whole point.  Maybe you have never had a call
billed to your phone that you didn't make.  The phone company can be
quite agressive about trying to collect these.  I vividly recall one
time when I got a bill for a long distance call that amounted to about
a dollar plus some change.  I called the telephone company business
office to have the call taken off the bill.

I'll save you the verbatim dialogue, which would go on for several
screens, but the gist of it is that the service rep spent several
minutes INSISTING that I, or someone using my phone, HAD to have made
the call, since it was dialed direct and therefore there "was simply
no way it could have been billed to the wrong number". When her
attempts to "reason" with me failed, she finally declared, "well, I
can't take the charge off your bill so you'll just have to pay it, or
we'll disconnect your service!"

I said (using my trump card), "Ever hear of the Michigan Public
Service Commission?"

She took a deep breath, then said, "Just a moment, let me do some
further checking on this."  After which she put me on hold for a
rather long period, and when she came back she said "I'm terribly
sorry, I pulled some other records on that call and found that it
originated on an eight party line!" Since I had a private line, the
implication was obvious, it wasn't made from my line.  I have to
wonder what would have happened if the call had been made from another
private line ... we might still be haggling over that bill!

Now the obvious point is, if they are willing to fight that hard for a
measly buck or two, what would they do if five or six hundred dollars
of charges show up on your bill and you honestly have no idea where
they came from?  THAT'S why I have 900/976 blocking on my line.  If
any such calls ever DID show up, I can call and say "these calls
COULDN'T have been made from my line -- I have them blocked!"  And,
hopefully, that would end the discussion right there.

I think that a customer who is even a little bit paranoid about it
deserves the security of being able to block such calls.  In fact, I
wish regular customers could have ALL non-local calls blocked. I know
there are ways to achieve some minimal security (that depends on the
fact that most people are not too knowledgeable), such as not choosing
a long distance carrier and dialing a 10XXX code before all LD calls,
but that doesn't secure IntraLATA toll at all.  Still, it's much less
nerve-racking to fight over a $6 bill than a $600 one, which could
easily be run up by someone using your phone or line to call one of
these telesleaze operations.



Via D'Bridge 1:1/211  09/16 02:08
Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rochester Tel and ISDN
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 91 0:19:54 EDT
Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY


Rochester Tel expects to have residential ISDN available later this
year.  They've been testing it for quite some time now (and they're
doing Centrex/ISDN). They are slowly installing it in COs around town.

The residential tariff is apparently for 1B+D, and runs around
$25/month. Packet or circuit switched data over the D channel is an
extra $2/month plus kc charges. I didn't get to ask about the kc
charges, or the availability/cost of 2B+D.

Rochester Tel has also been experimenting with data services, such as
connections to Prodigy (ugh!) and RIT. Modem pools are also in the
plans.

What is available in the way of residential ISDN phones with data
ports?  I've heard there are some interesting products in the works
that interface the ISDN subscriber line to existing devices, in
addition to providing one or two data ports.

A few of us at RIT have been invited to Rochester Tel's ISDN
Technology Lab for a tour on October 9th (in the morning). The tour
will include:

    o  Voice/Data applications (including links to outside services such as
       Prodigy)
    o  Data only (PC-PC file transfer)
    o  Compressed Video
    o  PictureTel video conferencing
    o  Group 4 Fax (Plain paper fax at 3 seconds/page)

The demo may also include a tour of the Plymouth Street Central
Office, and other operations in the same building (The Plymouth Street
Central Office is the main center for operator services and
inter-connection to long-distance carriers and is the downtown
switch.) if time allows.

If you are interested in attending the tour, please get in touch with
me.


Jeff (716-475-4952)


[Moderator's Note: And for those of us who cannot attend the tour,
please write a report to the Digest afterward giving details.   PAT]

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Mail and Extra Lines
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 23:45:07 EDT
Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY


I've been spending more and more time on-line lately, so I thought I'd
explore what options Rochester Tel offered so I wouldn't miss calls
when I'm on the modem.

The first option that occured to me was voice mail. Rochester Tel's
rates are: 10 message storage, $7/month; 20 message storage,
$14/month.

Voice mail customers must get call-forwarding if they want their calls
to go to voice mail on busy or no answer. Right now, CF on busy or no
answer are $1.50/month each. Starting October 1, all CF features
(CFNA, CFB, and CFNA/B to a variable number with a variable number of
rings) will be bundled together for $2.95/month.  All current CF
customers will be switched to the $2.95 plan (no grandfathering).

Stutter dial tone is not available (ugh!). You have to call in to get
your messages. The CS agent described what sounded like a toll-saver
feature when calling in to check messages. There is a six digit password
for the mailbox, and you can have up to a two minute outgoing message.
There is no order charge to have voicemail or CF activated (Hmm,
sounds like us ratepayers are doin' some subsidisin').

Well, that's a lot of money for a glorified anwering machine,
especially since I already have a nice PhoneMate machine (Strike 1). I
figured I'd pick up a second measured line, use it for incoming calls
and keep my unmeasured line for outgoing calls.  Rochester Tel insists
that all lines for one customer be of the same type ... (strike 2)

So, I figured I'd switch my current line to measured, and get a second
measured. Well, Roch Tel charges the standard $33 order processing
charge to go from one class of service to another ... (strike 3, I'm
out).

Rochester Tel charges $5.94 + 8.3 cents per call for measured service,
$9.19 for 50 calls (8.3 cents for each over 50), $10.95 for 80 calls
(8.3 each over 80) or $12.77 for unmeasured.  My unmeasured line comes
to $19.20 (including $3.50 for FCC access line charge and $1.48 for
touch tone).

I make around three or four calls a day (including data calls), so I'm
not sure weather to switch both lines to measured (and eat the second
$33 work order charge), or pick up a second unmeasured line. I've also
got to consider ISDN ... (more on that later).


Jeff

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 91 00:53:00 PDT
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to Phix Phone Phright


A {New York Daily News} article by Sheila Anne Feeney described some
tips from one Antonia Boyle of Cassette Productions Unlimited on how
to overcome phone phright ... that is, anxiety when on the phone for
such things as job interviews, creditor handling, and other stressful
situations.

Some of the tips mentioned are:

* take a few deep breaths
* think about speaking slowly
* stand up (the diaphragm works better standing up than sitting down)
* use a mirror by the phone to help cue you to smile when needed; a
smile in one's voice can be effective even if you have nasty stuff
to say to them
* say no to coffee (dries your mouth) or milk (can lead to throat
clearings)
* pause between sentences
* "talk like a tabloid, not an encyclopedia" [for inquiring minds,
here? - djcl :-)]
* tape yourself in ordinary conversation, playing it back for
evaluation

The entire article may be found in the {Sun-Sentinel} (Fort
Lauderdale FL) on 14 September 1991.


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

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telesphere Bites the Dust
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1991 03:15:17 GMT


Telesphere was victimized?  How awful! My nose bleeds for them. And
victimzed by a voicemail hacker besides? My other nostril bleeds for
them!


Bob Yazz == [e-mail] ==

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #750
******************************