Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss801-850

Text File | 1991-10-24 | 909KB | 21,928 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24409;
          9 Oct 91 0:50 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01415
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 8 Oct 1991 22:47:33 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12540
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 8 Oct 1991 22:47:19 -0500
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 22:47:19 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #801

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 8 Oct 91 22:47:14 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 801

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Quarterly V&H Information [David Esan]
    Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Thomas Lapp]
    SMDS Intro, Anyone? [Herb Jellinek]
    Book Review: "Cyberpunk" [Herb Jellinek]
    1-800-TELENET is Disconnected [Steve Forrette]
    Caller ID: Technical Question [Andy Behrens]
    Re: Caller ID Availability [Mike Morris]
    Re: CLID Okayed for Illinois [Mark Ahlenius]
    Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [John Higdon]
    Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [Tom Lowe]
    Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 [Andy Sherman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Quarterly V&H Information
Date: 8 Oct 91 18:17:50 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


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

The tape is dated 15 October 1991.  I am not responsible for the
information supplied in this tape.  For example, ATT persists in
including 706 and 905 (the pseudo-NPAs for Mexico) as Mexico, even
though their use has been discontinued and the numbers reassigned.
The list this time included many billing numbers, include a whole
series with nxx's less than 200.

To anyone who wrote to ask questions after my last posting: if I did
not get back to you, it was not that I didn't want to.  I was on
vacation (yeah!)  and then came back to an upgrade of equipment from
our old NCR Towers to a new SUN Sparcstation (yeah!).  Throw in a loss
of seven workdays for religious holidays, you will understand that I
finally am able to answer letters now, and that is probably far too
late.

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

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

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


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

213: 745 (1, 3)   512: 670 (8, 17)    215: 610 (13, 3)     501: 576 (18, 2)
301: 703 (3, 2)   205: 652 (10, 9)    602: 609 (14, 15)    713: 573 (19, 9)
404: 702 (4, 11)  416: 650 (9, 6)     714: 598 (16, 7)     703: 566 (20, 9)
415: 686 (5, 7)   919: 641 (12, 9)    206: 597 (17, 11)    604: 560 (21, 3)
212: 678 (6, 4)   313: 638 (11, 4)    403: 596 (15, 0)     708: 554 (24, 15)

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

#1. 213 - due to split to 310  beginning February 1, 1992.
#2. 301 - due to split to 410 beginning November 1991.
#3. 404 - due to split to 706 beginning in  May 1992.
#4. 415 - has split to 510, which will reduce the number of exchanges.
#5. 212 - due to split to 917 sometime in 1992.
#6. 512 - no plans to split at this point.  Intra-NPA calls require
          the dialling of the NPA.
#7. 205 - no plans to split at this point.  Intra-NPA calls require
          the dialling of the NPA.
#8. 416 - due to split to 905 in 1993.  Intra-NPA calls require the
          dialling of the NPA.
#13. 714 - will split to 909 beginning November 1992.


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


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 09:32:54 EST
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I received the following as part of an internal memo warning people not
to return pages if they show up with this number on them:

         The latest telephone scam is being directed at pagers.

         If you get a page with the phone number of 212-540-xxxx (where
         xxxx can be any four numbers), don't call it!!

         212 is the area code for New York City and the 540 exchange
         acts the same way as a 900 number, where the phone you are
         calling from is automatically billed.

         The fee for calling these 540 numbers is $55.00 and the
         people with these numbers are calling around the country
         inserting these numbers into pagers to get them to call so
         they can collect the fee.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Is 212-540 really a 900-like exchange?  Or is it like 976 in that
the billing only works if you are within that LATA, otherwise it is
just a toll call?

2. Is there any retribution if I were to receive a page for a toll number
(ie. 1-900-xxx or 1-xxx-976) and called with no intent (or perhaps knowledge)
that the number I called was a billed service?


Thanks,

tom


[Moderator's Note: (1) Apparently some LD carriers choose not to connect
the call at all. From Chicago, a call to any 212-540-xxxx number was
intercepted by AT&T at their switch here, 'call cannot be completed as
dialed ... '.  MCI also refused connection, with the message saying
"MCI does not connect to 976 numbers at this time ..." My impression
is it is basically a '976-style' number, i.e. only toll charges from
outside the LATA *if you can connnect at all*. (2) There is no crime
in someone inviting you to call a certain phone number. It is up to
you to understand how phones are numbered and billing is handled. If
we start allowing retribution anytime someone places a telephone toll
call ignorantly assuming it is a local call with no charge just think
of the can of worms that will open up. Although the tactic described
is very sleazy, it is not illegal. He did not fraudulently bill a call
to your number or force you to dial the number. Pay your phone bill!  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 15:10:48 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Herb Jellinek)
Subject: SMDS Intro, Anyone?


I've recently read a couple of articles in trade rags concerning SMDS,
which, if I recall correctly, stands for Switched Multimegabit Data
Service.  Unfortunately, nothing I read was aimed at total neophytes
like me, so I decided to ask the experts.

I gather that SMDS allows you to 'dial up' (as it were) high-bandwidth
data ports, much as you might connect two lower-bandwidth data port
with a pair of modems.

My questions are basic: Will SDMS use the existing telephone network,
allocating regular telephone numbers to SDMS ports, or will it use a
separate number space, a la Telex?  What protocol(s) does SMDS support
at the lowest level?  How does SMDS relate to ISDN?  And when will
SMDS become available, either nationally or regionally?

Feel free to add your own SMDS questions and answers, if I've left any
out.  Thanks a lot for the information!


Herb

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 15:20:52 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Herb Jellinek)
Subject: Book Review: "Cyberpunk"


The book "Cyberpunk," by Hafner and Markoff, contains quite an
interesting section on the exploits of a fellow named Kevin Mitnick
and some of his friends.  In particular, Mr. Mitnick had a very
detailed knowledge of the inner workings of Pacific Bell's telephone
network, and was capable of manipulating it in some clever, if
antisocial, ways.  The other two sections of the book concern the
Chaos Computer Club and Robert Morris, author of the Internet worm.

An absorbing book -- I recommend it highly.


Herb

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 01:49:53 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1-800-TELENET is Disconnected


Pat, this number was disconnected a while back.  I guess that
Sprintnet got tired of paying for an 800 number on an AT&T prefix!


[Moderator's Note: Another way to reach Telenet/Sprintnet is through
their main number 703-689-6000. Maybe Dave Purks or someone in the
PC Pursuit marketing office there will tell us a direct number for
more information and to sign up.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Behrens)
Subject: Caller ID: Technical Question
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Andy Behrens)
Organization: Burlington Coat Factory
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 00:48:31 GMT


The N.H. Public Utilities Commission will soon be holding hearings on
Caller ID, and whether to include blocking on a per-call or per-line
basis.

Bob Paul, spokesman for New England Telephone, stated:

    "If you line block, then you automatically put the line in
    jeopardy as far as being able to identify numbers for any
    911 service" when an overwrought caller forgets to say
    where he is calling from.

Now I was under the impression that identification for 911 was done
through a different mechanism than identification for Caller ID, so it
wouldn't be affected by per-line blocking?

Is Bob Paul telling the truth, or does it depend on what kind of a
switch you are on?

Technical answers only, please -- no debates on the merits of Called ID
itself.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Availability
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 07:14:59 GMT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> [e-mail] (nyte) writes:

>> I recently saw in the September issue of Radio Electronic on page 67
>> that CLID was available in the following states; AL, CA, FL, GA, IL,
>> IN, MD, ME, MI, NC, NE, NJ, NV, OH, OK, SC, TN, VA, VT, WV.

> CA? To my knowledge, there are as of this date not even ANY CLASS
> services in the state. Something tells me that most of the states
> listed above are devoid of Caller ID.

According to the customer disservice rep at Pac Tel, I can have Caller-ID
in July '92.

[e-mail] (Charlie Mingo) writes:

> You might want to add DC to that list (OK, it's not really a state).

Yes it is.  The State of Confusion.


Mike Morris   WA6ILQ    818-447-7052
PO Box 1130   Arcadia, CA. 91077
All opinions must be my own since nobody pays
me enough to be their mouthpiece...

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Mark Ahlenius)
Subject: Re: CLID Okayed For Illinois
Date: 8 Oct 91 13:05:37 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In today's {Chicago Tribune}, Eric Zorn has an interesting commentary
on Caller ID.  I learned that IBT will soon have available an
additional service called Anonymous Call Rejection.

Thus if you have Caller ID, and someone calls you with their call
blocking turned on, then they will get a nice message something like
"we don't want to talk to anonymous people, please check your call
blocking feature and try your call again" - very loose paraphrase.

This sheds a new light on the usefulness of this new feature.


Mark Ahlenius     voice:(708)-632-5346  email: uunet!motcid!ahleniusm
Motorola Inc.    fax:  [phone]
Arlington, Hts. IL, USA     60004


[Moderator's Note: Did he say IBT *would* offer that, or they *should*
offer that? I think it was the latter. I do know both Chicago papers
have been editorializing heavily in recent weeks in favor of Caller-ID
without blocking of any sort. And the mail to the Illinois Commerce
Commission before and during their deliberations over the past month
ran heavily in favor of disallowing the blocking of ID under any and
all circumstances, but the ICC decided to placate the people who
wanted it by allowing per-call blocking (but not per-line).   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 7 Oct 91 23:11 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival


[e-mail] (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) writes:

>     They had the same deal going at the Indianapolis St. Fair.

>     Here's the good part: I billed the calls to 10288. AT&T

Who, of course, in turn billed the operators of the booth who no doubt
had to pay for your call. You can bet AT&T did not get stuck with
anything.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue Oct  8 08:01:13 EDT 1991
Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival


Here at AT&T Bell Labs in Holmdel, NJ, we have centrex service with
ISDN phones off of a 5ESS.  Anyway, we have full access to all the
other carriers via 10xxx (one guess who is our default! :-)) This has
been useful on a couple of occasions where there was an AT&T network
problem somewhere in the country, and even during the January 19
problem a couple years back.  I don't know how the billing is handled.
We get detailed bills for our office lines each month generated by our
telecom department, but I don't know if the MCI and SPRINT calls end
up on that bill.


Tom Lowe   AT&T Bell Labs   Holmdel, NJ   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: All the LD carriers are 'customers' of each other;
ie, MCI has AT&T as a customer and vice-versa.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 91 15:34:23 EDT


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

> [Moderator's Note: No it does not. You can NOT override ANI sent to
> the called party on an 800 call for the simple reason that end is
> paying for the call, and like any reverse-charge toll call, the called
> party has the right to know what it is they are paying for. Or would
> you have it that they just pay and pay and pay, whenever you choose to
> call, with no reference to who was calling them?  PAT]

Furthermore, ANI blocking would only delay the delivery of the
information, not prevent it.  Calling numbers appear in the billing
detail, which for all I know may be delivered in machine readable
form.  Watch this space, the next chapter will be when somebody
demands that 800 customers not receive detailed billing.  :^(.


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!


[Moderator's Note: The day detailed billing of 800 calls is outlawed
is the day I turn off both my 800 numbers.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #801
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27535;
          9 Oct 91 2:29 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27071
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 9 Oct 1991 00:21:41 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27250
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 9 Oct 1991 00:21:16 -0500
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 00:21:16 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #802

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 Oct 91 00:21:15 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 802

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Steve Urich]
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [David Ptasnik]
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Thomas J. Roberts]
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: News Release Hilarity (will be: Fight Back) [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: What if The Phone Company Hears of a Crime? [Brian Litzinger]
    Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Israeli Hacker Caught [Warren Burstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: snark!beyonet![e-mail] (Steve Urich)
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Date: 9 Oct 91 03:28:09 GMT
Organization: Beyonet Network


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> Now that I have had a chance to play with both my 1ESS and 5ESS lines
> side by side, I have observed a distressing difference. The difference
> is in the audio quality.

<*> Ok ... did you use the same phone on each line or at least use two
phones that are equal in specifications?  Also did you use the same ear
with each phone since your left ear might be deafer then your right ear?
Nothing Personal :-)

[Mixed calling between 5ESS/1ESS in Bay Area Deleted]

Since the problem must be in the Bay Area :-)

> I can imagine what havoc this could play with modems, and is a good
> reason to NOT move all of my lines over to the more modern switch.

<*> True until they junk the old switch.

> This is also not very encouraging in the matter of the future of
> telecommunications. Perhaps the "clarity of digital" will prove to be
> a curse rather than a blessing. Or maybe there is something amiss in
> the particular 5ESS switch that I am experimenting with.

<*> Maybe its those 20 year old phones you used the test them with. :-)

I noticed that through the years the old phones we had were designed
with different frequency characteristics then the new ones I just
installed. Ex: the new ones don't have carbon microphones anymore.
Also its real noticable on the reciever end too!!

> [Moderator's Note: Personally, I'd not blame it on the switch. I've
> got the same thing here and the lines are very clean and quiet. You
> might try from other locations served on the same switch and see if it
> sounds the same there; then also try it from other switches of the
> same type in the area. Your situation may be very localized.  PAT]

<*> Here here! I would believe the same. Here in the Philly area I
hardly don't have any noise except when I call certain locations that
still have an older switch. ???


Steve Urich        WB3FTP        wells!beyonet![e-mail]

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 9:28:56 PDT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) wrote:

> Now that I have had a chance to play with both my 1ESS and 5ESS lines
> side by side, I have observed a distressing difference. The difference
> is in the audio quality.

> [Moderator's Note: Personally, I'd not blame it on the switch. I've

I had a similar experience with a new 5E in a GTE area.  For several
months after it was installed I would occasionally dial someone and
get a completely random phone number.  I would hang up the phone and
press the last number redial button, and get the party I wanted the
first time.  This happened with two different phones from two
different manufacturers.  It generally happened when I was dialing
quickly.  Still I find it difficult to believe that it was my fault
when the last number redial got me where I wanted to go. A 5ESS is a
VERY complex beast, not just any fool can run one.  I believe that the
fault was with the administration, not the switch.  Just a theory.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue,  8 Oct 91 09:49:19 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas J Roberts)
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


The audio quality of a telephone conversation, local or long-distance,
is *USUALLY* dominated by the quality of the local loops at either
end.  The only normal exceptions to this are due to toll equipment
malfunctions or misadjustments. Using the AT&T network, >90% of the
calls traverse digital facilities from AT&T-POP to AT&T-POP ("Point of
Presence" -- i.e.  where your local telco connects to AT&T).

A very large percentage of calls travel on digital facilities from EO
to EO ("End Office" -- i.e. the local telco office where your local
loop terminates). Digital facilities are virtually always configured
to have 0dB loss, and inherently have flat frequency response -- except
for inherent delay and externally-created echo they are about as
"perfect" a transmission medium as possible (within the audio band and
the noise parameters specified for telephony).

Thus, with digital switches, such as the 5ESS(Rg) Switch, for one
direction of a call there are six places in which audio degradations
can occur: the transmitter, the originating loop, the A-to-D in the
originating switch, the D-to-A in the terminating switch, the
terminating loop, and the receiver. Of these, the loops are by far the
most likely to cause problems. On the 5ESS Switch, the D-to-A and
A-to-D do not contribute significant noise or distortion. The local
telco will engineer the loss of the loops.

> Compared to similar calls to identical destinations, the 5ESS
> invariably sounds dirtier, has more random noise, and has lower audio
> level overall. A call from the 5ESS to the 1ESS (co-located) is
> noticably inferior to a call within either switch, and also inferior
> to a call from the 1ESS to any other 1/1AESS anywhere else in the Bay
> Area.

> I can imagine what havoc this could play with modems, and is a good
> reason to NOT move all of my lines over to the more modern switch.

If you are concerned about modem operation, I would complain to the
local telco; there is no excuse for service-affecting degradations.
After you investigate this problem, I strongly suspect you will have
found that the problem was in the local loops, and not in the digital
portion of the system.

> This is also not very encouraging in the matter of the future of
> telecommunications. Perhaps the "clarity of digital" will prove to be
> a curse rather than a blessing. Or maybe there is something amiss in
> the particular 5ESS switch that I am experimenting with.

Here, using a 5ESS Switch and ISDN phones (yes, digital loops; the
A-to-D and D-to-A are in the station set on my desk), calls have
superb clarity and no audible noise at all. This is true for all local
calls, and virtually all long-distance calls; approximately 40% of my
calls to Europe have the typical background "hiss", but 60% of them
are totally quiet as well. The world is going digital, and it shows --
it sure sounds good to me!

For the record, I work for AT&T Bell Laboratories at Naperville, IL.
We design and develop the 5ESS Switch and other telecommunications
products.


Tom Roberts    AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!ihlpl!tjrob  [e-mail]

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Date: 8 Oct 91 14:49:33 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


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

[Moderator's Note: See earlier messages this issue for quoted text. PAT]

  I have noticed the same thing here (201-200 is a 5ESS). I had
assumed it was just a transient new-equipment problem, but it seems to
be here to stay.  One of my co-workers has his home phone on 200 (odd,
since it's supposedly for ISDN customers only) and when calling him
there is horrible impulse noise, both during the ring and after he has
answered.

  Another school converted from the 547 prefix (switch type unknown,
but probably a 1AESS) to 200 to get ISDN features, and they have the
same noise problem, both within the campus (Centrex extensions) and on
incoming and outgoing calls.

  So far, nobody wants to complain, or has the time to pursue it. The
noises seem to come in two general types: the most common is a
crackling and popping that sounds like loose connections in a
pole-mounted terminal. The other noise sounds like a SxS switch when
mute isn't working: sppppprrRRROOOIINNNNGGGG!!!

  Oh well ... progress 8-(

        Terry Kennedy           Operations Manager, Academic Computing
        [e-mail]     St. Peter's College, US
        [e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: News Release Hilarity (will be: Fight Back)
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 07:57:58 GMT


csense![e-mail] (John Boteler) writes:

> My suggestion: start an 'I Hate Pac*Bell' citizen's group and
> distribute your own press releases, with the necessary spin reversal.

And, of course, rapid spin-reversal will cause Pac*Bell to become
seriously torqued-off.  A wrenching situation, to be sure; one that is
sure to loosen their screws and drive them nuts.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Litzinger)
Subject: Re: What if The Phone Company Hears of a Crime?
Organization: APT Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 05:44:30 GMT


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

> Carl M. Kadie wrote:

>> I think the phone company is allowed check line quality, etc. by
>> listening to phone conversations. What are the rules for what they
>> may do with information that is overheard? ... [ deleted ]

> I have heard a crime in PROGRESS (bookmaking) during the course of
> installing the ANNUAL, [ ... deleted ...]
> I can do NOTHING.  I am constrained by the Secrecy of Communications clause
> of my employment:

In some states I've heard that not reporting a crime makes one an
accomplice (sic) after the fact or some such nonsense.

If this is in fact the case, its seems your employment contract
exempts you from certain criminal liabilities.

Perhaps I should contact my boss about contractually relieving me of
certain criminal liabilities?


brian   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 06 Oct 91 17:22:45 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250,438, Echo Beach, Toronto


Our Moderator notes:

> Moderator's note: Many years ago, we had a system here which (when
> the fire alarm bell was ringing in the steeple at City Hall) allowed
> one to dial "311" to learn the location of the fire. It was not an
> automated system, but merely a dozen phones on a desk in the Fire
> Alarm office which rang whenever someone dialed "311". Some poor soul
> then had the duty of grabbing a (ringing) phone, responding "1234 Main
> Street, corner Main and 12th"; disconnecting with no further discussion
> and grabbing the next ringing phone to repeat the message. He might do
> this five hundred times before the calls quit coming in. The year
> might have been about 1940-45.   PAT

In Truro, Nova Scotia in the early 1970's (and probably for much earlier),
the fire department had a network of red fire alarm boxes, each with a
three-digit number. When an alarm was pulled, a horn at the fire hall
would sound out the number twice (5-4-3 would be five hoots, a short pause,
four hoots, a short pause, three hoots, a longer pause, and then the
original sequence again).

I went on a tour of the fire hall once, and saw the notched wheels
which rotated to generate the coded horn calls (one notch to hoot). I
don't know who manufactured the system, but I suspect that Northern
Electric (now Northern Telecom) supplied at least part of it. The
circuits between the call boxes and the fire hall were probably
provided by Maritime Tel & Tel, the local telephone company.

The numbers of the alarm boxes weren't secret. In fact, I remember
seeing a list of them on a card with advertising from some local
businesses.

The fire horn could be heard several blocks away. It was also sounded
once each evening (at 10 o'clock, perhaps). (There was some suggestion
that this was to mark a curfew for children and teenagers under a
given age, but I never saw any official confirmation of this.)

I think the fire horn has probably been replaced by a pager system by
now.

I haven't encountered a system like this elsewhere.  However, some
Canadian cities have (or had until recently) a "noon gun" -- someone
fires a cannon to let people downtown know it's noon.


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


[Moderator's Note: At the time of the great fire in Chicago (120 years
ago today in fact, October 8-9, 1871) the Chicago Fire Department had
a man in the fire alarm office whose duty it was to set the gears on
the bell works in such a way that the bell would have a certain
cadence to indicate where (in what part of the city) a fire had
started. Then he wound up a mainspring, like one would wind up a
clock, and as the escapement started unwinding, the bell would toll a
certain way, then pause, and start again, etc.

The trouble was, as Horace Greely (editor at the time of the {Chicago
Tribune}) later wrote, when you live under the sword of Damocoles long
enough, you eventually learn to ignore it. He noted the bell had been
ringing almost constantly for three days due to the several small
fires which had started around town. The citizens were so accustomed
to seeing a team of horses racing down the street pulling a tank of
water and several men, one of whom clanged a bell as they went along
that they had grown bored by it all, and *that* Sunday night everyone
came home from church, said to hell with it and went on to bed despite
the bell's cadence indicating what was called a 'general alarm'. The
Western Union clerk, despite the fire on both sides of the telegraph
office stayed on duty as long as possible, sending messages asking for
help. He finally signed off on the wire, locked the company's money
and records in the safe, and left. The roof collapsed in flames less
than a minute later. Despite the loss of their building and extensive
damage to their circuits all over town, Western Union re-opened for
business three days later with limited facilities, and a working line
to St. Louis and a few other cities.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Israeli Hacker Caught
Date: 5 Oct 91 17:41:55 GMT
Organization: WorldWide Software


[e-mail] (Michael A. Covington) writes:

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

>> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
>> wrote:

>>> Deri Schriebman, an 18-year old computer whiz from Carmiel in
>>> northern Isreal, "hacked" his way into the Pentagon's computer system,

>> Considering that clasified information is not allowed to be stored on
>> any machines connected to the Internet, one wonders how much
>> "classified" information was actually on the system, and much is
>> merely the media making hot air.

> Since no newspaper or other published source was cited, one wonders,
> in fact, _who_ is making the hot air!  It was just a "news story"
> datelined, if I remember right, "Jerusalem (Special)" with no attri-
> bution other than a BBS somewhere.

This story was all over the major Israeli newspapers when it happened.
I'm sorry that it did not occur to me to translate some of them and
send them to the Digest.  One of the newspapers (Yediot Achronot) also
interviewed a chacker who several years earlier had planted a false
story in their newspaper.  The papers all referred to the accused as a
"computer genius", but knowing some Israeli journalists, that term may
apply to anyone who can figure out how to use the function keys on
their word processor.

I'm also skeptical about this "classified information" bit and think
that the mention of data concerning Patriot missles might be due to
someone's imagination.  Patriots have been in the news here before,
you know.

There seems to have been some sort of phone fraud involved, too.  The
description sounded rather like a blue box, but details were lacking.
I have no idea if a blue box will, in fact, work over here.  A rumor
claims that he was using stolen calling cards to place his calls, but
if he did that from home I would expect that the authorities would
have found him much sooner.


[e-mail]   Jerusalem

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #802
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15070;
          9 Oct 91 9:43 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16419
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 9 Oct 1991 07:59:16 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27312
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 9 Oct 1991 07:59:06 -0500
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 07:59:06 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #803

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 Oct 91 07:58:37 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 803

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Michael A. Covington]
    Re: Information Wanted on Portable Satellite Phones [John Hobson]
    Re: Information Wanted on Portable Satellite Phones [Henry E. Schaffer]
    Re: Phone Listening Crimes [Kevin Kadow]
    Re: IN and Functional Commands (FCs) [Stacey Lebitz]
    Re: Surcharge For 911 in Pittsburgh [Andrew Hastings]
    Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [Jeffrey J. Carpenter]
    Re: Legalistic Fax Cover Sheet [Ploni Almoni]
    Re: LD Savings Plans vs. 1+ (Main Carrier) Connection [Andy Sherman]
    Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [S. Spencer Sun]
    Re: AT&T Calling Card Question [Phydeaux]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Jack Decker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 04:39:28 GMT


Pat, you write:

> (2) There is no crime in someone inviting you to call a certain
>     phone number.

Not so!  I believe the legal term is fraudulent inducement, and a guy
doing this in NYC got nailed for it recently.  This is just a cross-
country version of the same scam.

Posting a "fake" page to a pager in order to induce the pager to call
a 540-line is most definitely illegal.  This subject was covered
extensively here in the past.

Another variant of the scam from Japan: Local Yakuza started forging
the magnetic telephone cards, then paid people to use them to call a
Q2 (Japanese 900) line.  You can Q2 on a prepaid card because Japan
uses the "pulse down the line to deduct a call unit" system.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 05:25:25 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: (1) Apparently some LD carriers choose not to connect
> the call at all...
>                    (2) There is no crime
> in someone inviting you to call a certain phone number. It is up to
> you to understand how phones are numbered and billing is handled. If
> we start allowing retribution anytime someone places a telephone toll
> call ignorantly assuming it is a local call with no charge just think
> of the can of worms that will open up. Although the tactic described
> is very sleazy, it is not illegal. He did not fraudulently bill a call
> to your number or force you to dial the number. Pay your phone bill!  PAT]

I disagree. If someone solicits a call to a 976-type number in such a
way as to _rely_ on your not recognizing it as such, and then collects
an exorbitant charge, then it certainly is wrong and I'd think that
most courts would view it as misrepresentation.

We're not talking about telephone tolls here, we're talking about what
appears to be an obvious scam.


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.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail] ()
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 13:00:10 GMT
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Portable Satellite Phones


In comp.dcom.telecom Rick Farris writes:

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

>> This new system is designed to be a better combined forces
>> battle doctrine that is the standard for our military at
>> this time.

> What does that sentence mean?

Just as telco people have their own jargon, so does the military.  The
sentence means that the system for varying units involved in combat to
work together (combined forces battle doctrine) will be improved under
the new system.


John Hobson 1LT INF USAR (ret)        Ameritech Services
225 W Randolph  HQ 17B    Chicago, IL 60606    312-727-3490
[e-mail]


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

From: [e-mail] (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Portable Satellite Phones
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 23:57:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Robert J Woodhead) writes:

> It means that it will enhance the interface by which the first
> communicating party can transmit intelligence to the second
> communicating party, thus facilitating the timely and accurate
> delivery of the ordinance.
                  ^^^^^^^^^
   Conducting war by sending out legal documents and attorneys is a
violation of the Geneva Accords.  Making such suggestions is itself
improper.


henry schaffer


[Moderator's Note: Gee, I've been accused many times of being
politically incorrect (for that matter, being crude and rude as a
matter of course), but this is the first time I've ever been accused
of violating the Geneva Accords in an article printed here. :)  PAT]

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

From: Kevin Kadow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Listening Crimes
Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 18:30:14 GMT


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

> During one of these delays, I picked up the phone, and heard around 15
> distinct conversations!

> So I sit on the line (it's possible to pick out individual
> conversations, e.g.  the "cocktail party phenomena") for a while. I
> can hear them, they can't hear me; it's a local call -- very interesting.

> 1) What could cause this?  (It has happened off and on in the last year
> or so.)

> [Moderator's Note: (1) 'Crosstalk' is caused by unbalanced lines, and
> frequently by wet cables/wire pairs. It is common enough, especially
> with old wires cramped together in leaking underground conduits, etc.
> You may have noticed it went away once your party answered, and was
> especially noticeable during the second or two after you went off hook
> and before dial tone came to your line.

It certainly isn't crosstalk (I've had crosstalk between my two lines
due to bad insulation). It seems to be a function of the switching
station as both the BBS and the medical center were at the same
station, while I'm on the Chicago-Rogers Park station. The
conversations were clear (but a little faint) with no static. I would
guess that I was hearing all the calls currently going through that
switch.


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

[Moderator's Note: Knowing what little I do about the proximity of
BBS' and medical centers in Chicago, were the two served in common by
Chicago-Edgewater, our CO neighbor immediatly to the south of us?  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 14:17:50 -0400
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: IN and Functional Commands (FCs)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> Does anyone know the progress that has been made in the area of
> functional commands (FCs)?  When I say FCs I am referring to the set
> of commands that a subscriber may be given in order that (s)he can
> program an intelligent network: so the subscriber can customize
> primative (basic) services.

I don't know exactly what you are looking for, but Bellcore has
released Technical Advisories on the Advanced Intelligent Network that
may contain information that you are interested in.

Specifically,

AIN Release 1 Service Logic Execution Environment Generic Requirements
TA-NWT-001124

There are other related documents:

AIN Release 1 Switching Systems Generic Requirements TA-NWT-001123
AIN Release 1 Service Control Point Generic Requirements TA-NWT-001125
AIN Release 1 Switch-SCP/Adjunct Application Protocol Interface Generic
   Requirements TA-NWT-001126
AIN Release 1 Service Logic Program Framework Generic Requirements
   FA-NWT-001132


To order TAs or FAs, write to:
Bellcore  Document Registrar
445 South St. Room 2J-125
P.O. Box 1910
Morristown, NJ 07962-1910


Stacey Lebitz   [e-mail]   ...!bellcore!prefect!stacey

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Hastings)
Subject: Re: Surcharge for 911 in Pittsburgh
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 91 18:51:47 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


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

> Pittsburgh brought
> police, fire and ems together under the umbrella of "Department of
> Public Safety" several years ago and established the 911 dispatch
> center at that time.  I believe they have the enhanced 911 with all
> the bells and whistles such as display of calling party's phone number
> and that sort of thing.

    I don't think Pittsburgh has E911.  The last time I called 911
I had to describe the location of the phone from which I was calling.
And yes, this is a "backdoor" tax increase.  Like many cities across
the country, Pittsburgh is facing a "revenue shortfall."  The
Pittsburgh Press reported that the $1/month 911 charge will just about
cover the salaries of the employees at the 911 center.


Andrew Hastings      [e-mail]  412/268-8734

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

Date: Tue,  8 Oct 1991 23:01:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival


Tad [e-mail] wrote:

>  I DID THIS at an AT&T booth at a fair in Seattle a few
> years ago. They offered free phone calls
> to anywhere, and the phones were not very carefully supervised.  I
> walked up to one and dialed 1-700-555-4141 just to check.  Then I
> dialed a couple of calls out of state, but used 10222 and 10333 in
> front.  The calls went through without a hitch, and I also checked
> them first with the 700 number just in case.

This actually surprises me.  Why didn't AT&T or MCI simply bypass the
local TELCO and hook these lines up directly to their facilities, thus
eliminating this possibility and dealings with the local TELCO
completely?  Is there some regulatory restriction against bypassing
the local TELCO for this?


Jeff Carpenter

System and Networks, Computing and Information Services
University of Pittsburgh
600 Epsilon Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238
[e-mail], [e-mail]
[phone],    FAX [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 06 Oct 91 13:05:40 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Ploni Almoni)
Subject: Re: Legalistic Fax Cover Sheet
Organization: Coconino County BBS 415-861-8290, San Francisco CA


[Forwarded from FidoNet's FCC echo by [e-mail]]

Nigel Allen wrote:

> Of course, the best way to keep your fax messages confidential is to
> dial carefully and make sure you don't use the wrong speed-dialling
> button.

Or to use one of the newer encrypting machines which will spit out the
cover sheet with a statement that the rest of the message is
password-protected, and will not spit out the remaining sheets until a
proper password (per message) is entered.

The issues of preservation of "confidentiality" and attorney-client
privileged information is a real issue in legal ethics / law-office
automation circles these days (a professional interest of mine) but I
don't see any FCC connection, Nigel.


Origin: Coconino County BBS *415-861-8290* San Francisco, CA (1:125/28)
Ploni Almoni - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: LD Savings Plans vs. 1+ (Main Carrier) Connection
Date: 8 Oct 91 19:16:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


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

> The IEC (InterExchange Carrier) does not really know whether they are
> your PIC (Preferred Interexchange Carrier) or not. The calls look the
> same to them at their POP (local Point Of Presence). The only way they
> could KNOW is if you processed the PIC selection through them.

This is just false.  Yes the call detail looks the same regardless of
PIC.  PIC information is usually available -- the LEC is *supposed* to
tell you when somebody selects you as their PIC.  Reporting changes
the other way can be a little chancier.


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: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans)
Date: 8 Oct 91 19:53:23 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Richard R Grady) writes:

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

>>> I was able to subscribe to MCI's "Friends & Family" by having them set
>>> up an account and register my phone number for 10222+ dialing. My 1+
>>> carrier is not MCI.

>> But you can only get the 20% discount for calls to people who have MCI
>> as their 1+ carrier.  In other words, you can have any kind of MCI
>> account, but your "Friends & Family" all must have MCI as their primary
>> LD carrier.

> If that's true, then it follows that your friends and family will not
> get their 20% "Friends & Family" discount because YOU don't have MCI
> as your primary carrier.

I'm pretty sure that's the way it works.  In order to receive the 20%
discount, the party RECEIVING the call must have MCI as their primary
carrier.

Note also that Friends and Family does not apply to calls placed with
the MCI Calling Card (this would be a serious attraction if they added
F&F to the Calling Card ...)


S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94  [e-mail]
WWIVnet #1 @6913:  The Corner Pocket   609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 10:53:24 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Question


I think I should add that it seems AT&T will only allow about ten calls
to be placed in a row (via '#')without having to call back again.  At
least this was the limit the last time I had to make a *lot* of calls
from a payphone.


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 Ingres 10255 West Higgins Road Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500

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

Date: Sat, 05 Oct 91 19:36:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Jack Decker)
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card


In a recent message, [e-mail] (John R. Levine) writes:

> A small note in the paper last week reported that, along with a bunch
> of other reforms directed at COCOTs and hotel switchboards, the FCC
> has ordered all long distance companies to provide 950 or 800 access
> numbers.  This only affects AT&T, since all the rest already have
> them.  Nobody has ever been able to present a rational reason for
> AT&T's reluctance, other than perhaps a desire to be distinguished
> from everyone else.  Maybe they'll use 800-872-2881, the number they
> use for USA Direct in the Caribbean.

When I try dialing this number from the 906 area code (Upper Peninsula
of Michigan), I get a recording that states, "The 800 number you have
dialed is not yet in service.  Please try this number at a later
date."  The voice on the recording sounds very much like the same
female voice that says "AT&T" when you dial an AT&T 0+ call.  So I
suspect you may be correct.  As for 950 access, both 950-0288 and
950-1288 go to an intercept operator here.

In my opinion, it's about time that AT&T realized that there are many
telephones and PBX's, etc. that block access to 10288+ calls.  I
always wondered how AT&T could claim superiority to other carriers
when they couldn't even figure out how to put in an 800 or 950 access
number so their customers could reach them from oddball phones. Even
now they're not doing it for the convvenience of their customers
(though I'll bet they'll promote it that way!) but rather because the
FCC ordered them to do it.


Via D'Bridge 1:1/211  10/07 12:14
Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #803
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22487;
          10 Oct 91 2:33 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23128
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:48:38 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26851
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:48:28 -0500
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:48:28 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #804

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Oct 91 00:48:29 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 804

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [John Higdon]
    Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [John Higdon]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Nicholas J. Simicich]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [John R. Levine]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Carl Moore]
    Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [S. Spencer Sun]
    Pager Calls [Rob Boudrie]
    Telecom Humor From the Comics [Nigel Allen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 09:19 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival


"Jeffrey J. Carpenter" <[e-mail]> writes:

> This actually surprises me.  Why didn't AT&T or MCI simply bypass the
> local TELCO and hook these lines up directly to their facilities, thus
> eliminating this possibility and dealings with the local TELCO
> completely?  Is there some regulatory restriction against bypassing
> the local TELCO for this?

None at all. In fact, I have some clients who do this very thing and
as a result are able to make intraLATA calls on the carrier rather
than on Pac*Bell, thus saving a LOT of money. However, it is much more
trouble to set up than just having a phone line installed. Either a T1
would have to be provided by the telco from the carrier's POP or a
short-hop microwave would have to be involved. I seriously doubt that
the expense for any of this would justify the benefits for a booth at
the fair.


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


[Moderator's Note: I think you could avoid a T1 if you were talking
only a single line or two and have the local telco wire it straight
through the switch and out to you. Of course you'd have to pay the
local telco for the essence of a private circuit or FX line between
you and the LD switch.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 91 14:22:02 EDT


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

> This actually surprises me.  Why didn't AT&T or MCI simply bypass the
> local TELCO and hook these lines up directly to their facilities, thus
> eliminating this possibility and dealings with the local TELCO
> completely?  Is there some regulatory restriction against bypassing
> the local TELCO for this?

No, but there are some technical challenges.  One is you need a line
from the state fair to a point of presence (POP).  Your choices are a)
lease a private line from the local TELCO (who owns most of the loop
plant and the trunks to your POP), b) run your own ($$$$), c) use a
private radio relay ($$$ if you don't have a spare receiver at the POP
and a spare roving transmitter).  So you will probably rent dedicated
digital facilities from the local TELCO.  Then you need a way of
providing dial tone.  By providing dial tone, I mean handling all of
the interface from an analog POTS line into a digital access trunk
headed for the toll switch.  This means some kind of a digital PBX.
All in all a lot of work and money to drive a few POTS sets at a fair
and avoid a small amount of splash billing from a few people playing
games.

This is just a guess as to motivation, although the technical
description of what the bypass would require is real enough.

Remember that the tricky part of bypass is that modern toll switches
are not designed to interface with local loops.  They switch traffic
on trunks.


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!


[Moderator's Note: And even much of the splash could be eliminated by
using some sort of toll-diverter or toll-restrictor on the lines which
ignore digits dialed after the eleventh, etc.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 21:27 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?


[e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead) writes:

> Posting a "fake" page to a pager in order to induce the pager to call
> a 540-line is most definitely illegal.  This subject was covered
> extensively here in the past.

It was? It is? I have been following the Digest for a while now and I
cannot remember anyone citing chapter and verse on any law that
prohibits anyone from putting any number in someone's pager. Can you
quote the issue in which it appeared? Or better yet, how about the law
itself. This has the definite ring of "wishing it were so" to it.

[e-mail] (Michael A. Covington) writes:

> I disagree. If someone solicits a call to a 976-type number in such a
> way as to _rely_ on your not recognizing it as such, and then collects
> an exorbitant charge, then it certainly is wrong and I'd think that
> most courts would view it as misrepresentation.

Every scam from the beginning of time RELIES on the victim not
recognizing it as a scam. You (and even I) may think it is wrong, but
the courts cannot view it any way at all if there are no applicable
laws. And no, we do not need more laws. The best defense against such
scams is education so that people DO recognize these things for what
they are.

As any con man will tell you, laws are nothing to a con artist. What
he fears most is his potential marks learning the ropes and avoiding
his traps. Laws are easily broken; marks that refuse to take the bait
are somewhat more trouble.

And can we finally put to bed this "no one knows about '540'"
business?  Hell, I know about '540' and I have not been to NY in over
ten years. Is the contention here that people who live in NY go around
with blindfolds on and cotten stuffed in their ears?

> We're not talking about telephone tolls here, we're talking about what
> appears to be an obvious scam.

If it is so obvious, why do people fall for it? Are they stupid?
Stupidity comes at a price.

Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]> writes:

> 2. Is there any retribution if I were to receive a page for a toll
> number (ie. 1-900-xxx or 1-xxx-976) and called with no intent (or
> perhaps knowledge) that the number I called was a billed service?

As Pat points out, this is very sleazy. But it certainly makes a
compelling case for not using a pager in lieu of a secretary or an
office.  I have carried a pager since 1970 when all you got was a
Motorola Pageboy that was about the size of a small cellular phone. It
would beep and then announce through its speaker who to call. It was
usually the operator at the answering service that operated the paging
company, but later there were automatic systems that allowed the
caller to speak his own SHORT message.

But I digress. Over the years I have learned to NOT return just every
number that comes along from the pager. If a number appears that I do
not recognize, some research is done first. Where is the prefix? Who
might be calling from an unusual location? Check the voice record on
my machine, which handles the paging. Do I recognize the name? Was a
voice message even left? (If not, why not?) After all of this,
SOMETIMES I will return an unknown page if there are some thoughts
that it has some legitimacy. If I cannot come up with anything
plausible, then the page is ignored.

I know that some will object, saying that operations on a budget need
to use a pager as a secretary. Maybe so, but people who make it a
practice to return pager calls to strangers had better be extra
careful about what prefixes they call. And this is the pager holder's
responsibility and no one else's.

If one lives in NY, it sounds like he has a full time job keeping
abreast of all the banana peels that NYNEX tosses out here and there
to collect as much loose change as possible.


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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 09:50:10 EDT
From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Reply-To: Nick Simicich <[e-mail]>


> [Moderator's Note: [.....] (2) There is no crime in someone
> inviting you to call a certain phone number. It is up to you to
> understand how phones are numbered and billing is handled. If we
> start allowing retribution anytime someone places a telephone toll
> call ignorantly assuming it is a local call with no charge just
> think of the can of worms that will open up. Although the tactic
> described is very sleazy, it is not illegal. He did not
> fraudulently bill a call to your number or force you to dial the
> number. Pay your phone bill!  PAT]

Apparently you and the NYC District Attorney disagree about this.  At
least one of the people pulling this scam is up on charges for fraud.
I agree with the DA.  No crime in advertising a number that costs
money, as long as the cost is explained up front, and the benefit you
will get from calling the number is also explained.  In this case,
there was no intention on the dialer's part to enter into a contract
to get the information that the line promised, so the $55 (or
whatever) is being fraudulently billed to your number, since you were
duped into contracting for the service in the first place.

All this stuff could be eliminated by requiring a up-front
announcement of the cost of the call and the name of the service.


Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, [e-mail]) -SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318


[Moderator's Note: Uh yes, we do disagree on this, and it is worth
noting that the DA is trying to cut a deal with the defendant, which
is not usually done when the government has a good rock solid case.
The defendant seems to be arguing the government should indict anyone
who leaves a message (electronically or through a secretary)
requesting a call back to a number which results in an additional
charge on the (return) caller's phone bill if the original caller did
not expressly tell the secretary, "returning this call will result in
an additional charge levied by the phone company". He maintains that
calls are returned regularly which result in toll charges to the
person returning the call; that most people are sophisticated enough
to detirmine for themselves if they wish to return the call or not;
and that no force of any kind was used. He cited the technical
limitations of many/most pagers in use to accept alpha-numeric messages
making it impractical to give further details in his page message. He
also cited the automatic dialing done by many 900 services in which
messages are delivered inviting the called party to call back to a 900
number and the countless messages on late-night television inviting
people to call a 900 number while quickly glossing over the charges
involved for the call -- in essence giving no information at all.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 9 Oct 91 14:18:28 EDT (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


In reality, the tactic of inviting out of LATA calls to 212-540-XXXX
is mostly stupid, since inter-LATA carriers are not going to handle
any surcharge.  Callers from 718, 516, most of 914, and some callers
from 201 would get dinged since NY Tel can carry calls from there.

I suspect that you could make a fraud charge stick, since this tactic
is somewhat like a game of three-card monte in that nobody is forcing
you to play, but you never get anything of value for your money.  It's
not reasonable to expect everyone to know all of the surcharged
prefixes in the country -- how many of the well-informed readers of
telecom know all the ones in NYC?  I think it's 976, 540, and 394, but
I'm not sure about the last one and there may be more.

The real solution is regulation similar to that for 900 numbers: any
time you call a surcharged number, you get an announcement describing
the nature of the service and the price, and there's no charge if you
hang up then.


Regards,

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


[Moderator's Note: It is true that in three-card monte you never get
anything for your money, but our scammer in New York did in fact give
information in exchange for the money, did he not? Opinions may differ
on the value of the information. He thought it was worth the money.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 12:04:38 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?


Given the pagings (of apparently fraudulent intent) pertaining to
calls to the 212-540 exchange: From where would the person placing
such page expect you to call 212-540 exchange?


[Moderator's Note: This is another point the con-artist (and I will
grant you he is one, even if marginally legal, which I think he is) is
arguing with the prosecutor: How should he know *where* the person
returning the call will be calling from? After all, pagers are by
definition mobile devices. If they are outside the NYC area, they pay
only a toll charge. Is he being prosecuted for those pages also? And
if so, why isn't every business person who leaves a message with a
phone number in another LATA without specifying the charges involved
being prosecuted also?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: sleazy tactics (was Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?)
Date: 10 Oct 91 00:41:18 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Thomas Lapp) writes:

[quotes memo describing people leaving 212-540-xxxx numbers on pagers,
which are $55 per call]

> [Moderator's note: ... (2) There is no crime
> in someone inviting you to call a certain phone number. It is up to

I dunno, this seems to be a very grey area ... I'm no legal expert, so
I have no idea what you would call this (although I plan to consult
with my legally-connected friend in a minute or two) but this seems
like abuse of the person's beeper.

Also, it's a bit unreasonable to expect your average citizen who does
not have the honor of reading comp.dcom.telecom :^) to know that one
particular exchange in that area code acts like 976 numbers.

Sure, no one is being forced to call the numbers, but it is strong
deception.


[S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - [e-mail] ]
[WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)]


[Moderator's Note: It is deception only if the person returning the
call was deceived; and the extent to which the person was decieved is
relative to how much they know about the phone system. Whose problem
is that, and where do you draw the line? If I did not know ahead of
time that placing a credit card call will cost more than a direct
dialed call, should I be able to sue telco for deception? Where do you
stop and start on this?   PAT]

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

From: Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 16:35:01 EDT
Subject: Pager Calls


To the Moderator:

Do you KNOW for certain that the practice of placing 540 numbers on
pager displays is in fact legal?  Has a court ruled on it?  I seem to
remember someone in NYC being charged with fraud over this practice,
but don't remember the outcome.


Rob Boudrie   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It is not up to anyone to prove it is legal. It is
up to the government to prove it is illegal. And the outcome is they
are still haggling over it; the government wants the guy to cop a
plea in exchange for maybe two year's paper, so they can show how well
they protect the public.    PAT]

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

From: canrem![e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Date: 9 Oct 91 (18:23)
Subject: Telecom Humor From the Comics


First man: "I talked to this really foxy chick last night!"

Second man: "Hey, that's great, Elmo! Where's she from?"

First man: "Heck if I know... her area code is (900)..."


Nigel Allen   [e-mail]
Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario
NorthAmeriNet Host


[Moderator's Note: Thanks Nigel ... I needed that!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #804
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24832;
          10 Oct 91 3:34 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23997
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 10 Oct 1991 01:55:01 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06957
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 10 Oct 1991 01:54:50 -0500
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 01:54:50 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #805

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Oct 91 01:54:45 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 805

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [John Higdon]
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Michael Ho]
    Re: Caller ID: Technical Question [Nancy J. Airey]
    Re: Caller ID: Technical Question [John R. Levine]
    Re: Caller ID Availability; Chicago Gets It 1/1/92 [Sami Khoury]
    Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Phone Listening Crimes [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Phone Listening Crimes [Graham Toal]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 01:52 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality


snark!beyonet![e-mail] (Steve Urich) writes:

> <*> Ok ... did you use the same phone on each line or at least use two
> phones that are equal in specifications?  Also did you use the same ear
> with each phone since your left ear might be deafer then your right ear?
> Nothing Personal :-)

Kidding and sarcasm aside, all of the lines in question appear on my
KX-T1232, a system known for its superior audio quality. I am 4000
cable feet from the CO. Whatever advantage or disadvantage that
pertains to the local loops is shared by the 1ESS and the 5ESS alike.
The pairs ARE in the same cable.

The differences that I am describing are not at all subtle. They are
glaring and alarming. Yes, the 5ESS sounds ok until you use one of the
1ESS lines. What a difference! No fuzzy dial tones. No hiss in the
background of the call. No funny little crunching noises (that were
not there on the 5ESS lines when they were crossbar a month ago.)

Quite frankly, I expected a knee-jerk response to my comments so I am
prepared to conduct measurements. When one observes that the emperor
is wearing no clothes, one of two possibilities exist: the observer is
a fool or someone is naked. But before we commit yours truly to the
funny farm let us at least be accurate in our rebuttals:

Tom Roberts,    AT&T Bell Laboratories writes:

> Thus, with digital switches, such as the 5ESS(Rg) Switch, for one
> direction of a call there are six places in which audio degradations
> can occur: the transmitter, the originating loop, the A-to-D in the
> originating switch, the D-to-A in the terminating switch, the
> terminating loop, and the receiver. Of these, the loops are by far the
> most likely to cause problems. On the 5ESS Switch, the D-to-A and
> A-to-D do not contribute significant noise or distortion. The local
> telco will engineer the loss of the loops.

Tom, please be complete in your description. The 5ESS is a
space-time-space division switch. You have conveniently omitted one of
THE troublesome areas in the system: the analog concentrators. These
are some diode audio switching devices that cut down on the need for a
one-to-one A-to-D converter requirement for subscriber lines. These
things fail, get noisy, and have another characteristic that in my
case is most annoying.

Ever since Pac*Bell installed the "new" network protectors on my
lines, I have detected a small imbalance. This is normally not
noticeable, but at certain times of the day a buzz can be heard on all
lines during the dialing of numbers. On the 1ESS, the buzz disappears
completely as soon as the "ka-klunk" happens. At this point, the loop
is obviously properly terminated at the switch end and all is well. On
the 5ESS, however, the same buzz remains throughout the call. It would
appear that whatever is used at the switch end for termination is
inferior to the 1E. My guess is that this is related to the analog
concentrators.

> Here, using a 5ESS Switch and ISDN phones (yes, digital loops; the
> A-to-D and D-to-A are in the station set on my desk), calls have
> superb clarity and no audible noise at all. This is true for all local
> calls, and virtually all long-distance calls; approximately 40% of my
> calls to Europe have the typical background "hiss", but 60% of them
> are totally quiet as well. The world is going digital, and it shows --
> it sure sounds good to me!

Yes, rub it in. We do not have ISDN here and probably will not for
some time. But what I hear you saying is that for ISDN purposes the
5ESS is just wonderful. For us poor slobs who are still having to use
telephone service the way the ancients intended, it would appear that
the 5ESS is not the most desirable choice. I am sure that digital
sounds good to you. It usually sounds good to me also, but what is
going through the 5ESS does not sound good to me.

> For the record, I work for AT&T Bell Laboratories at Naperville, IL.
> We design and develop the 5ESS Switch and other telecommunications
> products.

Somehow I guessed that early on in your post. However, I am also aware
that a subjective pissing contest is pointless. This coming week, I
will be collecting the equipment to make some definitive level,
distortion, and modem throughput tests. I will submit the results, for
better or worse, upon competion of the tests.


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


[Moderator's Note: Does the 'buzz' you hear sound at all like what I
used to hear termed 'AC hum'?  About 22 years ago, I helped a friend
at the First Unitarian Church of Chicago (312-FAIrfax-4100) relocate
some five-line, six-button phones from one office to another in the
same building. The thing I noticed on all four CO lines and the ICOM
line was the slightest little hum in the background before the (at the
time, in the neighborhood) very slow-arriving dial tone, and during
the ringing while waiting for an answer. Likewise, incoming callers
heard a little background hum until the line was answered.

I called IBT repair and asked them to eliminate it. The old frog who
called me back from repair croaked, and I quote, "Calling from First
Church, eh?  I told you people a year ago to get that power line for
the flourescent lights in the office out of *our* conduit! Keep the
wires apart from each other, and your hum will go away." All my
arguments about it not being *his* conduit, and Supreme Court rulings
on the right to use *common conduit* or *conduit-in-common* for a
variety of purposes was to no avail. Yes, I know you should not really
run power lines down the same conduit as the phone line, but some
contractor from years before did it. There was no problem until the
incadescent lights in the office were swapped out with flourescent
fixtures, and the church wasn't paying me enough to pull new 25-pair
cable all over the building ...  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 13:40:12 GMT


[e-mail] (David Ptasnik) writes:

> I had a similar experience with a new 5E in a GTE area.  For several
> months after it was installed I would occasionally dial someone and
> get a completely random phone number.  ...
> ... A 5ESS is a
> VERY complex beast, not just any fool can run one.  I believe that the
> fault was with the administration, not the switch.

You know, come to think of it, we have a relatively new digital switch
here in Lincoln, Nebraska.  I don't know for sure that it's a 5ESS,
but it seems to "act" like one based on what the gurus in c.d.telecom
have been saying -- short call-waiting beep with no line break,
killable call waiting even on phones without three-way calling, no
switching noises to other prefixes on that particular switch.

Lately, a friend of mine has been getting an unusual number of wrong
numbers that are not simple transpositions (i.e., he lives at
421-1XXX, and someone was trying to reach 477-5XXX).

I don't know anything about that switch, but I know our phone company
people are dolts (we're under an unregulated independent telco that is
permitted by law to rake in 18% per year profits).  It's very possible
that someone misprogrammed it.

[By the way: When we call from a digital switch to a prefix on an
analog switch, we hear a bunch of "Touch-Tone"-like noises that aren't
really touch tones, but seem to be conveying a number via tones.  Is
this typical or are we REALLY in the Dark Ages?]


Michael Ho, University of Nebraska | Internet: [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be
         applied to any university agency.

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

Date: Wed,  9 Oct 91 09:22:56 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Nancy J Airey)
Subject: Re: Caller ID: Technical Question
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> Bob Paul, spokesman for New England Telephone, stated:

> "If you line block, then you automatically put the line in
> jeopardy as far as being able to identify numbers for any
> 911 service" when an overwrought caller forgets to say
> where he is calling from.

> Now I was under the impression that identification for 911 was done
> through a different mechanism than identification for Caller ID, so it
> wouldn't be affected by per-line blocking?

> Is Bob Paul telling the truth, or does it depend on what kind of a
> switch you are on?

E911/911 relys on the "ANI" (Automatic Number Identification) being
outpulsed over a CAMA trunk using in-band signaling to the 911
"handling" office.  This is not the same as caller ID info (that
discussion to follow) and would not be affected by "call blocking."

Caller ID -- when instituted between switches -- uses CCS7 (Common
Channel Signaling -- System 7).  Messages are sent over signaling
links separate from the voice path.  Even if this were the way 911 was
implemented it would still not affect delivery of the blicked number
to a receiving switch, because the number is still sent along even if
it is blocked.  Blocking only prevents the called party from seeing
the number displayed at their phone or getting a "read-back" if the
called party puts it on a call rejection or call acceptance list.  The
switches *know* the number!  That process is apparently part of the
CCS7 protocol.  If you have an automatic recall feature on your phone
(call the last number that called me), you can activate it even if the
number was blocked and call the person back.  And if you get billed
for calls that you make, that number will then display on your phone
bill.


att!hrcca!jean

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

Subject: Re: Caller ID: Technical Question
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 9 Oct 91 14:22:44 EDT (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


The NET spokesman is lying when he says that Caller-ID blocking would
break 911, which is sadly typical of the way that telcos are promoting
CID.  E911 service does not depend on CID, which should be obvious since
it's implemented all over the place now.

CID blocking doesn't actually keep the number from being sent -- it
sets a block bit which is interpreted at the callee's switch.  That's
why Call Return, Call Block, and Call Trace all work even in the
presence of CID blocking.


Regards,

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

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

From: Sami Khoury <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Availability; Chicago Gets It 1/1/92
Date: 9 Oct 91 20:15:52 GMT
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec


Regarding the Caller-ID already in use by some states, or that to be
implemented in the near future, is the feature of call-by-call
blocking (*67 to block the CLID info) a free one ?

In Canada, the only way to block a call, is by placing the call
through the operator and this will cost you $0.95 per call.


Sami Khoury    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Usually *67 is free.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 08:23:46 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> jwt![e-mail] (John
Temples) writes:

> Does the *67 I dial to prevent my number from being transmitted to
> Caller*ID subscribers also prevent it from being transmitted to 800
> number services?

> [Moderator's Note: No it does not. You can NOT override ANI sent to
> the called party on an 800 call for the simple reason that end is
> paying for the call, and like any reverse-charge toll call, the called
> party has the right to know what it is they are paying for. Or would
> you have it that they just pay and pay and pay, whenever you choose to
> call, with no reference to who was calling them?  PAT]

    VERY INTERESTING!  I've heard all about various proposals to
allow blocking of caller ID in general (whether on a per line or per
call basis) as part of the proposals for caller ID here in California.
Am I to guess that we already have caller ID on calls we place to 800
numbers?  Does the general public know this?  (I didn't) This must get
kinda complicated when we go thru an alternate long distance carrier
(using 950 or 800 access).  I've also seen ads for equipment/software
that ties caller ID in with your customer database so you know all
about the customer when you answer the phone.  Are "mail order"
companies currently doing this with 800 numbers?


Harold


[Moderator's Note: You can't use 950, 10xxx or 800-access to call an
800 number, since the choice of carrier is made by the person paying
for the call, in this case the 800 subscriber. All you can do is hand
the call off to your local telco; they'll route it from tables on
hand.  And yes, ANI is given to 800 subscribers, either in real-time
or in delayed time when their bill arrives each month.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Phone Listening Crimes
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 08:42:51 GMT


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

> So I sit on the line (it's possible to pick out individual
> conversations, e.g.  the "cocktail party phenomena") for a while. I
> can hear them, they can't here me, it's a local call -- very interesting.

> [Moderator's Note: (1) 'Crosstalk' is caused by unbalanced lines, and
> frequently by wet cables/wire pairs. It is common enough, especially
> with old wires cramped together in leaking underground conduits, etc.
> You may have noticed it went away once your party answered, and was
> especially noticeable during the second or two after you went off hook
> and before dial tone came to your line. (2) It is illegal to listen to

    This reminds me of the occasional "party line" that would
occur when I was in high school (years and years ago).  One night, I
discovered that I could hear other people on the phone when I dialed a
friend whose line was busy.  I could also talk to these people.
Rather than rely on my friend being on the phone, I dialed my own
number, getting a busy.

    My guess as to what was happening had to do with the impedance
of the busy tone generator.  I guessed that all of us who got a busy
number were physically swithced to the busy tone generator, which
would ideally be a zero ohm voltage source.  Any impedance above zero
ohms would allow crosstalk between the callers.  I seem to recall us
high school kids also discovering a number that just gave us a quiet
line that we could also all call and talk.  This was probably a
crossbar switch (1967 or so, Pac Bell in the SF east bay).  I guess
that now busy tone is generated using dsp techniques?  Just send a
bunch of numbers to the subscriber D/A converter?


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Phone Listening Crimes
Date: 9 Oct 91 21:02:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


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

> It certainly isn't crosstalk (I've had crosstalk between my two lines
> due to bad insulation). It seems to be a function of the switching
> station as both the BBS and the medical center were at the same
> station, while I'm on the Chicago-Rogers Park station. The
> conversations were clear (but a little faint) with no static. I would
> guess that I was hearing all the calls currently going through that
> switch.

Aha! What you have there is what we in the trade call "NSA Promiscuous
mode"...  We all know that there are *far* too many conversations in
the world for the NSA to monitor them all, so what they do is hire a
friendly South American power and get the entire population to listen
to about twenty calls each at once.  This is a considerably cheaper
method of keyword detection than using expensive computers. :-)


Graham

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #805
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13478;
          11 Oct 91 1:24 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08781
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 10 Oct 1991 23:40:47 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08715
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 10 Oct 1991 23:40:36 -0500
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 23:40:36 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #806

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Oct 91 23:40:32 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 806

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Calling Party Hold and the Infinite Call [Mike Van Pelt]
    Re: Help Me Understand Disconnection of a Call [Tom Gray]
    Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Patricia Elizabeth Houser]
    Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Andrew Payne]
    Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [Jeffrey M. Schweiger]
    Re: Information Wanted on Portable Satellite Phones [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [John Higdon]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [John Higdon]
    Re: AT&T Speech Recognition [Al L. Varney]
    Re: RadioMail(tm) - Wireless Electronic Mail Announcement [Jeff Hibbard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Calling Party Hold and the Infinite Call
Date: 9 Oct 91 17:52:32 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mike Van Pelt)
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology


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

> The number was for ZZZZZZ ... a free ... entertainment service.  Jokes,
> skits, and a variety of other homegrown amusements ...

There was a number like this in Houston, about 1976 or 1977, called
"The Banana-Nut Phone Company".  They had some really hilarious skits,
some so-so.  And some nearly illegible; Lauren's mention of using
8-track tapes may explain a good bit.  Does anyone know anything about
who this was?

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

From: mitel!Software![e-mail] (Tom Gray)
Subject: Re: Help Me Understand Disconnection of a Call
Date: 9 Oct 91 12:39:08 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> Suppose A calls B.

> In the US, I've seen that both A and B can disconnect the call by
> putting the phone down.
> In India, I've noticed that _only_ A can terminate the call.  If B
> puts the phone down, and A persists, the call is still running.
> Why might this be the case?  Or am I missing something essential?

There are three kinds of disconnect used in North America.

The one that you describe is called calling party control with forced
disconnect. The called party can release the call if he goes on hook
for a period of time (typically 30 seconds). This allows him to
disconnect a nuisance caller or move to a more convenient telephone.
It also allows the called switch to disconnect the trunk connections
which can save valuable network resources in the case of long distance
calls.

However if someone calls an operator, disconnect control is assumed by
the operator position. The connection will not release until the
operator releases. I have always been told that this can be used in
cases of emergency or to identify nuisance callers at the operator
position. I've always suspected without evidence that it could also be
used to prevent certain types of toll fraud.

There are four types of disconnect control:

           calling party control (with forced disconnect)
           called party control
           both end control
           calling party control without forced disconnect.

All are in use somewhere but the first two are the ones commonly used
in North America.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County
Date: Wed,  9 Oct 91 13:19:15 PDT


unisoft![e-mail] (Darren Alex Griffiths) wrote:

> The system can be setup to dial all the phones (about
> 30,000) within a few hours in the event of a toxic spill or other
> disaster, or it can call every phone within a few blocks and ask
> people to look out for a lost child.

> Initially this sounds like a good thing, and it probably is, but there
> are certainly some questions.  I've never heard of this type of system
> before; is Contra Costa the first one to have it?  Also, I assume they
> didn't test it by calling all of the phones, so how do they know it
> will really work?  There are also some interesting risks associated
> with it.  By definition the system is connected to the phone network,
> I wonder what the chance of some piece of pond scum breaking in to it
> and sending fake messages to people are?  What if the system breaks
> and goes wild at 4:00am calling up numbers all over the world?  Where
> does it get the address information from as well?  I wonder if it uses
> the 911 database or if it has it's own built by the city?

I heard on KCBS-AM 740 that the system only knows numbers that are
available to directory assistance, and that people with unlisted
numbers need to notify the county somehow.  There was no explanation
as to how the notification would take place, or if the system stays
current with the changes to the database.  I don't know if the 911
database can read unlisted numbers.

One other thing it mentioned was that it can't distinguish between a
human or an answering machine (presumably a modem or fax would be
noticed) and that one would likely miss the beginning of the message
while the outgoing message is being played.  I would think that an
important message would be repeated or a number would be left where
one could call the recording to get the whole message or more
information.


Patti Houser

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Payne)
Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 12:23:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.
fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes:

> The fire horn could be heard several blocks away.

    If you live in Berkeley Sprngs, West Virginia, you can hear
the fire horn several miles away (old air raid siren, I think).  They
still use the old fashioned system of more alarms ==> the worse the
fire.

> I think the fire horn has probably been replaced by a pager system by
> now.

    I think they are getting pagers, but the fire horn remains.
Both the fire and rescue services for the *entire* county are
volunteer.

    Nearly 80% of the county is served by a single exchange (304)
258.  There is no 911 service to speak of, insetad you call 258-9911
which rings into the local hospital and they dispatch from there.  If
you can't find anyone there, you call 258-2101, the local State Police
detachment which rings through to Martinsburg, WV (about 40 miles
away) after 5 PM.  Martinsburg then gets on the radio and sees if they
can raise one of the six or seven State Troopers (total) that patrol
the county.

    Needless to say, emergency response time can be a little on
the slow side.  My dad was in an accident a few years back and it took
nearly 1.5 hours for an ambulance to arrive.  On the other hand,
sometimes there is a volunteer on duty somewhere nearby and you get
someone there in minutes.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Subject: Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans)
Date: 10 Oct 91 02:39:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(S. Spencer Sun) writes:

>>> I was able to subscribe to MCI's "Friends & Family" by having them set
>>> up an account and register my phone number for 10222+ dialing. My 1+
>>> carrier is not MCI.

>> But you can only get the 20% discount for calls to people who have MCI
>> as their 1+ carrier.  In other words, you can have any kind of MCI
>> account, but your "Friends & Family" all must have MCI as their primary
>> LD carrier.

> If that's true, then it follows that your friends and family will not
> get their 20% "Friends & Family" discount because YOU don't have MCI
> as your primary carrier.

> I'm pretty sure that's the way it works.  In order to receive the 20%
> discount, the party RECEIVING the call must have MCI as their primary
> carrier.

I don't believe that this is the case, but don't have first hand
knowledge as I have used it yet to call anyone who doesn't have MCI.
I vaguely recall, though, that my parents got their F&F discount for
calling my sister, and she does not have MCI.

> Note also that Friends and Family does not apply to calls placed with
> the MCI Calling Card (this would be a serious attraction if they added
> F&F to the Calling Card ...)

The way I read my last phone bill implies that I did receive the F&F
discount on the MCI calling card calls I made.  This may have been
because I made the calls inside the area that once qualified for the
Around Town plan.  You might want to check this out with MCI.


Jeff Schweiger          Standard Disclaimer       CompuServe:  74236,1645
Internet (Milnet):                [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Portable Satellite Phones
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 03:11:34 GMT


[e-mail] (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:

> (Robert J Woodhead) writes:

>> It means that it will enhance the interface by which the first
>> communicating party can transmit intelligence to the second
>> communicating party, thus facilitating the timely and accurate
>> delivery of the ordinance.

>  Conducting war by sending out legal documents and attorneys is a
> violation of the Geneva Accords.  Making such suggestions is itself
> improper.

Argh!  My nefarious plan to get rid of all the lawyers has been
exposed (no doubt, by a lawyer).  Can't you just hear it, though?

    "Battalion, we need a salvo of 105mm PLPA at grid 3-Alpha!"
    (PLPA = FLA for Product Liability Plaintiff's Attorney)

    "Incoming..."

    "...but Mr. Jones, isn't true that..."  <<THUD>>
    "...so when did you stop beating your..."  <<KABOOM>>


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 09:19 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival


"Jeffrey J. Carpenter" <[e-mail]> writes:

> This actually surprises me.  Why didn't AT&T or MCI simply bypass the
> local TELCO and hook these lines up directly to their facilities, thus
> eliminating this possibility and dealings with the local TELCO
> completely?  Is there some regulatory restriction against bypassing
> the local TELCO for this?

None at all. In fact, I have some clients who do this very thing and
as a result are able to make intraLATA calls on the carrier rather
than on Pac*Bell, thus saving a LOT of money. However, it is much more
trouble to set up than just having a phone line installed. Either a T1
would have to be provided by the telco from the carrier's POP or a
short-hop microwave would have to be involved. I seriously doubt that
the expense for any of this would justify the benefits for a booth at
the fair.


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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 21:51 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card


[e-mail] (Jack Decker) writes:

> In my opinion, it's about time that AT&T realized that there are many
> telephones and PBX's, etc. that block access to 10288+ calls.  I
> always wondered how AT&T could claim superiority to other carriers
> when they couldn't even figure out how to put in an 800 or 950 access
> number so their customers could reach them from oddball phones. Even
> now they're not doing it for the convvenience of their customers
> (though I'll bet they'll promote it that way!) but rather because the
> FCC ordered them to do it.

If you are going to bash AT&T, please do so with some intelligence.
Have you forgotten that the '10XXX' was the mandated way to handle
carrier access from the beginning of the MFJ? Who was at fault here,
AT&T or the PBXes, COCOTs, hotels and motels that did not comply with
these standards? Do you really believe that AT&T "couldn't figure out
how to put in an 800 or 950 access number"? Please explain why it was
AT&T's responsibilty to provide a workaround for non-compliant
"oddball phones".

Yes, the FCC is changing the rules in mid-game and ordering AT&T to
provide extra access to its network. The OCCs have not provided 800
and 950 access for the convenience of their customers, either. They
used it to, among other things, try to grab a respectable share of the
market.  These were stop-gap arrangements to be used until FGD became
widespread. AT&T did not need these things, since it already had in
place what FGD would provide the Johnny-Come-Latelies. Now it appears
that the "workarounds" have become standard and the FCC is changing
its usually befuddled mind.

A very unusual disclaimer: I do not work for AT&T, have no stock in
AT&T, get no commissions on AT&T long distance or products, and have
no personal friends who work for the company. But in my experience, it
is the only company that really delivers in the long haul. I would use
it even if it cost more than it does now. AT&T's service is worth
paying for.


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

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

Date: Tue,  8 Oct 91 17:27:36 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Al L Varney)
Subject: Re: AT&T Speech Recognition
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

> In a copy of _DEC Professional_ a few months ago, I came across a
> passing reference to a speech recognition system being marketed by
> AT&T. It was described as having lots (64? 128?) of processors, each
> using the DSP-32 chip (AT&T's proprietary signal processing chip

This is NOT a proprietary Sig. Processor, at least no more proprietary
than those of TI or Intel.  It was covered in a special SP issue of
IEEE Spectrum about two years ago.  I believe we also supply support
programs, debuggers, etc. for the DSP-32(tm).  I will attempt to find
a contact with more accurate information on the exact configurations
available, as well as information on the "BT-100" or whatever speech
recognizer you mentioned.  {Unless that would be too close to
advertising??}

Regarding how well it works ... I believe the AT&T Technical Journal
had some articles at the research stage a year or so ago.  Of course,
since divestiture, we are less able to share actual usage data in an
open forum.  Some of our competitors actually use our published
research to their advantage, you know?  Of course, if BNR or Northern
Telecom would like to become a customer of AT&T, I'm sure an Account
Rep. would be willing to discuss those issues and potential
applications.


 Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, 2600 Warrenville Rd., Lisle, IL 60532
      [e-mail]   or   att!ihlpf!varney

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Hibbard)
Subject: Re: RadioMail(tm) - Wireless Electronic Mail Announcement
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 07:47:18 GMT


> MENLO PARK, CALIF. (OCT. 8) - "RadioMail", a new service extending the
> reach of electronic mail to pocket pagers

> The RadioMail gateway service interconnects electronic mail systems
> and information services with one-way paging....networks nationwide.

> The service communicates with many electronic mail networks, including
> the worldwide TCP/IP Internet and UUCP/USENET........

   [lots more hype about this wonderful new idea deleted]

So what's the big deal?  (or did I miss something?)

Anybody in the world who can send to Internet has long been able to
E-mail a message to my alphanumeric pager (or to the 16 other pagers
carried by people in my group) by just sending to particular Internet
addresses within ".bradley.edu".  I'm the one who implemented this,
and it was no big deal.  The biggest problem was reverse engineering
the IXO format (long before info about that was posted here), and that
only took an hour or so.  Haven't lots of other people done similar
things at their sites?


Jeff Hibbard, Bradley University Computing Services, Peoria IL

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #806
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14545;
          11 Oct 91 1:58 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13214
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 11 Oct 1991 00:15:56 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11103
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 11 Oct 1991 00:15:38 -0500
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 00:15:38 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #807

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 11 Oct 91 00:15:03 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 807

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling To My Carrier [Jack Decker]
    Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? [Esa Holmberg]
    Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs? [John R. Levine]
    Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs? [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? [Daniel DanehyOakes]
    Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Andrew C. Green]
    Re: 1-800-TELENET is Disconnected [Don Phillips]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Oct 91 06:00:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Jack Decker)
Subject: Re: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling To My Carrier


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

Actually, since these are intrastate calls, the FCC has nothing to do
with it.  What happened is that maybe two or three years ago the
Michigan Public Service Commission decreed that Interexchange Carriers
should be allowed to carry intralata calls within Michigan, but that
customers would have to dial the appropriate "10XXX" code to specify a
carrier other than the Local Exchange Carrier (either Michigan Bell or
GTE North, depending on which company serves your exchange).

Part of the reasoning behind this (and I don't recall all the details
offhand, so this is from memory) is that the Michigan Public Service
Commission decided that according to law (either Michigan or federal,
don't recall which) they could only regulate facilities-based
carriers, not those that simply resold transmission capability of
other carriers.  At the time, the only facilities-based Interexchange
Carriers in the state were (as I recall) AT&T, MCI, and U.S. Sprint.
Even Allnet was not considered a facilities-based carrier, if I recall
correctly.

So if the MPSC had decreed that only Michigan Bell or GTE could handle
intraLATA calls, it would have prohibited the three largest carriers
from handling such calls, but the other carriers would have been
perfectly free to handle such calls.  Of course, the Local Exchange
Carriers could still have blocked transmission of such calls to
Interexchange Carriers when 1+number (or 10XXX+1+number) was dialed,
but not calls sent via mechanisms such as "950-" or local access
numbers, or "1-700+number" dialing.

Also, on a purely practical level, Michigan Bell had been allowing
calls dialed using 10XXX + 1 + number to go to the desired carrier for
quite some time, and of course calls placed using "950-" or other
access numbers had always worked, and I suspect that the Commission
didn't want to deal with complaints from folks who suddenly found that
this formerly available access was denied.

At the time all this was going on I was following it quite closely.  I
think the result is pretty fair -- the local telcos get the default
traffic from those who don't care to choose a carrier, yet those who
do care and who want to save a little extra money can dial around the
local telco.  In practice, last I heard was that somewhere between 95%
and 98% of all intraLATA calls still go to Michigan Bell or GTE North.
I don't mind that as long as the choice to do otherwise remains
available.

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

Yep, sure is.  MetroNet (a company out of Lansing) does this too, and
they offer some interesting features that are unique to their
company ... like the first 47 seconds of every call are free (if your
call is completed within 47 seconds, you're not charged for it), free
directory assistance calls, and some really great rates on intrastate
calls.  The flip side is there is a monthly minimum or service charge
and some of these feature work differently for intrastate vs. interstate
calls, plus the first minute of calls that DO last longer than 47
seconds is a bit loaded (not too badly, though).  I have to believe
they lose some money doing things like this but they must make it back
somewhere.

Disclaimer: I don't work for Metronet, although if you sign up with
them and tell them I referred you, I supposedly get a $20 referral
bonus.  If you think that makes this message too self-serving, just
don't tell 'em I sent you!  :-)


Jack Decker
1804 West 18th St. #155, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan  49783

Via D'Bridge 1:1/211  10/08 12:46
Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

From: [e-mail] (Esa Holmberg)
Subject: Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones?
Organization: University of Turku, Finland
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 10:47:28 +0200


[e-mail] (Tom Horsley) writes:

> I don't really believe this either, but my question is: Are there any
> cordless phones which use digital transmission between the handset and

Yes, there is, at least one. It is called Forum and made by Nokia.
That's the only one I've seen myself, though I've heard that there
would be others, too. I guess they are not yet ready, but going
through tests.

I still like my analog DanCall though.. :-)

(no, this isn't an ad :-)

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

Subject: Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 9 Oct 91 15:48:29 EDT (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


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

> Their cost for fax transmissions was four dollars (US) per page, plus
> the cost of any non-local call.  ...
> The owner said that faxes aren't a big part of his business.

At those prices, I'm not surprised.  (Insert the old joke about the
kangaroo in the bar here, if you want.)  The pay faxes I've used, both
here in Massachusetts and near my beach place in New Jersey charge
more like $2 first page, $1 thereafter for sending or receiving, plus
toll charges.  The one in New Jersey at the local 5 and 10 would even
call me and tell me I had a fax waiting if the cover page had my phone
number.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Wed,  9 Oct 91 21:32:12 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Herman R Silbiger)
Subject: Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Bob Izenberg) writes:

> I was in a privately-owned mailing service office the other day and
> saw their sign announcing their new fax machine.  Their cost for fax
> transmissions was four dollars (US) per page, plus the cost of any
> non-local call.  This seems a high price for sending a fax, but maybe
> I'm taking too much for granted.  I'm sure that Digest readers can
> give me the economics of operating a public fax machine.  What's the
> break-even point on charging for fax use?  I thought that running it
> like a photocpier would make the service more popular: Price it
> cheaply to encourage use.

> The owner said that faxes aren't a big part of his business.  Fax
> costs at copy and print shops in town that send more faxes charge
> about the same, however.  The first fax machine ad that I saw in the
> paper has a list cost of $790.  At four dollars a page, the fax
> machine recoups its cost after 197 pages are sent.  Supplies will be
> be paid for with twenty more pages, let's say.  Will this fax machine
> ever make a profit, or even break even?  I wouldn't think so, but
> someone reading this may be able to give an authoritative opinion.

The AT&T Public fax machines charge $2 /page for fax domestically.  If
the fax goes to more than one destination (broadcast), it is $1 per
page to each of the additional destinations.  The machines will also
receive, but I forgot what the charge was.  A plain paper laser
printer provides the output.

An unattended public fax terminal is a lot more expensive than a
office fax machine.  It has to have a card reader, touch screen CRT
for instructions and commands, and a strong case for security.  In
addition, there are rental costs and commissions to the owner of the
space, billing costs etc.  From this it is clear that charging $4 per
page in the situation you describe should be quite profitable.


Herman Silbiger

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Subject: Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone?
Date: 10 Oct 91 17:03:41 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


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

> I've recently read a couple of articles in trade rags concerning SMDS,
> which, if I recall correctly, stands for Switched Multimegabit Data
> Service.  Unfortunately, nothing I read was aimed at total neophytes
> like me, so I decided to ask the experts.

This is going to be a bit long, but I hope it's informative.

SMDS is part of a general movement toward "fast packet."

If you already know what packet switching is, skip the next paragraph.

Packet switching is a technique for increasing the efficient use of
bandwidth.  Messages (which must be digital) are broken into chunks of
a pre-set maximum size, or "packets," which include information about
where they're going, where they came from, checksum, the order to
reassemble them in, etc.  These are sent into a network "cloud" that
doesn't necessarily send them all by the same route; it sends them by
whatever route is available.  Thus, they may not all arrive in the
same order sent (which is why the packets include that information).
This allows many messages to simultaneously use a relatively few
communications lines.  Packet switching generally operates under a
protocol called X.25, which has an upward speed limit of 65 Kbps --
given telco requirements, usually 56 Kbps actual customer signalling
rate.

Packet switching is good, but (by today's standards) slow.  The
telecom community began some years ago to define standards for faster
packet switching.

There are two primary technologies now fighting it out for the market.
These are _frame_ _relay_ and _cell_ _relay_.  The fundamental
difference between these (as I see it) is that frame relay creates
packets at ISO level 2 and calles them frames, while cell relay
creates them at level 3 and calls them cells.  There's actually a lot
more difference than that, but I'm not trying to write a textbook
here.

SMDS is a cell relay technology.  It is planned to take customer
packets at DS1 (1.544 Mbps) and DS3 (45 Mbps) speeds, and relay them
over SONET and similar technologies.

The primary applications envisioned for this include high-quality
image transfer (medical, CAD/CAM, etc.) and bridging of geographically
dispersed LANs at LAN speeds.  By charging on a usage basis, it is
presumed that more companies will be able to afford this service.

It should be noted that SMDS is defined only in terms of interfaces.
The internal network (switching fabric) may be a 802.6, an ATM switch,
FDDI, or some device specialized for SMDS.

The three interfaces are:

    SNI (Subscriber Network Interface)
    ISSI (Inter-Switching System Interface)
    ICI (Interexchagne Carrier Interface)

The interface of most interest is, of course, the SNI.  Any device
that can emulate this is an eligible SMDS terminal.  This particularly
include router cards that can be installed in PCs, LAN bridges, etc.

The SMDS cell (packet) can contain up to 9188 octets of user information,
along with all sorts of control information.  The effective throughput
at 45 Mbps, with constant sending, would be something like 34 Mbps.

The addressing will be E164, or standard telephone-number-type
addressing.  (Of course, this adds to the continuing problem with "out
of numbers," but that's being addressed too ... we hope ...)

Let's see if I've covered Herb's basic questions:

> Will SDMS use the existing telephone network, allocating regular
> telephone numbers to SDMS ports, or will it use a separate number
> space, a la Telex?

It uses standard telephone numbers, but is going to be using a
separate network, at least for the present, at the RBOC level.  (With
BISDN, I suppose, it all gets integrated.  Yeah.  And we'll have
worker's paradise, and a land of milk and honey, and ...)

> What protocol(s) does SMDS support at the lowest level?

Oh, right.  The three interfaces I mentioned above use three levels of
protocol called SIP, SMDS Interface Protocol.

> How does SMDS relate to ISDN?

They're not speaking for now, but they're seeing a counsellor to try
to reconcile their differences:*)

Seriously: SMDS is a "step towards" BISDN; its minimum rate is ISDN's
maximum rate (PRI of 1.544).  They really can't talk because they're
not the same kind of animule.

> And when will SMDS become available, either nationally or
> regionally?

Current plans are for RBOCS and other local companies to roll-out SMDS
in the first half of 1992.  Interexchange SMDS should follow within a
year.

Hope all this helps.


Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 12:17:19 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) tells us:

> In Truro, Nova Scotia in the early 1970's (and probably for much earlier),
> the fire department had a network of red fire alarm boxes, each with a
> three-digit number. When an alarm was pulled, a horn at the fire hall
> would sound out the number twice (5-4-3 would be five hoots, a short pause,
> four hoots, a short pause, three hoots, a longer pause, and then the
> original sequence again).

> I haven't encountered a system like this elsewhere.

Indeed, there was (is?) at least one: Lynnfield, Massachusetts, just
north of Boston. Nigel's description is almost exactly what I
remember. During a Cub Scout tour of the fire station in the mid-60's,
we saw a mechanism to receive signals from the pullboxes mounted on
telephone poles around town. It punched large triangular holes in
paper tape to represent the box code. If someone pulled Box 372 at
Archer Lane and Summer Street, for example, the tape produced "< < < <
< < < < < < < <". Someone would feed it through a simple gadget on the
station horn which honked out the code to the volunteer firefighters,
who could then converge on the box address in-stead of going to the
fire station first. (Presumably someone did go and get the fire
engine, however.) Meanwhile, we kids would look up the code on our box
address list, courtesy of the local hardware store, and race there on
our bicycles. What a letdown it was to hear "3-3-3" on the horn: that
was a phoned-in emergency, so we wouldn't know where to go; all
volunteers had to report to the station.


Andrew C. Green       [phone]
Datalogics            Internet: [e-mail]
441 W. Huron          UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg
Chicago, Il. 60610    FAX: [phone]

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

From: Don Phillips <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1-800-TELENET is Disconnected
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 20:01:07 GMT
Organization: Research Unlimited, Escondido, CA


I have been a PC-Pursuit customer for about five years.  I found out
about the phone number change when I was attempting to report an
outdial modem that was hung.  The new number is 800-736-1130 for the
"Telemarketing Department" (sic).  The number for trouble reporting is
800-877-5045.  Sign ups can be done online by calling their BBS at
800-736-1130.

Unfortunately, when the numbers were moved, they also lost the ability
to credit your account for the time spent hanging on a hung modem so
that they could find it.  Now you have to make a separate call to the
billing department during "business" hours in order to receive the
credit.  I guess that I've done my last good deed for PC Pursuit.  For
the record, it took about eight minutes for the technicians to locate
the modem that I was connected to and disconnect the call.  This
occured at about 1 am PDT.


Don Phillips               [e-mail]  or
Research Unlimited         ...!ncr-sd!blkhole!don
Escondido, Calif.          My opinions are just that, and no more.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #807
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21667;
          12 Oct 91 18:01 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02848
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 16:19:01 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26500
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 16:18:38 -0500
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 16:18:38 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #808

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 Oct 91 16:18:30 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 808

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries [Jeff Sicherman]
    Telephone Privacy Adapter Circuit (Experimental!) [Jack Decker]
    Why Can't I Pickup This Call? [Nigel Allen]
    UFGATE: "How Does it KNOW?" [J. Brad Hicks]
    Last Four Digits in a Montana Number [Carl Moore]
    Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking [Glenn F. Leavell]
    Siemens Hicom 300 / Hicom Trading 300 [Karin Melberg]
    #5ESS Ringmate Broken? [Larry Rachman]
    Harvard and Help Center Call Tracking [Jeff Wasilko]
    Mexican Phone System [Dave Niebuhr]
    What's In Washington? [Dave Leibold]
    Area Code 410 Already Works [Douglas W. Martin]
    RF Interference on Answering Machine [Charlie Rosenberg]
    800-555-Anything Seems to be a Toll Call [Douglas W. Martin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 01:11:22 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  Can a Remote Call Forward for an existing number assigned to a
rotary forward multiple calls to the new site/number itself with
multiple lines grouped into a rotary, or must each line at the
originating site be Remote Call Forwarded separately? Is a rotary
group even compatible with Remote Call Forwarding?

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

Date: Sun, 06 Oct 91 22:45:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Jack Decker)
Subject: Telephone Privacy Adapter Circuit (Experimental!)


There's been some talk in this conference in the past (a month or two
ago, I think) about telephone privacy adapters (devices that prevent
others from interrupting or listening in to a conversation or data/FAX
call from another phone on the line) and I just thought some of you
might be interested in a CRUDE but workable circuit I built a long
time ago that achieved the purpose.  Now, I have to warn you that what
follows is a pictorial diagram drawn as best I can with ASCII text
characters (in fact, one reason I am sharing this is in the hope that
someone who's more into electronic schematics can provide me with a
"real" schematic diagram for this).

The device used three components which, in the units I built, all came
from surplus electronic part paks from a now-defunct (I think) outfit
called "Poly Paks" (anybody remember them?).  The bridge rectifier was
an epoxy-encased unit rated 1 Amp at 400 PIV (or greater).  The
Silicon Controlled Rectifier (SCR) was similarly rated at 1 Amp, 400
PIV or greater.  The Zener Diode could be just about any amperage (it
only has to carry enough current to momentarily trigger the SCR) and
according to my notes, anything from 9 through 24 volts would
generally work (you might have to increase the voltage if the phone
that this device was connected to could still break into a
conversation on another line; conversely, if the phone was always dead
even though no conversation was in progress, it would mean that the
Zener Diode voltage would have to be decreased).


                  +---------+
   TO LINE  >-----|AC     - |-----------+            ZENER
                  |         |        t  |            DIODE ||
                  | BRIDGE  |       /   o  \          +----||
                  |RECTIFIER|       |  SCR o-------===|    ||-----+
                  |         |       \   o  /          +----||     |
                  |         |           |                  ||     |
   TO PHONE >-----|AC     + |-----------O-------------------------+
                  +---------+


One note about the portrayal of the SCR above: The units I had were in
a metal can similar to the type used for transistors.  If you viewed
the SCR from the bottom (where the wires emerged), the small tab on
the can would be at approximately the location indicated by the "t".
Now, I know that SCR's have an anode, cathode, and gate, and I know
that the Zener Diode (specifically, the lead coming from the "top" of
the "top hat") connected to the gate, but it's been so long since I've
done any real electronics experimenting that I can't tell you much
more than that ... however, any electronic experimenter worth his salt
can probably figure this out in a few microseconds.  I have no real
idea how this circuit would look pictorally if built with today's
modern components.

The way this would work is that you'd put one of these units inside of
(or in series with EITHER wire of the pair leading to) each phone or
device on a line.  If some phones were connected to a line with these
devices installed, and some without, the ones without the devices
would be able to "break into" a conversation (in fact, as soon as one
of the "non-protected" phones was picked up, all the "protected" ones
would lose the connection), so you'd almost always want to put one of
these inline with EACH device on the line, except in special
circumstances.

The units basically operated on telephone line voltage.  When all the
phones are on hook, the line voltage is high enough to allow voltage
to flow through the Zener Diode and trigger the SCR, thereby allowing
the circuit to be completed to the phone (once current flows through
an SCR, the gate voltage is no longer necessary; the SCR will keep
conducting until current flow is stopped or seriously reduced
elsewhere, thus the trigger voltage need only be a momentary pulse).


Via D'Bridge 1:1/211  10/08 12:47
Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

Date: Mon, 07 Oct 91 21:00:07 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Why Can't I Pickup This Call?
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto


Roger Clark Swann (ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]) wrote that
he placed a call on hold, and wanted to pick it up on another set.

It sounds like you want Call Park, a feature I have seen on both a
large hospital SL-1 PBX and on Bell Canada' Centrex III, which runs on
a DMS-100.

As implemented on Centrex III, if you want to park a call, you hit the
link hey (equivalent to flashing the switchhook), dial 120, and hang
up To unpark the call, you pick up another phone, and dial 121 plus
the extension number where the call was parked. (These codes may vary
from customer to customer.)

Call Park on the SL-1 was basically the same, except that for sets
with a numeric display that showed the extension number that you were
calling (or that was calling you). With those sets, when you parked a
call, a four-digit code beginning with 1 would display (the hospital
had no extension numbers beginning with 1), and uyopu could unpark the
call by dialling that four-digit pseudo-extension number from another
phone.

I suspect that almost nobody but a switchboard operator would
routinely use this feature, which may explain why Boeing either hasn't
implemented it on its 5ESS, or hasn't bothered to tell all its
employees about it.


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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 14:30 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: UFGATE: "How Does It KNOW?"


I dropped off of the FidoNet last November, so I'm behind a bit on the
technology.  When my ex-wife, who took over my FidoNet node (Kim
Storment, 1:100/523), started needing Internet access, a lot of the
advice I gave her was obsolete.  One of the new changes looks
impossible to me, how does this work?

Apparently the domain "z1.fidonet.org" points to multiple hosts on the
Internet, and vice-versa.  In the old days (a year ago?), all FidoNet
to Internet traffic went through a single FidoNet node, both ways.
Now you send mail to the nearest FidoNet node running UFGATE (UUCP to
FidoNet Gateway), and it dumps it onto the Internet.

All well and good. But if I send mail to [e-mail],
how does "z1.fidonet.org" determine which FidoNet node to route the
mail to?  Or does all Internet mail into the FidoNet still pass
through 1:114/15 and then get routed, like in the "old days"?

Does this mean that you can't route to ... f<net>.z1.fidonet.org unless
<net> has a dedicated UFGATE?  If you can route to a FidoNet net
number that doesn't have a dedicated UFGATE, well, like the famous
thermos bottle, "how does it KNOW?" which Internet host to route it
through?

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

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 11:20:48 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Four Digits in a Montana Number


Sometimes, I notice cases where only a certain range of numbers is
used within a prefix.  Therefore, I herein cite the use of "1876" as
the last four digits in a phone number pertaining to the Custer
battlefield (Custer's Last Stand was in 1876).  That number is in
Hardin, Montana, and I have no way of knowing what number ranges are
in use within that exchange.

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn F. Leavell)
Subject: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 18:22:19 GMT


I just spoke with Southern Bell, and I was told that there is no way
for me to block the calls from my Athens, Georgia phone from going
into the Caller-ID system.  Are there any other states in which
Caller-ID is offered without ANY option of blocking, free or for a
fee?


Glenn F. Leavell  Systems Administrator  [e-mail]  404-542-3488
University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Karin Melberg)
Subject: Siemens Hicom 300 / Hicom Trading 300
Date: 9 Oct 91 20:17:41 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I am interested in technical information on the Siemens PBX Hicom 300
and especially the Hicom Trading 300. Although these products are not
currently being produced for larger-scale domestic use, I imagine
there is a certain amout of information available here. I would really
appreciate any help on this topic.


Thanks,

Karin   ([e-mail])

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

Date: 09 Oct 91 16:44:16 EDT
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: #5ESS Ringmate Broken?


I just tried to place what I thought was a simple order with the telco
business office. It was for two lines; the first hunts to the second,
and the second has two 'Ringmate' numbers on it (that's what New York
Telephone calls the coded ringing service here).

The rep told me that it wouldn't work that way; that if the first line
hunted to the second, then the Ringmate wouldn't work. (Actually she
told me the lines had to have separate *billing*, but I'm sure that
she must have been meant they couldn't hunt.)

I told them to install it anyway, and I'd judge whether or not it
worked. If its true, though, it sounds like a pretty annoying, ahem,
feature of this particular #5ESS release.

My questions are:

       1) Do Ringmate and hunt really conflict?

       2) Is there a later version of the generic that fixes it, and
          if so, what is its version name/number?


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX     [e-mail]    (fax) 516-427-8705

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko)
Subject: Harvard and Help Center Call Tracking
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 19:43:14 EDT
Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY


A while ago, I saw someone from Harvard posting about a Help Desk call
tracking application that they were working on. Our computing
department is looking for a similar application (including using call
data from our System 85).

I'd appreciate it if the person from Harvard would get in touch with me.
If someone else remembers when his query was posted to the Digest, I'd
appreciate hearing from them (so I know where to look in the archives...)


Thanks,

Rochester Institute of Technology, Jeff Wasilko
[e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 13:52:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Mexican Phone System


Today's {Newsday} (10/10/91) has an article in the Business section
about Telemex (Mexico's telephone monopoly, Telefonos de Mexico)
becoming a hot item on the New York Stock Market despite it's failures
back home.

One person said that his phone has been down (out) for three months
and they (the company) hasn't done anything about it to date.

Last week, the government daily {El Nacional} reported that some
600,000 phone lines were damaged or out of order in Mexico City.  The
government naturally denied that.

The consumer agency said, however, that Telemex is the worst company
for complaints.

"In Telemex, apathy and corruption overshaddow the interests of the
public ... The company is simply not in touch with the needs of the
humble Mexicans", said one angry consumer.

As for a rebuttal the company said "As we speak, Telemex is investing
more in itself than any other telephone company in Latin America, and
possibly the world -- $10 billion over a period of six years -- to
combat present and future problems," said another Telemex spokesman.

(I'm not sure whether the $10 billion is in U.S. dollars or Mexican
pesos.)

One example of their ambition is a satellite network to meet a target
of another 2.5 million telephone lines by 1993.

I may have gripes about my service from time to time, but I'm glad I
don't live there.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail]
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

Date: Wed, 09 Oct 91 00:30:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: What's in Washington?


I hope to be in Washington DC before too many weeks; does anyone know
of any telecom points of interest, libraries, other related stuff? Of
course, this would be the home of the FCC, Library of Congress, etc.

Thanks for response, which I will expect to be net mailed to
[e-mail], [e-mail] and/or [e-mail].


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 13:31:42 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin)
Subject: Area Code 410 Already Works


     I didn't think the 301-410 split was due to happen for at least
another month.  Here in San Diego (619) you could find out the number
of the phone from which you were calling by dialing 410-xxxx.  This
didn't work for all exchanges, but it did for 223, 224, 225, etc until
a couple weeks ago.  I tried it last night, and was told by an
intercept that I had to dial a one first.  I tried this and was
talking to someone in Maryland.  So area code 410 works, but now, how
do I learn the number of my phone here in San Diego?


Doug Martin   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 18:17:24 PDT
From: Charlie Rosenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: RF Interference on Answering Machine


Recently all the messages left on my answering machine have the same
radio station playing in the background.  Last time I had this
problem, I call repair service and they gave me a new line and the
problem went away.  Today I called and they told me I needed to go to
the store and put a "supressor" on my phone.  I said, "what kind of a
suppressor"?  They said, "Just go to the store and ask for one, you
plug it into your jack and then plug your phone into it."  I said
"Thanks, you have been very helpful".

I am more than happy to buy a suppressor, but any suggestions as to
what I should buy?

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 10:56:53 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin)
Subject: 800-555-Anything Seems to be a Toll Call


    I just made up a number: 1-800-555-2323 and dialed it.  I got an
intercept which said, "The number you have reached, 800-555-2323 has
been disconnected.  Call your AT&T long distance operator for a
credit."  A credit? I thought 800 numbers were supposed to be
toll-free.  Apparently, the whole 555 exchange is now charged to the
caller.  Any more info on this would be appreciated.


Doug Martin    [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Well, 800-555-1212 is still free to the caller. PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #808
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29532;
          12 Oct 91 21:20 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17765
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 19:36:23 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26771
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 19:36:13 -0500
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 19:36:13 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #809

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 Oct 91 19:36:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 809

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Making Your Own ISDN [Martin McCormick]
    New Zealand 900 Numbers [Ben Kinchant]
    Digital Cellular in Los Angeles? [Robert Lindh]
    Handheld Cellular Uses TDMA to Reach Base Station [Robert Lindh]
    HBO/Cinemax and Sprint [Dave Niebuhr]
    U S WEST Comm/France Telecom Joint Venture [Jim Redelfs]
    Telecom Directories [Nigel Allen]
    Sleazy Tactics; Possible Solution [Christopher Phish]
    RBOC Attitudes (was Caller ID: Technical Question) [Kevin Collins]
    Prison Phone Phraud (or The RISKS of Spanish) [Jim Flanagan via RISKS]
    Mass. Approves Caller-ID; Orders Two Kinds of Blocking [Adam M. Gaffin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 7:16:23 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Making Your Own ISDN


Quite some time ago, there was a question on one of the amateur radio
news groups about the practicability of using ISDN chips to digitize
and demodulate audio in amateur radio repeater systems.  I never saw
an answer, but I had wondered the same thing.  Just as one can use a
48-volt DC supply in series with a resistor to simulate an analog
telephone line, is there a particular ISDN device which generates the
2B+D signal needed to make ISDN subscriber equipment work?  Basically,
the thought behind all of this is that the ISDN technology would make
it easier, in the long run, to interconnect various parts of a
repeater system with some form of standardization.  Being digital, the
ISDN signal could even be sent over the air with no change in sound
quality.  While I have seen catalogs of interesting looking ISDN IC's,
I have never actually worked with any hardware.  Many thanks for any
help in getting started.


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

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

Date: 10 Oct 91 21:46:05 NZD (Thu)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Zealand 900 Numbers


New Zealand has had 900 numbers for about two years now.  The services
available on them at present are such things as weather forecasts,
sharemarket prices and various information.

In the latest Telecom "Customer Hotline", there was some interesting
points about New Zealand 900 numbers.

(part of Customer Hotline follows)

Safeguards have been built in for customers using the Telecom
0900 service:

o  From the moment your call is answered you have 10 seconds
   in which you can hang up and not incur a charge.

o  During this time the title of the information service and
   the cost per minute is stated.

o  If you have dialled the wrong 0900 number or don't want
   to pay the charge quoted, you can hang up within 10 seconds
   of the call being connected and not be charged for the call.

o  Telecom suggests parents set out the ground rules for
   children who may want to use the Telecom 0900 service.

(my comments again)

I'm not really sure if the last one is a "safeguard", a help
in some families though!  I have read in TELECOM DIGEST about
the 900 problems in USA and Telecom seem to have quite a good
idea.


Ben Kinchant, [e-mail]   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Lindh)
Subject: Digital Cellular in Los Angeles?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 12:31:36 GMT


I think some tests are going on in the LA area (Los Angeles Cellular
Telephone Company) in the use of TDMA as a communication method
between the base station and the mobile units (the mobile cellular
equipment).

Does anyone know if/when they are going to start using it?
Has they perhaps started advertising it to customers in some way?

Standard disclaimer: "Only my personal opinion, of course."

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Lindh)
Subject: Handheld Cellular uses TDMA to reach base station
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 12:41:37 GMT


Quote from an Ericsson press release:

[text deleted]

 ...the GSM digital handheld telephone will be launched on the market
during the second half of 1992. At the same time a similar TDMA/Dual
Mode model will be available for the ADC system.

[text deleted]

The main specifications are given below:

                    GSM                    ADC (TDMA Dual Mode)

Weight:             345 grams              345 grams
Volume:             245 cc                 245 cc
Dimensions:         147x62x30 mm (HxWxD)   147x62x30 mm
Standby time:       40 hours               13 hours
Talk time:          2 hours, 45 minutes    2 hours

[text deleted]


Standard disclaimer: "Only my personal opinion, of course."

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 9:02:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: HBO/Cinemax and Sprint


An ad appeared in yesterday's {Newsday} (10/9/91) about HBO/Cinemax
and Sprint offering 100 free minutes using their SprintFone (sp) card
if a person signed up for either of those cable services.  There was
also something about 300 free minutes but I just kept on reading the
paper.

A little portion of the ad said that you didn't have to have Sprint as
your long distance carrier; you'd still get the 100 minutes.

I don't intend to sign up (I have HBO and don't want Cinemax) so I
guess I'm down the tubes for the 100 free minutes.  I'd love to turn
the kids loose and let them get the phone out of their system once and
for all.

That's somewhat new to me but I guess that Sprint is looking for more
subscribers.  I'll stay with AT&T; I've never had a problem with them
and can't see where it would pay me to switch.  I'll just keep the
Sprint and MCI access codes as reference should I lose AT&T for some
reason.


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 17:49:04 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jim Redelfs)
Subject: U S WEST Comm/France Telecom Joint Venture
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


U S WEST Today - Nebraska   October 8, 1991    Special Bulletin
Published for U S WEST Communications employees in Nebraska

U S WEST Communications and France Telecom today, October 8, 1991,
announced a joint venture that includes accelerated plans to introduce
U S WEST's Community Link* service in the Seattle area in the fourth
quarter of 1992.

As the first project of a wider agreement between U S WEST and France
Telecom, CLM (Community Link Minitel) Associates will manage and
market Community Link, a gateway to easy-to-use videotex services.
Intelmatique, S.A., a subsidiary of France Telecom, will have a 40
percent ownership in the joint venture.

Linda Laskowski, U S WEST vice president and CEO of the joint venture
said: "This is the first time an international company has joined in
ownership and marketing of a network service offered by a local
telephone company.  We are delighted to join with France Telecom, the
world leader in videotex, whose ten year success and experience with
its Minitel system will be invaluable in opening gateway markets, such
as Seattle."

The Seattle area will be the third metropolitan area to have Community
Link service, which brings together a variety of computer-based
services on a single telephone number.  The gateway service was
introduced in Omaha-Council Bluffs in late 1989 and is planned for
Minneapolis-St. Paul this month.  In the Twin Cities so far, five
service bureaus plan to offer services.  There are 90 service listings
and some 250 different services available in Omaha-Council Bluffs.
Following the introduction in Seattle, the partnership anticipates
extending Community Link to other metropolitan areas in U S WEST
territory such as Denver and Phoenix.

What started in Omaha has gotten the attention and investment of one
of the world's largest telecommunications companies -- France Telecom.

Today's announcement of the joint venture reaffirms the commitment of
two videotex leaders to the growth of gateways in Omaha and the Twin
Cities.

Any questions regarding this announcement may be directed to Kathy
Larsen at 392-7060.

*Registered Trademark of U S WEST.


Tabby 2.2
MacNet Omaha [phone]  -  O.M.U.G. On-Line    (1:285/14)

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

Date: Wed, 09 Oct 91 23:06:06 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Telecom Directories
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto


Here is a list of directories that you can get your company listed in
free of charge. The VoicePower directory emphasizes enhanced services
like voice mail and broadcast fax, although it also lists consultants,
law firms with an interest in telecommunications, and other
telecommunications-related companies, associations and government
agencies. If you phone, write or fax, they'll send you a questionniare
to complete and return.  It has a deadline of November 15, 1991, I
think.

The other ones won't be published for a while, so if you send them a
letter asking to be listed, they will send you a questionnaire in
several months when they start to work on the next edition of the
directory. The first two accept paid advertising.

Being listed in any of these many not bring you in much business, but
it couldn't hurt.

The International VoicePower Directory & Buyers Guide published by:

VoicePower, Inc.
P.O. Box 313
Don Mills, Ontario M3C 2S7  Canada
telephone [phone]   fax [phone]

TE&M Directory
1 East First Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55802
telephone [phone]

Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory
Gale Research Inc.
835 Penobscot Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226-4094
telephone [phone]


Finally, consultants of any kind may want to be listed in the
Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory.  There is no
charge to be listed. Just request a questionnaire from:

Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory
P.O. Box 6789
Silver Spring, Maryland 20916
U.S.A.
telephone (voice or fax) [phone]


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

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

From: [e-mail] (The Squire, Phish)
Subject: Sleazy Tactics; Possible Solution
Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business.
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 08:58:43 GMT


As some 900 services are doing, why not just a global requirement that
all pay-service calls are required to offer an out?

"You've reached 976-xxxx, which will provide you with the latest
gossip about the TELECOM Digest, and the last known whereabouts of the
Moderator. This call will cost you 42 cents. Press One on your
touchtone(tm) phone to continue, or just hang up if you don't wish to
pay the fee."


Christopher(The Squire, Phish);   [phone]/H
[e-mail] (129.65.16.21)     756-2005/W
I hereby disclaim EVERYTHING. Flames to /dev/pooperscooper.

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

From: aspect![e-mail] (Kevin Collins)
Subject: RBOC Attitudes (was Re: Caller ID: Technical Question)
Date: 11 Oct 91 19:35:20 GMT
Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca


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

> The NET spokesman is lying when he says that Caller-ID blocking would
> break 911, which is sadly typical of the way that telcos are promoting
> CID.  E911 service does not depend on CID, which should be obvious since
> it's implemented all over the place now.

This reminds me of a Pac*Bell seminar on Caller*ID at Texpo `91 about
six months ago. The main argument they gave against per-line blocking
was that it would enable harassing callers to remain anonymous and
unpunished. This "reasoning" was in the same brochure that stated
quite clearly that Call*Return, Call*Trace, and Call*Block would work
even if the calling party used per-call blocking!!

The gall and arrogance apparent in statements like these from the
RBOC's really amazes me. They seem to still have the attitude that
"it's _our_ network; no one else could _possibly_ know anything about
it, so we can say whatever the @!&$ we want!"


Kevin Collins                   |  My opinions are mine alone.
USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc  |  GO BEARS!

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 16:51:16 -0700
From: Jim Flanagan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Prison Phone Phraud (or The RISKS of Spanish)


This notice appeared in the University of Washington staff newspaper
University Week:

PHONE FRAUD

It recently was discovered that inmates from the Clallam Correctional
Center in Clallam Bay, WA have been using an automated phone system to
try to scam unsuspecting employees at the UW.

Fone America, the long-distance provider for the correctional center,
supplies automated service for collect calls. Inmates are supposed to
make recordings of their names to identify themselves to the called
parties.  A recording should say, "If you will accept a collect call
from ... (name of caller) ... please press the number 3 on your
telephone twice."

Fone America also supplies the same automated message in Spanish. In
the scam, inmates chose the Spanish option and record, in place of
their names "If you want to hear this message in English, press 33."
They then call a number at the UW and try to reach employees who will
press 33 which automatically accepts the collect calls. If the inmates
get through, they ask to be transferred to the outside operator or to
the switchboard operator. They will then attempt tp place long
distance calls and have them billed to campus phones.

Since late July, this scam has occourred a number of times. It is
important for University employees to recognize this or similar phone
scams.

[The notice goes on to suggest ways to minimize the impact of phone fraud.]


Jim Flanagan, Systems Programmer,
UofW Statistics [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Adam M Gaffin)
Subject: Mass. Approves Caller-ID; Orders Two Kinds of Blocking
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 13:32:55 GMT


Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 10/11/91

State approves Caller-ID, and way to get around it

By Adam Gaffin
NEWS STAFF WRITER

     BOSTON - State regulators have approved a controversial new
technology that will let people view the numbers of incoming phone
calls.

     But the state Department of Public Utilities also ordered New
England Telephone to provide a free method for callers to prevent
their numbers from appearing on any "caller-ID" devices, in a
decision announced this week. [Weds.]

     "In allowing NET to offer these services, we have sought to
balance the privacy interests of the caller and the called party,"
DPU Chairman Robert Yardley Jr. said in a statement. "Today's
decision will enable NET's customers to take advantage of new
technology while allowing customers to prevent the transmission of
their telephone numbers."

     Caller-ID service will initially be available only on the North
and South shores, but will be extended to the entire state by 1995,
the company says. This is because those regions are currently the only
ones in the state whose central switching stations use software that
can process caller-ID.

     Under the system, people will pay New England Telephone $4.95 a
month for the service, and will have to go to a store to buy a
caller-ID device for $35 to $80.

     Under the DPU order, callers who do not want their numbers
displayed can either punch in a two-digit code that will blank the
number on an individual call, or request that all of their calls
automatically be blanked.

     Users of Caller-ID, however, can fight back with another device
that hangs up on people who refuse to provide their phone number.

     However, the system may of limited usefulness at first, because
it only works with calls from other exchanges upgraded to handle the
technology.

     The DPU also decided to let New England Telephone offer three
other services that take advantage of the new software in its "Phone
Smart" package: Call return, which will let somebody have their phone
re-dial the number of the last person to call him or her; repeat
dialing, which lets somebody's phone check a busy number until it's
free; and call trace, which will aid somebody who is the target of
harassing phone calls. Call trace would signal the phone company's
annoyance bureau if somebody receives these calls from the same
number. However, the state ordered the phone company to charge $3.25
per use for this service, rather than the $1.50 a month it wanted to
charge.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #809
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03137;
          12 Oct 91 22:51 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17077
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 21:07:14 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12717
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 21:07:03 -0500
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 21:07:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #810

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 Oct 91 21:06:21 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 810

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Caller-ID Approved in Massachusetts [John R. Covert]
    Caller-ID Approved in MA [Adam Gaffin, ne.general via Paul Wexelblat]
    Bravo Plus Pager Codes Needed [Max J. Rochlin]
    Telephone Wire Staples [Paul Selig]
    Blocking Service From NY Telephone [George Smith]
    Desire For Low Fixed-Cost Cellular Use [Bryan Carpenter]
    Interesting Reading on Telecommunications [Bob Goudreau]
    St. Pierre et Miquelon -- Off Canada? [Carl Moore]
    New Bell Answering Option [Rick Broadhead]
    South African "M" Numbers [Dave Leibold]p
    AT&T Advertising [S. Spencer Sun]
    A New COCOT Scam? (Maybe) [Nickolas Landsberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 10:53:51 PDT
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Approved in Massachusetts


As I'm sure many writers will report, the Massachusetts DPU has
approved Caller ID but will require both per-line and per-call
blocking.

There was one open issue about this.  Current implementations of
per-line blocking use the _same_ code to unblock on a blocked line as
to block on an unblocked line.  Thus, when you pick up a phone and
aren't sure whether the line is blocked or not, you don't know what
dialling the code will do.

The DPU informed N.E.T. that they needed to use separate codes for
causing the number to be sent and causing it to _not_ be sent.


john

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Wexelblat)
Subject: Caller-ID Approved in MA
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 18:14:18 GMT


The following is an article posted in ne.general. Note the comments on
both kinds of blocking and the fact that both are FREE.

A followup to the same group pointed out the problems of using the
same code to invert the sense of both kinds of blocking; you don't know
the default of anyone else's phone ...

  From [e-mail] (Adam M Gaffin)
  Newsgroups: ne.general
  Subject: Caller-ID approved in Mass.
  Date: 11 Oct 91 02:08:37 GMT


Now don't go telling the Globe this :-), but...

On Wednesday, the Mass. Department of Public Utilites approved
caller-ID.  To satisfy civil-liberties types, the DPU also required
New England Telephone to provide *two* types of blocking. In one, your
number will automatically show up on a caller-ID device unless you
first punch in a two-digit call before you dial. In the other form,
though, your number will automatically NOT show up UNLESS you punch in
a two-digit code! The telco must offer both of these for free.

But don't rush off to Lechmere to buy a caller-ID box (which will set
you back $35 - $80 depending on model, in addition to the $4.95 NET
monthly charge) just yet. At first, caller-ID is only going to be
available in 32 North and South shore towns, which are the only parts
of the state that currently have the switching software that can
handle caller-ID. What this means, also, is that people who live there
who get the service won't be able to ID incoming calls from other
parts of the state (or country, for that matter), until those areas
are also changed over to this switching software. NE Tel estimates it
will take until 1995 to complete the entire state.  And before the
phone company can turn anybody on, they have to conduct an extensive
educational campaign, the DPU ordered.

Is this a good thing?


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


I've been paid for my opinions for so long that I'm beginning to
think they're valuable.

Wex

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

From: [e-mail] (Max J. Rochlin)
Subject: Bravo Plus Pager Codes Needed
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 03:31:01 GMT


I just got one of the new Motorola Bravo Plus Pagers.  It has more
memory than the old unit (six messages, five that can be locked), a
clock, and timestamping of pages.  According to the minute manual that
came with it there is a way to re-configure the clock so that it
displays in 24HR mode instead of that AM/PM oh-so-American way.
(There are a lot of other configuration options as well that I'm
interested in playing with, too).

Anyway, the person who knows how to tweak the pager is on vacation
until next Thursday and I'm someone here can give me the codes to
do-it myself.


Thanks,

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

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

Subject: Telephone Wire Staples
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 19:34:51 EST
From: Paul Selig <[e-mail]>


After seeing all the talk about "good" tools to purchase, can anyone
name a source for the cable staplers (and staples) that telephone
installers use?

I've been able to find cable staplers, but the staples are too big for
the small telephone wires.  All of the installers that I've seen use a
stapler with a large Bell logo on the side.


Paul Selig, Jr.    [e-mail]
Serenity, Inc.     ...!uunet!dayvb!udcps3!gwm!selig

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

Subject: Blocking Service From NY Telephone
From: saviour!bywater!scifi![e-mail] (George Smith)
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 07:00:54 EDT
Organization: Genius Systems, Poughkeepsie NY


Based on information in "Hello", a billing insert the following call
blocking options are available:

  550 only [550 is group bridging/chat]
  970 only [970 is "Adult Services"]
  394, 540, 550, 700, 900, 970, 976  [it doesn't say what the
                others are]

It adds that basic phone service can't be disconnected as a result of
charges to these numbers.  However, if you have problems with the
charges twice, it may result in having blocking turned on for you.

You can get a detailed statement of charges for 540, 550, and 976 by
asking your billing office.


George Smith,  [e-mail]
1 [phone]   Open 24 hours a day  [e-mail] (George Smith)

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

From: Bryan Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Desire For Low Fixed Cost Cellular Use
Date: 10 Oct 91 20:16:56 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO


I'm looking for some information about the cellular phone system to
see if there's any way I can justify purchasing one.

For me, the ideal setup would be to buy a cellular phone, pay a very
low or zero fixed monthly fee to be registered somewhere, and pay
higher than normal airtime fees for occasional outgoing calls.  I
don't really care whether I can receive calls at all.

To me, it would be worth the cost of a phone to be able to use it for
emergencies and only occasionally for other outgoing calls.  It's a
shame that with all the infrastructure in place, the high fixed
monthly subscription charges exclude someone with my simple
requirements and limited budget.

It is my understanding that most or all cellular systems will not even
recognize your phone unless it is activated on some system, somewhere.
Is this true?  I remember some discussion about some systems that will
put your call through if you provide a valid credit card number for
them to charge the call to.  Will cellular systems accept 911 calls
from unknown phones?

On a recent trip to California, I was pleased to see the solar-powered
emergency callboxes placed at one mile intervals along the major
highways.  It made me realize just how good the coverage of the
cellular system has become.  I wish there were some way to take
advantage of this infrastructure without paying such high monthly
fees.

Are there any cellular companies anywhere that will register a phone
for a low monthly fee, after which it will be accepted in the system
and be effectively roaming for every call?

I understand that these companies must charge enough to recoup their
plant investments and operating costs, and to make a profit, but why
do they ignore the desires of many possible new customers who want low
cost and very occasional use?

Thanks in advance for any info.


Bryan Carpenter

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 12:30:53 edt
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Interesting Reading on Telecommunications


This past week's issue (Oct. 5) of the _Economist_ has a special
40-page survey of telecommunications which readers of this Digest
might find interesting.  The main theme is "the new boys", the upstart
telecom firms that are challenging the plodding old PTT monopolies
and, in the process, breathing new life into the telecom industry.

Topics covered include:

- mobile phones, and how they soon could end up being the rule instead
    of the exception

- monopolies vs. competition; state-owned telcos vs. privatization

- the future of the "giants of the PTT era"

- the globalization of the industry

- telecommunications in developing countries

- the common future of telephony and television

- the future of telecommunications regulation


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive            ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 17:17:50 EDT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: St. Pierre et Miquelon -- Off Canada?


Notice that the territory discussed in this message has country code
508.  Country code 507 is Panama, and country code 509 is Haiti, but
notice the location below:

It has come to my attention that the St. Pierre et Miquelon ("et" is
French for "and") islands are located just off Newfoundland (a Canada
maritime province) and are the little bit of territory up there that
France was allowed to keep when forced to give the rest of what is now
Canada after the French and Indian war about 230 years ago.  They are
now an overseas department of France.

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 23:24:18 EDT
From: Rick Broadhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Bell Answering Option


By Philip DeMont
TORONTO STAR

Bell Canada wants to make it easier for you to reach out and touch
someone even if they are on the phone or aren't at home.

Bell, the telephone arm of Montreal-based BCE Inc., plans to offer
Toronto subscribers an answering service which can record and replay
phone messages for customers starting in early Novemeber.

The introduction of Bell's new option is subject to approval by the
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission.

Subscribers can "receive messages on their telephones regardless of
whether they are on the phone or not.  As well, the caller doesn't
receive a busy signal," said Anna di Giorgio, a Bell spokesperson.

Bell plans to offer the new service in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal,
Quebec City and Hull, Que. if the CRTC approves the utility's
application.

Under Bell's proposal, subscribers would sign up for its Call Answer
service at a cost of $5.50 a month for residences and $9.95 for
single-line business users.

Customers only need to have touch-tone phone service, not a special
phone, to receive the answering machine option, di Giorgio said.

If the subscriber is using the phone or just not answering, the caller
hears a voice mail greeting, similar to a store-bought answering
machine, on the telephone line.  Then the caller leaves a message.

To retrieve stored messages, a customer would call a Toronto telephone
number to get into Bell's system and then dial a personalized code
number to listen to his own communications.

Bell's answering option is likely to be an improvement over other
answering machines, said Judith Cole, a telecommunications analyst
with Toronto's DMR Group Inc.

"Voice Messaging gives you a higher quality than on an answering
machine you would use at home," Cole said.

That's important in order to make callers feel comfortable enough to
leave a message, she said.

As well, Bell is likely to offer more "bells and whistles" than other
voice mail machines, Cole said.

Di Giorgio said customers can change their passwords as many times as
they wish to protect their messages.

But, Bell can't protect subscribers against mischief-makers, who could
dial passwords at random until they break into a mail box, she said.

As well, the company can't censor what subscribers put on their
answering messages, "not anymore than we can control the content of a
telephone call," di Giorgio said.

In January, Bell plans to start a trial in Ottawa of a service which,
among other things, lets customers screen and redirect calls, di
Giorgio said.

                              * * *

Does this mean that every time I get off the phone, I should check my
voice mail to see if there are any urgent messages?  I wonder if
there's an option where I can disable the voice mail when I'm on the
line, so the system will activate only when there's no answer?  How
about if I don't want to be disturbed?  Can I have my calls directed
right to voice mail without my phones ringing, so I don't have to turn
off the ringers on all the phones in the house?  These are questions
I'd want to ask.


Rick Broadhead     Toronto, CANADA     [e-mail]  York University


[Moderator's Note: The system here in Chicago, which I expect is the
same as yours, or similar, is set up so call-waiting overrides the
'transfer on busy' feature. If you have call-waiting, additional calls
will just keep ringing at you and never go to voicemail. You can have
the opposite effect with *70 or whatever you use to suspend call-waiting,
in which case additional calls *will* go to voicemail.  If you want to
check for new messages at any time, just go offhook and listen for the
'stutter dial tone' instead of the regular tone you hear. Our system
does not allow bypassing your own line and going direct to voicemail.
You must have incoming calls ring you 3-5 times, at which point they
exit from your line and go into voicemail.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 00:38:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: South African 'M' Numbers


South Africa seems to have something called M-numbers; this could be a
toll-free service as it was listed without reference to a charge rate.
The code listed was 043 362 which presumably got an operator who would
complete the call from there. This was to have been changed to the
0401 area code, which would be an automated service at that point.

Anyone confirm or deny these findings (which were found in a
Johannesburg directory)?


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 10:09:43 EDT
From: S. Spencer Sun <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Advertising


I've been greatly amused by the AT&T ads since the accident or
whatever recently ... but this one takes the cake (maybe belongs in
rec.humor)

From this week's {Newsweek}, picture of a guy talking, "I have
confidence in [AT&T] -- I've never had a problem.  I mean, why fix
something that's not broken?"

<snicker>

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

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 20:55:32 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Nickolas Landsberg)
Subject: A New COCOT Scam? (Maybe)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


As is obvious via the "from" line, I work for AT&T, but, just a day
ago I ran across what may be yet another COCOT scam.  (Note: being a
regular reader of c.d.telecom I have instructed my family about the
evils of using COCOTS and the flogging with wet noodles which will
surely come if they use one without thinking! :)

My wife was out on a shopping errand and had need to call someone at
home.  The only pay phone in the vicinity was a COCOT.  The call was
LOCAL (Bricktown NJ to Lakewood NJ).  No matter how many times and in
whast manner she tried, the phone would not accept the two dimes she
deposited, but insisted on saying "deposit 20-cents for the first four
minutes please."  She, being rather desparate, called collect, and was
connected, but WITHOUT ANY OPERATOR ASKING ME WHETHER OR NOT I WOULD
ACCEPT THE CHARGES!

Even though I think I know what I am going to do about this, I ask for
the collective wisdom of c.d.telecom.  Once I get the what I expect to
be out- rageous billfrom the AOS, should I refuse to pay it because I
never agreed to accept the charges?  Should I report the particular
phone in question to whatever powers that be to be in violation?

Inquiring minds want to know. :)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #810
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07906;
          13 Oct 91 0:52 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11465
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 23:05:18 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11166
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 23:05:07 -0500
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 23:05:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #811

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 Oct 91 23:04:37 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 811

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Information Wanted on Electronic Publishing [[e-mail]]
    Even More 5ESS Woes [John Higdon]
    Re: #5ESS Ringmate Broken? [Bob Frankston]
    FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions List Revised [TELECOM Moderator]
    CNID Availability Newsletter [John Boteler]
    Charge on 800 Calls [Helmut Heller]
    Charges For 800 Calls (USA Today / Disconnected Number) [Lauren Weinstein]
    Re: Caller Charged For Calling 1-800-555-5555 [Dennis Blyth]
    Re: AT&T Speech Recognition [Al L. Varney]
    Caller ID in Cincinnati [Dennis Blyth]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 15:47 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Information Wanted on Electronic Publishing


I'm looking for sources of information on electronic publishing ...
does anyone know of an appropriate bulletin board or an Internet
conference?  I publish a little journal myself that I distribute
through Internet and I subscribe to the TELECOM Digest and CUD.  Has
anyone come across a list of similar publications?

I have found, by the way, that having free electronic journals like
Telecom sent to my MCI Mail box is an excellent way to handle them.
MCI has an 800 dialup and for $35 per year I can read online to my
heart's content and download what I want to save ... I have never had
a busy signal or a bad line from MCI.


Internet: [e-mail]
MCI Mail 487-8467   Prodigy GCDS20A

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

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 18:03 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Even More 5ESS Woes


New observed annoyance with the 5ESS:

When calling a busy number, sometimes the switch takes its time
returning a busy signal. This delay can take up to two seconds AFTER
the switch has received the call data (via MF or SS7). I am told that
returning a busy signal is a low priority function and this can happen
when things are hopping.

My own gurus have told me that so far, every deficiency that I have
reported on the 5ESS is real and that there is no fix or workaround.
So far they include: fuzzy audio, poor analog line termination, low
level on Three Way, no Call Waiting while on Three-Way, slow dial
tone, slow busy, acute sensitivity to bad ringer loads, and variable
audio level -- call to call.

In essence, the only thing that the 5ESS can do that is of any
interest to me is ISDN. But since Pac*Bell does not offer any
meaningful form of this service (that is outside of Centrex), it
appears that I would have been better off to have the crossbar left in
place. When I mentioned this to a very knowledgeable switch person,
his comment was, "That is correct." The crossbar sounded MUCH better,
appeared faster, and actually provided better "featureless" POTS
service.

It will be a sad day when my 1ESS lines are moved over to the 5ESS.
But then maybe it will be perfected by then. I am told that most of
these problems (including the deficient feature implementations) have
been overcome on the DMS switches. The audio is better, the features
more closely emulated the 1/1AESS implementations, and they at least
appear to operate faster than the 5Es. Now why did they not install a
DMS100?  Did Pac*Bell's sweetheart deal with Northern Telecom go sour?


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


[Moderator's Note: The experiences you are describing there simply are
not typical of 5ESS everywhere, at least here in Chicago. We *do* get
call waiting when on a three-way call; we do get fast dial tone and
generally decent and *quiet* (i.e. not noisy) lines. Maybe yours was
just a very sloppy, poorly administered installation. I would not
trade my existing service back for crossbar under any circumstances.  PAT]

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

From: <frankston![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: #5ESS Ringmate Broken?
Date: 12 Oct 1991 21:04 -0400


There are two services that seem very similar, though I presume the
software is different.  Hunting will ring a second number if the first
is busy.  There is no charge, in Massachusettes, for residential
services.  Interstingly, the two numbers are billed separately.

According to NET (Nynex) hunting is indeed incompatible with Ringmate
but call-forward busy seems identical to hunting in capability and
does support Ringmate.

Two gottchas.  One is that there is a charge for CFB (about $1.95/month??).
The other is that if I have Ringmate on line #1, the ringing pattern
is not preserved.  I presume (just a guess), however, that if you have
Ringmate on line 2, you can CFB to a specific number on that second
line so that you can distinguish a forwarded call.  Note that CFB is
not subscriber changeable.

There is also call-forward no-answer, which forwards after a number of
rings, again, not subscriber controlled.

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 22:38:19 -0500
Subject: FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions List Revised


Dave Leibold has sent along the second edition (first revision) to the
Telecom FAQ list. I'm getting it edited up now, and will try to have
it available in the archives over the weekend sometime, as well as out
in circulation here as a special mailing. New subscribers on the list
will receive it automatically when they sign up beginning around the
first of the week.

Thanks to Dave for his work in preparing this.


PAT

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

Subject: CNID Availability Newsletter
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 9:55:53 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Although there ain't no free lunch, those who wish to keep abreast of
the progress of Calling Number ID around the nation (better than Radio
Electronics:) might wish to try out a newsletter advertised in the
back of "Voice Processing" magazine -- for free.

I know, I'm leery of a 'free' newsletter which may be subscribed to
via an 800 number, but if you are careful enough you probably won't be
flooded with junk mail in the future from related concerns.  In fact,
the ad says you will become a "beta-tester" for the newsletter.

It is supposed to focus on the potential benefits and limits of CNID,
as well as on ANI regulatory and privacy issues. (PAT should enjoy the
break.)

Published quarterly by Baird & Associates, Seattle, 800.321.1670.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Helmut Heller)
Subject: Charge on 800 Calls
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 16:28:46 GMT


Hello,

I just talked to Illinois Bell and found out that they charge me five
cents not only for every local call, but also for each call to an 800
number and also for each call that is handled by my long distance
company (MCI).  This is really surprising to me, as 800 calls cost you
not a single penny if you use a public phone. Also the five cents they
charge in addition to my long distance company do not seem right to
me.

Is there anyone on the net who would like to comment on this? I can't
remember ever reading about five cent charges for 800 calls from your
home phone.


Servus, Helmut  (W9/DH0MAD)  [e-mail]
[e-mail]   Phone: [phone], FAX: [phone]
Helmut Heller, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Beckman Institute
Theoretical Biophysics Group, Transputer Lab, Room 3151, MC 251
405 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801, U.S.A.


[Moderator's Note: This is absolutely false! Its too bad you did not
get the name of the employee who told you those things; I'd like to
see them get into a training class and get help as soon as possible.
The monthly 'network access' fee you pay as part of your basic monthly
service takes care of telco's expenses in extending you to your LD
carrier or the LD carrier of the 800 number you are calling. You pay
*nothing* above that monthly fee to the local telco. The reason such
calls are 'free from payphones' is because they are 'free', period.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 17:18:23 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Charges For 800 Calls (USA Today / Disconnected Number)


Greetings.  We've seen a number of messages lately from people who
think they might be getting charged for calling various 800 numbers,
such as the {USA Today} info number, or an odd "ask your operator for
credit" number.

It's worth noting, however, that there have been *no* messages from
people who have actually seen a charge for an 800 number they called
on their bills.  In all these cases, people simply heard audio
messages that implied something about charges.  Frankly, I don't
believe that any 800 numbers are charging the callers, period.  The
USA Today number is probably the result of a network routing error, or
perhaps is a number for internal use by USA Today (the former seems
most likely).  The disconnected number recording ("ask your operator
for credit") is probably meant for some other purpose, and some 800
numbers may be routing to it erroneously.

But I've *never* seen a tariff or other implication that there are any
mechanisms for charging callers to 800 numbers.  Nor does PacBell,
GTE, nor AT&T seem to know of any situations where a caller to an 800
number would be charged for that call.

If anyone out there has *actually* gotten a charge on their phone bill
for a call they made to an 800 number, I'd very much like to know
about it.  But until proven otherwise, I don't believe such charges
exist.

 --Lauren--


[Moderaor's Note: Regarding the {USA Today} news/entertainment line on
800-555-5555, I spoke two days ago with Mr. Blake in the newspaper's
corporate offices in Virginia. His responsibility includes managing
the 900-555-5555 service which has somehow for lack of a better term,
sprung a leak over to 800-555-5555. He admitted to me they had just
recently become aware of the free 'backdoor', and said they were
'going to do something about it'. He was vague about how/when the
problem (from his point of view, it is a problem) would be corrected.
He did stress that people calling the number would not be charged for
using the service, and asked that the 800 number not be 'abused'.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 13:41:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Caller Charged For Calling 1-800-555-5555
Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton


[Moderator's comment that perhaps there was an error by telco in
programming the 800 line.]

Six questions:

1.  If it could be proven that our esteemed Moderator was indeed
correct, then could {USA Today} try to collect from that telco, since
the fact that charges were allowed to go through was (apparently, and
IF the Moderator is correct) due to the fault of the telco that did
the programming?

2.  OK, given that all this is hypothetical discussion anyway, what is
the probability of this happening?

3.  Is there some 'quality check' on telco 800 number programming?

4. Can anybody explain what the quality procedures typically are on
this type of thing?

In view of recent failure of telco management systems (New York area
recent snafu), quality procedures are a hot topic now.

5.  What is the way, if any, for somebody to tell what telco provides
the 800 number service?

6.  Isn't there a national database of these things?  At one time, I
believe, Ma Bell controlled the 800 number allocation.

This evening, on the way from work (yes, it will be late!), maybe I'll
find a pay phone and call the 800 number!  Or better yet, I wonder if
I can find someone to invite me into her/his hotel room to use their
COCOT for the same call! :-) :-)

If I were in the Atlanta area, I'd go to their airport and use the AOS
there.  They've already stung me several times.  Thank goodness,
Cincinnati Bell was kind enough to remove the charges for the
uncompleted calls.  Just because a phone rings and rings, why should
I, the consumer, pay?  (Yes, I know, it ties up CO equipment while I
am waiting for the pickup.  But I was always told to 'let it ring at
least eight times' 'You never know what you might be interrupting'
(Use your imagination!  :-)


Dennis Blyth, Marketing Research, NCR Europe Group
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]  Fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: See my comments on the previous message. Yes, there
is a national database of who is routed where, and the 800-555 prefix
is assigned to AT&T. I suppose {USA Today} could collect money from
the telco(s) involved, but it would probably be handled as an inter-
company transaction between AT&T, the 900 carrier (AT&T also?) and the
telco(s) involved, through the process of Separations and Settlements,
where telcos adjust their accounts with each other.  Intercompany
billings and settlements between telcos is a very technical process
and outrageously boring to discuss.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 17:27:36 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Al L Varney)
Subject: Re: AT&T Speech Recognition
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

> In a copy of _DEC Professional_ a few months ago, I came across a
> passing reference to a speech recognition system being marketed by
> AT&T. It was described as having lots (64? 128?) of processors, each
> using the DSP-32 chip (AT&T's proprietary signal processing chip

This is NOT a proprietary Sig. Processor, at least no more proprietary
than those of TI or Intel.  It was covered in a special SP issue of
IEEE Spectrum about 2 years ago.  I believe we also supply support
programs, debuggers, etc. for the DSP-32(tm).  I will attempt to find
a contact with more accurate information on the exact configurations
available, as well as information on the "BT-100" or whatever speech
recognizer you mentioned.  {Unless that would be too close to
advertising??}

Regarding how well it works ... I believe the AT&T Technical Journal
had some articles at the research stage a year or so ago.  Of course,
since divestiture, we are less able to share actual usage data in an
open forum.  Some of our competitors actually use our published
research to their advantage, you know?  Of course, if BNR or Northern
Telecom would like to become a customer of AT&T, I'm sure an Account
Rep. would be willing to discuss those issues and potential applications.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, 2600 Warrenville Rd., Lisle, IL 60532
     [e-mail]   or   att!ihlpf!varney

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 13:41:46 GMT
Subject: Caller ID in Cincinnati
Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton


Cincinnati Bell phone store representatives told me they will not
offer caller ID until Ohio Bell does.  I wonder if this is because of
the equipment Cincinnati Bell has is not as advanced at this moment or
more so because they are just playing the game conservatively.
Cincinnati tends to be a conservative town.


Dennis Blyth, Marketing Research, NCR Europe Group
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]   Fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Yep, so conservative they stood by while P&G raped
and pillaged the telco billing computer with impunity. That got me so
annoyed I was kind of hoping someone would start that rumor about P&G
and Satan again :). I'd not put a lot of stock in what a phone center
rep told me about anything unless s/he could first answer a simple
question in 25 words or more: Who was Theodore Vail?   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #811
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13289;
          13 Oct 91 2:43 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12891
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 00:45:06 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00781
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 00:44:55 -0500
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 00:44:55 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #812

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Oct 91 00:44:55 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 812

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Ron Newman]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Bob Frankston]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Steve Kass]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [S. Spencer Sun]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Stan Brown]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [John R. Levine]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Erik Blake]
    Re: Telecom Humor From the Comics [Robert J. Woodhead]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ron Newman <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 15:24:02 EDT


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

> And can we finally put to bed this "no one knows about '540'"
> business?  Hell, I know about '540' and I have not been to NY in over
> ten years. Is the contention here that people who live in NY go around
> with blindfolds on and cotten stuffed in their ears?

Why should everyone in the U.S. need to know that in New York, '540'
is another name for the 900/976 sleaze?  I'm sure that in many other
area codes, 540 is a perfectly ordinary exchange with no unusual toll
charges.  In Massachusetts, for instance, (508) 540 is in Falmouth.

The sooner these things are shut down, the better.


Ron Newman        [e-mail]

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

From: <frankston![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Date: 10 Oct 1991 18:14 -0400


I thought we'd been through this thing a long time ago.  I do carry a
pager for my own convenience so I'm not tied to being at a single
phone number.

How does enticing someone to call a 540 number differ from my placing
a 800 number on a pager, capturing the ANI and then billing for the
call through Visa or Mastercard.  How does it differ from a small town
placing a two m.p.h. speed limit on a 100 foot stretch of a highway; how
does it differ from a bar having a $200 cover charge but not telling
you till you try to leave, or a chain letter which says that you will
get $100 if everyone after you in the chain mails you a $1.

I agree that we don't need more laws since frauds and scams and such
are no more legal because some con artist discovers a new twist.  If I
get unsolicated merchandise delivered to me, I'm not responsible, if I
didn't want to buy the service that 540 provides how does that differ?
Just because telco provides some new form of entrapment doesn't mean
someone is obliged to take advantage of it.

BTW, I'm serving notice that there will be a $100 charge for walking
on my lawn when you try to get close enough to read the interesting
sign next to my house.

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 11:30:43 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: It is true that in three-card monte you never get
> anything for your money, but our scammer in New York did in fact give
> information in exchange for the money, did he not? Opinions may differ
> on the value of the information. He thought it was worth the money.  PAT]

PAT, here is an analogy for you.  You are walking down the street.
You see a door.  On top of the door is a sign that says "Please come
in."  You go in.  It's a strip joint (or whatever).  You are not in-
terested in strippers, so you turn to leave.  A big guy comes out and
says "Sorry Buddy, you came in, so you have to pay our $55 cover
charge!"

I think you will agree that this is clearly unfair, and constitutes
fraudulent inducement.  When you go to court, the strip joint owner
claims that there wasn't enough room to mention the cover charge on
the sign, and that you should have known that doors with "Please come
in" signs on them would cost you money if you went in.

If the NYC person under indictment gets off, it will not be because
what he did was ok.  It will be because, as is so often the case in
situations where the law and technology collide, the law is 20 years
behind the technology.  Ask Craig Neidorf if you don't believe me...


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 11:28 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?


In Issue 804, PAT writes:

> [Moderator's Note: [...] If I did not know ahead of
> time that placing a credit card call will cost more than a direct
> dialed call, should I be able to sue telco for deception? Where do you
> stop and start on this?   PAT]

When you use your card, you agree to the terms sent with the card or
available on request.  It's not the same story.

Related questions: How easy is it to find out what the call is going
to cost ahead of time?  Would someone in 212 call a NYTel operator and
ask for rates on this number and report back?  What laws govern the
permissible charges for a call?  If I wanted to (I don't), could I ask
NJBell to charge $100 for calls to my home phone number?  What are the
arrangements and laws for setting up this kind of service, and at what
numbers can it be arranged?


SteveKass/Math&CS/DrewU/MadisonNJ07940/[e-mail]/2014083614

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Date: 10 Oct 91 16:13:22 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


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

> [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead) writes:

> And can we finally put to bed this "no one knows about '540'"
> business?  Hell, I know about '540' and I have not been to NY in over
> ten years. Is the contention here that people who live in NY go around
> with blindfolds on and cotten stuffed in their ears?

And of course, you are representative of everyone else in the country,
and what you know, everyone else knows.  You know, you really should
have a higher opinion of yourself and assume you know things that
aren't common knowledge.

>> We're not talking about telephone tolls here, we're talking about what
>> appears to be an obvious scam.

> If it is so obvious, why do people fall for it? Are they stupid?
> Stupidity comes at a price.

He meant "obvious" to those of us who know about the scam now.  Not
"obvious to whoever is being scammed on."

> But I digress. Over the years I have learned to NOT return just every
> number that comes along from the pager. If a number appears that I do
> not recognize, some research is done first. Where is the prefix? Who
> might be calling from an unusual location? Check the voice record on
> my machine, which handles the paging. Do I recognize the name? Was a
> voice message even left? (If not, why not?) After all of this,
> SOMETIMES I will return an unknown page if there are some thoughts
> that it has some legitimacy. If I cannot come up with anything
> plausible, then the page is ignored.

Seriously speaking now, not everyone is as careful or thoughtful as
you.  (In fact, now that I think about it, being that lots of drug
dealers carry beepers, we ought to try and find out their numbers
(yes, I know that's incredibly unrealistic) and then plague them with
these 212-540 numbers in hopes that it'll expend all their money.
Nah.)


[S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - [e-mail] ]
[WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)]

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 12:11:21 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)


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

> [Moderator's Note: This is another point the con-artist (and I will
> grant you he is one, even if marginally legal, which I think he is) is
> arguing with the prosecutor: How should he know *where* the person
> returning the call will be calling from? After all, pagers are by
> definition mobile devices. If they are outside the NYC area, they pay
> only a toll charge. Is he being prosecuted for those pages also? And
> if so, why isn't every business person who leaves a message with a
> phone number in another LATA without specifying the charges involved
> being prosecuted also?   PAT]

PAT, the situations are not parallel.  The standard of fraud is what
will take in the mythical "reasonable and prudent man."  A reasonable
and prudent person can be assumed to know which calls are toll calls,
where "toll" means "a distance- and time-based charge for calling."  I
daresay a case might be made that a reasonable and prudent person
knows that a call to 1-900-xxx-xxxx carries a surcharge that is not
related to distance and may not be related to time.  But the FCC has
decided that the mere fact that most people know there are extra
non-toll charges for 900 numbers does not excuse them from disclosing
the specific amount of the call, during the call, before billing
begins.

The same reasoning applies even more to the case where someone
personally solicits a callback (as opposed to general advertising on
mass media).  Here the con artist uses a medium where the assumption
is that calls are valid, and fails to disclose the _extraordinary_
charges (this is the key word) either before or during the call
(before billing).  If people are not reasonably expected to know the
specific costs of a 900 call before dialing (and I agree with the FCC
on this), how much less can they be expected to know the specific
charges for what apparently looks like a local call?  And 540 is by no
means standard as a 900-type prefix.  (In 216, 540 is a cellular
prefix in Youngstown.)


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

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

Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 11 Oct 91 17:37:44 EDT (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


An evil daemon must be inhabiting your mail posting software.  I
didn't write this.  (I did write another related message which you
posted a day or so ago.)  But don't worry about printing a retraction,
since there's nothing in it that I'd particularly mind having
attibuted to me.


Regards,

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

In article <[e-mail]> the daemon claims I wrote:

> Given the pagings (of apparently fraudulent intent) pertaining to
> calls to the 212-540 exchange: From where would the person placing
> such page expect you to call 212-540 exchange?


[Moderator's Note: Actually, the author of the above, re-printed in
its entireity was Carl Moore <[e-mail]>. In the Digest edition
of Volume 11, Issue 804, Message 6 it came out okay saying his name.
But in the comp.dcom.telecom version, the bursting process (where the
whole digest is broken into individual messages as part of going out
to the internet), the above got attributed to the message just before
that which *was* John Levine. It seems I have a couple more little
bugs in the bursting and poster-daemon programs to be ironed out yet;
something do to with blank spaces getting at the start of a line in
the header accidentally, causing many of the strings to take the value
the string had earlier. And while on the topic of getting bugs out of
things, many more of you should now be getting autoreply messages than
were getting them when mmdf was running here (or sendmail this time
last week for that matter). I *finally* got the ELM filter working
correctly in connection with autoreply (I think!).   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Date: 11 Oct 91 12:15:37 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

[ regarding the scam of the con-person who displays his 212-540
number on a pocket-pager, inducing the owner of the pager to make
a very expensive and worthless phone call... ]

> And can we finally put to bed this "no one knows about '540'"
> business?  Hell, I know about '540' and I have not been to NY in over
> ten years. Is the contention here that people who live in NY go around
> with blindfolds on and cotten stuffed in their ears?

I have lived in the New York City metropolitan area since 1968.  I
have worked in data and voice communications most of that time, as a
reseller of PBX equipment, as a data network designer, and as a
consultant to AT&T Bell Laboratories.  540 was known (but by hardly
anybody outside of the broadcast or telecom industries) as a choke
prefix.  Radio call-in contests usually have 540 numbers.

During my years in this part of the country, I don't remember ever
wearing a blindfold.  I don't remember ever putting cotton in my ears.

Where did I learn about the possibility that a 540 number might have a
huge toll associated with it?  By reading the TELECOM Digest!  (Note
that I read the Digest for eight years before the subject was
mentioned.)  I really appreciate the light that has been brought to
the subject here (I carry a pager).

But Mr. Higdon: No, we can not "finally put to bed this 'no one knows
about 540' business".  Not until the telephone company, the news
media, or someone else on an appropriate soapbox makes it widely known
here that 212-540 numbers can be expensive.

I think the telephone companies make it easier for the con man by
'disguising' a number like this one.  201-540 is a normal prefix
serving ordinary business, residence, and centrex customers in
Morristown, NJ.  How is someone supposed to learn (except the
expensive way) that 212-540 is different?  What is the equivalent
prefix in every other area code?  How are travelers to know about it?

My opinion?

If the 900 service access code does not provide enough access to the
services of this type, and if a 'local' prefix is also required, then
I suggest a requirement that the same prefix be used everywhere, and
that it be widely publicized.  Until then, it is a con, and the
telephone companies are accomplices.  I know -- I'll be roundly
criticized here for suggesting such a thing.  After all, there is
probably no universally-available prefix for such a service.  In that
case ... why not require that SAC 900 be used for _all_ such services?


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: [e-mail] (Erik Blake)
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Organization: Dept. of Geophysics, UBC, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Date: 10 Oct 91 10:05:05


Here is a perspective from Canada, where as far as I know there are no
toll charge local exchanges (like 976/540/etc.):

If I were to receive a message asking me to call a number in another
LD area code (perhaps I am even expecting such a message), then I can
check in my phone book to see what the toll charges will be (current
daytime rates to 212 run at CAN$0.57/min). No mention is made of 540
exchange charges and if no warning is given when I first call the
number, I will not be aware of these charges until I get my phone
bill. The charges listed in the phone book (or those obtained from the
operator) are those I expect to pay, and I enter into a contract to
pay only these LD charges when I dial the number. 1-900-xxx-xxxx calls
are different because they are advertised (even in the phone book) as
having additional charges associated with them.  How can these 976/540
charges be legal when the investigative options available to me fail
to inform me of the extra toll?

Perhaps the next time someone phones me LD, I'll give some
'information' and then send a bill for $100. The way these 976/540
numbers seem to work, I don't even have to inform the caller of the
charge. It's wonderful!

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Telecom Humor From the Comics
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 11:16:03 GMT


canrem![e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

[a 900 number joke]

There's another joke along the same lines that I heard on an HBO
special.  The comic calls this girl on a 900 line and gets a $100.00
bill.  His question : "$100 for a ten minute phone call?  Where do
these people live!!?"


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #812
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17646;
          13 Oct 91 4:00 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04849
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 02:13:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24712
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 02:12:58 -0500
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 02:12:58 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #813

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Oct 91 02:13:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 813

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [David Cornutt]
    Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Marvin K. Hoffman]
    Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Steve Urich]
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs [Arthur Rubin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David Cornutt)
Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 19:35:47 GMT


This reminds me of something that was proposed for Huntsville in the
early '60s, that I've heard tell of.  North Alabama is tornado
country, and in those days there was only one local TV station (UHF at
that), and only a few radio stations (and anyway, people around here
weren't in the habit of leaving their TVs or radios on all the time,
like we do today).  This meant that there was no good way to broadcast
a tornado warning.

Someone suggested rigging the COs so that a tech in each office could
flip a switch and cause every line on that CO to ring simultaneously,
with a special cadence that would indicate a tornado warning.  I guess
the idea was that police dispatch would have a phone at each CO that
they could call to tell the techs to activate the system.

Apparently the idea never got off the ground.  I don't know how the
debate went, but there are three problems that I can think of:

1.  Obviously, off-hook phones couldn't be rung.

2.  How much current would it take to ring every line on a switch
simultaneously?  (Keeping in mind that there were only
electromechanical ringers in those days.)

3.  On some party-line systems, it might not have been possible to
ring more than one phone on a line simultaneously.  (From having dug
around in old phone books and other places, it appears that Huntsville
had both Bell and Automatic Electric party-line setups at the time.)


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County
Date: 12 Oct 91 07:33:27 EDT
Organization: Appalachian State University


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

> [e-mail] (Nigel Allen) tells us:

>> In Truro, Nova Scotia in the early 1970's (and probably for much earlier),
>> the fire department had a network of red fire alarm boxes, each with a
>> three-digit number. When an alarm was pulled, a horn at the fire hall
>> would sound out the number twice (5-4-3 would be five hoots, a short pause,
>> four hoots, a short pause, three hoots, a longer pause, and then the
>> original sequence again).

>> I haven't encountered a system like this elsewhere.

> Indeed, there was (is?) at least one: Lynnfield, Massachusetts, just
> north of Boston. Nigel's description is almost exactly what I
> remember. During a Cub Scout tour of the fire station in the mid-60's,
> we saw a mechanism to receive signals from the pullboxes mounted on
> telephone poles around town. It punched large triangular holes in
> paper tape to represent the box code. If someone pulled Box 372 at
> Archer Lane and Summer Street, for example, the tape produced "< < < <
> < < < < < < < <". Someone would feed it through a simple gadget on the
> station horn which honked out the code to the volunteer firefighters,
> who could then converge on the box address in-stead of going to the
> fire station first. (Presumably someone did go and get the fire
> engine, however.) Meanwhile, we kids would look up the code on our box
> address list, courtesy of the local hardware store, and race there on
> our bicycles. What a letdown it was to hear "3-3-3" on the horn: that
> was a phoned-in emergency, so we wouldn't know where to go; all
> volunteers had to report to the station.

Actually, these were called Gamewell systems, after the company that
made most of the equipment for fire alarm telegraph systems during the
late 1890's or so nearly up to the present.  The circuits were
supervised, which is to say the circuits were closed dc loops serving
particular sections of town.  The fire alarm boxes had code wheels
which broke the circuit in accordance with the number assigned to the
box.  Breaking the circuit, such a a tree pulling down a fire alarm
cable, or a vehicle crashing into the pole and damaging the box,
caused the closed loop to open without any coded pulsing. Fire alarm
would then send out a maintenance person to ride that particular area
to find where the loop was broken and of course fix it.

In big cities, fire alarm headquarters might have 20-50 or more loops
serving particular parts of the city.  When a box was pulled, or when
a sprinkler system in a factory activated a box on the outside of the
building, the coded signal did in fact appear as punches on a register
tape at fire alarm.  Fire Alarm would then retransmit it over another
circuit to the stations where bells rang in the stations (and another
tape was punched) indicating the location of the call.

In many smaller towns the tapping out of the box number was indeed
repeated over outside audible devices such as air horns or steam
whistles so that volunteers could hear the box number and proceed to
the fire.  Now pagers are used because they are quieter and can the
fire personnel more information about what is going on.

Such fire alarm box systems have been dropped in most of the country
because:

    a.  high maintenance cost for the dedicated wire network used
            by the system.
    b.  anonymous false alarms since someone can pull a box and
            run away.
    c.  people started calling in by telephone - approximately 90% of
            all fire calls came by phone and it was not uncommon to have
            90% of all box alarms to be false.
    d.  911 caught on

Some areas, particularly in New England, where Gamewell was located,
still use the system but upkeep is very expensive.


Marvin K. Hoffman     (Formerly a fire chief)
Appalachian State University  Political Science/Criminal Justice   Boone, NC

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone?
Date: 10 Oct 91 21:19:41 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Herb
Jellinek) writes:

> My questions are basic: Will SDMS use the existing telephone network,
> allocating regular telephone numbers to SDMS ports, or will it use a
> separate number space, a la Telex?  What protocol(s) does SMDS support
> at the lowest level?  How does SMDS relate to ISDN?  And when will
> SMDS become available, either nationally or regionally?

Interop is now running an SMDS Interest Group; it's a big "new thing".
In a nutshell, SMDS is a Bellcore-defined service, CONNECTIONLESS (so
you don't make calls, just send packets); it is defined now for T1 and
T3 access lines with SONET likely in the future; the protocol is based
on DQDB (802.6) and uses 53-octet cells with variable-length packets;
the address in each cell is an E.164 (ISDN/Telephone) number; and it's
being tried now, with "production" equipment from a few vendors within
a year or so.

Being a Bellcore/RBOC service, it'll initially be intra-LATA, but
there's a spec for the LD Carriers to connect and provide inter-LATA
service.  And there is international interest too; a very similar
service (FastPac) is in Australia, and several European countries will
do SMDS or very close too.


Fred R. Goldstein              Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA
[e-mail]   voice: [phone]
Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone?
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 02:02:38 GMT


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

> I gather that SMDS allows you to 'dial up' (as it were) high-bandwidth
> data ports, much as you might connect two lower-bandwidth data port
> with a pair of modems.

> My questions are basic: Will SDMS use the existing telephone network,
> allocating regular telephone numbers to SDMS ports, or will it use a
> separate number space, a la Telex?  What protocol(s) does SMDS support
> at the lowest level?  How does SMDS relate to ISDN?  And when will
> SMDS become available, either nationally or regionally?

I am posting this from a public terminal room at the INTEROP
conference/trade show in San Jose, California, where SMDS is a hot
item this week.

SMDS is a service offering based on broadband ISDN, intended for data
transmission at high speeds. Initially, SMDS is being offered by RBOCs
(Regional Bell Operating Companies) over T1 access lines, but T3 is
expected soon. There is a different service called Frame Relay that is
offered over similar access provisions but with different protocols.

SMDS is available NOW from most RBOCs, but SMDS traffic may not cross
LATA boundaries yet, because there are no tarriffs for IXC
interconnection, and the specification for IXC access to the switches
are not final yet.

SMDS uses familiar ten digit phone numbers, but I presume the access
points are on special prefixes.

SMDS is a fallout from the increasing concentration of bandwidth on
fibers. The fiber backbone is mostly running at 150 million bits per
seconds now, but will soon be going up to 600 megabits. This makes it
economical to move an ethernet's worth of data on a "dial-up"
connection. So this traffic travels on the fibers that make up the
backbone of the public switched telephone network.

The underlying service is known as ATM (asynchronous transfer mode)
and several packagings will be competing. These have slightly
different characteristics in performance, and of course each one will
only interoperate with its peers. The most popular competitor to SMDS
is called Frame Relay.

Frame Relay is like X.25 without flow control and without error
correction, and without guaranteed delivery. In other words, it
provides only the elements of X.25 that are useful for TCP/IP or OSI
Connectionless Network Service to send datagrams over. It uses HDLC
encapsulation, so existing multiprotocol routers can use it with only
a minor software upgrade. At the present time, FR is available
nationally from WilTel and Sprint. Nothern Telecom switches support it
directly.  Presently, only permanent virtual circuits are available,
but switched virtual circuits are expected to be offered about a year
from now.


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

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

From: snark!beyonet![e-mail] (Steve Urich)
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Date: 10 Oct 91 20:31:44 GMT
Organization: Beyonet Network


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

[Steve Urich advanced technical questions deleted :-)]

> Kidding and sarcasm aside, all of the lines in question appear on my
> KX-T1232, a system known for its superior audio quality. I am 4000
> cable feet from the CO. Whatever advantage or disadvantage that
> pertains to the local loops is shared by the 1ESS and the 5ESS alike.
> The pairs ARE in the same cable.

    <*> Ok :-) There wasn't any change in wiring to the local
punch-out blocks? How far are you to the local blocks? This IS
unexceptable! Sometimes the local blocks are not properly grounded and
a change in the resistance produces humlike distortion like an
open-loop.

> The differences that I am describing are not at all subtle. They are
> glaring and alarming. Yes, the 5ESS sounds ok until you use one of the
> 1ESS lines. What a difference! No fuzzy dial tones. No hiss in the
> background of the call. No funny little crunching noises (that were
> not there on the 5ESS lines when they were crossbar a month ago.)

    <*> You know John, this almost sounds like your getting
overloaded by the new 5ESS? What are the levels like to you? If the
levels are the same then there is a problem. But if the 5ESS is louder
then maybe your noticing saturation in levels producing a fuzzy
dial-tone and high background noise. You might be too close to the CO?
Or the levels on the 5ESS are not set properly.


Steve Urich    WB3FTP     wells!beyonet![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 20:01:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> The differences that I am describing are not at all subtle. They are
> glaring and alarming. Yes, the 5ESS sounds ok until you use one of the
> 1ESS lines. What a difference! No fuzzy dial tones. No hiss in the
> background of the call. No funny little crunching noises (that were
> not there on the 5ESS lines when they were crossbar a month ago.)

I hope my comments won't be classified as a "knee jerk" reaction but
I'll take that chance ;-).

Your observations regarding transmission levels are NOT unique to the
5ESS.  The older switches were "hot" (by current standards) on an
intra-office call in particular and in some cases, on inter-office
calls to nearby switches too.  We have had similar comments from
people who share lines in a 1A and a DMS 100.  We "never" get comments
like this from folks who do not have access to both types of lines in
close proximity.

I respectfully suggest that there is no "fix" for this; as you aptly
pointed out, even you don't find the transmission level objectionalbe
in the new switch until you compare it with the old.  In addition, I
think you will find (in general) that there is much less variance in
the transmission between local and non-local calls.  In the old
switches, it was usually pretty easy to identify a "toll" call because
of the lower levels.  In the new ones, this difference is much less
pronounced (in my experience).

The noise problem is a mixed bag.  The higher levels in the old
switches tended to cover up minor noise problems in a voice mode.
This same noise could cause problems with data.  The new switches
don't mask this "minor" noise as much as the old and ,in some
respects, are more sensitive to external imbalances and the like and
do a "better" job of amplifying the noise right along with the voice
or data.  It is possible that you now hear the noise that has been
causing you data trouble for years (not you specifically but a general
"you").  At the same time (if the noise has a source external to the
switch), it may become more of a problem than before but it should be
easier to convince the repair folks that there IS a problem since they
can now hear it.

The bottom line is (IMHO) that you should not dwell on the difference
in transmission levels but you SHOULD persue the noise problem.  From
your description, my guess is a subtle problem in the loop (the minor
imbalance you noticed may be just the tip of the proverbial iceburg).
As you are already aware, "noise" can be generated within a digital
switch and timing problems and slips can garble data in ways that are
not detectable on a voice call.  I'm sure there IS a fix for your
noise problem and the "technicians" at PacBell might learn something
in the process.


Ken Abrams                     nstar!pallas!kabra437
Springfield, IL                [e-mail]
                               (voice) 217-753-7965

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 08:06:58 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs?


In comp.dcom.telecom, [e-mail] (John R. Levine)
writes:

> The pay faxes I've used, both here in Massachusetts and near my
> beach place in New Jersey charge more like $2 first page, $1
> thereafter for sending or receiving, plus toll charges.

$3 and $1 here in sunny (110 degrees yesterday) Brea, California.


[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] (personal)
[e-mail] (work)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #813
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08147;
          13 Oct 91 13:17 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04151
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 11:32:59 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14068
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 11:32:50 -0500
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 11:32:50 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #814

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Oct 91 11:32:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 814

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Help Me Understand Disconeection of a Call [Bud Couch]
    Re: Help Me Understand Disconnection of a Call [Joel M. Hoffman]
    Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [Michael Ho]
    Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [S.E. Williams]
    Re: LD Savings Plans vs. 1+ (Main Carrier) Connection [Jack Decker]
    Re: AT&T Calling Card Question [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Re: AT&T Calling Card Question [John Slater]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Randal L. Schwartz]
    Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: What if the Phone Company Hears of a Crime [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: What's the Caller ID Spec? [John Boteler]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: Help Me Understand Disconnection of a Call
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 1991 17:01:20 GMT


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

> Suppose A calls B.

> In the US, I've seen that both A and B can disconnect the call by
> putting the phone down.

> In India, I've noticed that _only_ A can terminate the call.  If B
> puts the phone down, and A persists, the call is still running.

> Why might this be the case?  Or am I missing something essential?

In both countries, two methods area available to disconnect a call.
The originator (A, above) or the switch itself. In the US, most of the
switches have enough "smarts" to recognize that the called party (B,
above) has hung up, and, after a time out period, force the connection
to release. Evidently, either most of India is not populated with
these switches, *or* the PTT has not seen fit to program them to do
this.

Try this (in the US): experiment with how long you can push the
hook-switch (hang-up) without disconnecting. You will find that, as
the originator of a call, anything over 150 to 300 mS will release. In
other words, you will be hard put to tap the switch fast enough to
keep from dropping. As the called party, however, you will find that
you can keep the switch down for at least 1.5 sec to as long as ten
seconds (depending on the types of switches the call is being routed
through) before the call is disconnected. The difference between the
two condition is whether or not you have *direct* control over the
call supervision. As the originating party, you do, so the calls are
disconnected very fast. As the called party, you don't, so some time
is involved in getting the switch(es) to force a disconnect.

In some areas of the US, mostly out in rural counties, the local CO is
an older type (usually step by step) which will operate (for local
calls) exactly as you have described for India.

And, as a postscipt, all of the above doesn't apply for special calls,
for instance, to an operator, or "911". In these cases, the control is
passed to the special trunks used for these calls, and the origiating
party can hang up indefinitely without disconnecting a call.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Help Me Understand Disconnection of a Call
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 15:15:46 GMT


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

> It follows that B can switch from one phone to another simply by
> hanging up and picking up another handset a few seconds later.

Also that if A doesn't hang up the phone properly, B's phone is
unusable.


Joel

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 19:29:53 GMT


An acquaintance of mine who used to work at Sprint (in an advertising
internship) mumbled that MCI's F&F program was in jepoardy because it
was too complicated to bill (i.e., who's on your list, how many are on
MCI, etc.).

Is there any truth to this rumor, or is it just a bunch of misinform-
ation from a competitor?

AT&T people: From your perspective, how difficult would it really be
to implement the billing for something like that?  How much harder
would it be than standard billing or Reach Out billing?


  ... 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: [e-mail] (S.E. Williams )
Subject: Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans)
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 15:24:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(S. Spencer Sun) writes:

> Note also that Friends and Family does not apply to calls placed with
> the MCI Calling Card (this would be a serious attraction if they added
> F&F to the Calling Card ...)

You are incorrect.  The Friends and Family program DOES work with the
MCI Card.  If you are using your card and call anyone on your Friends
and Family list you will receive 20% off the cost of your call.  This
is also correct if you call home, as you are automatically on your own
list.

Another interesting feature is that if you have a Personal 800 number
you will receive a 20% discount on calls made to your number.  This
brings the per-minute rate down from $0.25 to only $0.20.

Call the Friends and Family update line at 1-800-FRIENDS for more
information.


Sean E. Williams       Rochester Institute of Technology

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

Date: Mon, 07 Oct 91 05:47:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Jack Decker)
Subject: Re: LD Savings Plans vs. 1+ (Main Carrier) Connection


In a message dated 3 Oct 91 16:30:05 GMT, [e-mail] (Larry
Appleman) writes:

>> I was able to subscribe to MCI's "Friends & Family" by having them set
>> up an account and register my phone number for 10222+ dialing.  My 1+
>> carrier is not MCI.

> But you can only get the 20% discount for calls to people who have MCI
> as their 1+ carrier.  In other words, you can have any kind of MCI
> account, but your "Friends & Family" all must have MCI as their primary
> LD carrier.

But how would they know?  Consider the following scenario: You call up
MCI and say you want MCI "Dial 1" service.  They set up an account and
tell your phone company to change your "Dial 1" carrier to MCI.  Now
you call another carrier (maybe your original one) and say you want to
go back to them ... they send a notice to your telco telling them to
switch you to THEIR service.  At this point does the phone company
send some sort of notice to MCI telling them that you've been switched
off of their service?  Or do they, as I suspect, just switch you to
the new carrier and never say a word about it to MCI?  If the latter
is the case, then MCI would still think you're their customer and any
calls you dialed using the 10222 access code would be billed as though
you were still an MCI customer, right?

This falls apart if the phone company DOES notify MCI when you switch
to another carrier, OR if some additional information is transmitted
to MCI on each call to indicate that you dialed it using a 10XXX
prefix (as opposed to just 1+).  I don't think that either of these
are true, though.

Now, what would be interesting is to know what would happen if you
told MCI to sign you up for "Dial 1" service, then called your telco
business office and said, "you're probably going to receive something
from MCI telling you to change my 'Dial 1' service to them ... please
just ignore it, I've decided not to switch, so DON'T change my line to
any other carrier unless *I* call and authorize it personally." If
that would work, MCI would still set you up for a "Dial 1" account but
your "Dial 1" calls would still default to another carrier.

Just remember that YOU are the phone company's customer, not the LD
carrier, so the phone company is required to follow your instructions
in selection of a long distance carrier!


Via D'Bridge 1:1/211  10/09 12:46
Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

From: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Question
Date: 10 Oct 91 19:31:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 797, Message 7 of 12

> [e-mail] (leroy Casterline) writes:

>> Our call forwarding device uses the DTMF '#' character as a code to
>> control a 'serial calling' feature.  Today, one of our customers told
>> us that AT&T calling cards use the # to access their 'serial calling'
>> feature.

> This should never be a problem. The '#' only works for serial calling
> when the line is "unsupervised". Unless your device is doing something
> shady, its requirement for ...

Unfortunately, you still may be at the mercy of whatever payphone you
happen to have.  AT&T Card Caller phones used to interpret the '#' as
the same as pushing the 'new call' button on the phone -- no attention
was paid to whether the call supervised or not.

I discovered this while trying to use my voicemail system from one of
these phones.  Had I not been able to get credit for the call, I would
NOT have been amused at the interoperability problem between products
of the same company.

Disclaimer: This happened a year ago; I have no idea if it still
doesn't work.  The card caller phones are gradually being replaced
with the new phones w/ built-in terminals, according to press reports.


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 17:31:05 BST
Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Question
From: [e-mail] (John Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE)


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Phydeaux writes:

> I think I should add that it seems AT&T will only allow about ten calls
> to be placed in a row (via '#')without having to call back again.  At
> least this was the limit the last time I had to make a *lot* of calls
> from a payphone.

With a BT ChargeCard in the UK the limit is three follow-on calls,
presumably to limit fraud. This can be very irritating.


John Slater, Sun UK, Gatwick Office

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


From: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 05:28:14 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, john@zygot (John Higdon)
writes:

> If you are going to bash AT&T, please do so with some intelligence.
> Have you forgotten that the '10XXX' was the mandated way to handle
> carrier access from the beginning of the MFJ? Who was at fault here,
> AT&T or the PBXes, COCOTs, hotels and motels that did not comply with
> these standards? Do you really believe that AT&T "couldn't figure out
> how to put in an 800 or 950 access number"? Please explain why it was
> AT&T's responsibilty to provide a workaround for non-compliant
> "oddball phones".

Not just PBXes, COCOTs, hotels and motels, but entire phone companies.
My GTE (blech) phone doesn't understand 10XXX, and probably won't for
at least a few more years.  Yes, the company that charges me for
"cancel call waiting" as a separate feature from call waiting, and
lets me pick my 1+ carrier (how nice of them) also does *not* allow
10XXX.

It's not like I live in a rural area either.  I'm ten minutes from
Portland (Oregon) city limits, in the heart of the Silicon Rain Forest
just to the west (world headquarters of Tektronix, Sequent, FPS, Nike,
and home to most of the Intel expansion).

GTE hasn't even heard of 10XXX, I bet. :-)

I still think AT&T is silly for not having a 1-800 number for their
phonecards.  That's why I carry a Sprint card just in case I get
caught behind a dainbramaged PBX.  The revenue that AT&T has lost just
with *me* over the years is probably enough to pay for a prime-time
television commercial (a short one, maybe :-).

Just another AT&T believer, even when they make it difficult,


Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III
[e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 14:17:25 GMT


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

> Remember that the tricky part of bypass is that modern toll switches
> are not designed to interface with local loops.  They switch traffic
> on trunks.

Hmmm ... with a DMS-200 (a trunk switcher only) it is not too
difficult to come up with a trunk group that works very well with a
phone tied to the other end of each trunk.  Just using a little magic
with the miscellaneous drop equipment.

I'm guessing that AT&T switches are just as easy to arrange that way.
The trick is the right circuit engineer who can figure out how to make
the telephone set look like a trunk to the switch.


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: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 09 Oct 91 17:01:56
Subject: Re: What if the Phone Company Hears of a Crime


[e-mail] (Brian Litzinger) writes:

>>> I think the phone company is allowed check line quality, etc. by
>>> listening to phone conversations. What are the rules for what they
>>> may do with information that is overheard? ... [ deleted ]

>> I have heard a crime in PROGRESS (bookmaking) during the course of
>> installing the ANNUAL, [ ... deleted ...]
>> I can do NOTHING.  I am constrained by the Secrecy of Communications
>> clause of my employment:

> In some states I've heard that not reporting a crime makes one an
> accomplice (sic) after the fact or some such nonsense.

    No.  Accomplices after the fact are people who knowingly provide
aid and assistance to assist a criminal scheme.  No state tries to
punish members of the general public with no affiliation to the crime
other than inadvertant knowledge (eg, happening to overhear something
on the phone).  The US Constitution requires that there be a voluntary
act affiliating oneself with the crime before liability can be
imposed.  Total strangers have no duty to intervene.

    Of course, installing a phone line every year permitting a bookie
to take bets might begin to cross the line.  Normally, the phone
company is protected from liability because it doesn't know what the
customers use the phones for.  Jim Redalfs was knowingly assisting the
bookmaker when he installed the extra lines.

> If this is in fact the case, its seems your employment contract
> exempts you from certain criminal liabilities.

    This is legally impossible.  Private parties cannot "exempt"
themselves from criminal liability by contract.  Any contract which
tries even to indemnify against criminal penalties is void as against
public policy.  If it were possible to do this, I expect the Mafia
would have tried it by now.

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

Subject: Re: What's the Caller ID Spec?
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 10:01:16 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


The specs for CNID are also known to Sierra Semiconductor's SC11210 &
SC11211 decoder chips, suitable for embedded implementations of CNID
decoding, saving you the hassle of doing it by hand.

While my documents have not yet arrived from BellCoRe concerning the
CNID specifications, I must say that the wait will be all the more
pleasant thanks to the unusually kind BellCoRe woman who took my
order. I wish all telemarketers were so nice!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #814
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09650;
          13 Oct 91 13:50 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19112
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 12:09:22 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13164
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 12:09:11 -0500
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 12:09:11 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #815

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Oct 91 12:09:02 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 815

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Southern Bell Oddities [John Temples]
    Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [S Spencer Sun]
    Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [G. Burditt]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [John Higdon]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Stan Krieger]
    Re: Calling Number ID in California (No Decision Yet) [Dell H. Ellison]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 19:09:04 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Glenn F. Leavell writes:

> I just spoke with Southern Bell, and I was told that there is no way
> for me to block the calls from my Athens, Georgia phone from going
> into the Caller-ID system.  Are there any other states in which
> Caller-ID is offered without ANY option of blocking, free or for a
> fee?

Caller ID is blockable from most any phone I know of.  Southern Bell
recommends (or at least they recommended to me) that you dial via the
Southern Bell operator, which is about $0.85 if I remember right.
Tell the operator what you want and he will place the call for you.
Your number will not show up on the recipient's CLID box, if he has
one.

Caller ID blocking is available here.  It is identical in function, if
not in price to CLID blocking elsewhere.  Other possibilities are to
not place the call at all or to place it from a cellular or pay phone.

Southern Bell does offer per-line blocking to law-enforcement agencies
and social intervention organizations in the North Georgia area.


Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab   |  Telephone:   [phone]
Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332    |
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill |  Group 3 fax: [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]         |           or: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking
Date: 13 Oct 91 12:51:45 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Glenn F. Leavell) writes:

> I just spoke with Southern Bell, and I was told that there is no way
> for me to block the calls from my Athens, Georgia phone from going
> into the Caller-ID system.  Are there any other states in which
> Caller-ID is offered without ANY option of blocking, free or for a
> fee?

New Jersey Bell has offered Caller*ID since 1988.  (They also offer
Call*Block, but that is another service, and does not refer to
preventing one's number from being displayed in front of the callee.)

They do not offer anonymous calling.  I have found that calls placed
with operator assistance (including mechanized operator assistance,
such as 0+ calls billed to calling cards) and calls placed through
inter-exchange carriers are displayed as OUT OF AREA.  This is
probably a artifact of current technology in that the SS7 links do not
connect between the intra-LATA network and the IEC networks and
operator positions.  It will probably be corrected at some future
time.

I suggest that we refer to suppressed-number services as Anonymous
Calling, not as call-blocking.  Call*Block is a service offered by NJ
Bell and others.  It allows a subscriber to block inbound calls from a
selected list of originating numbers.  I subscribe to both of
Caller*ID and Call*Block.  Caller*ID tells me what number is calling
me.  Call*Block causes the local telemarketer in Bound Brook, NJ, to
get a recording which says: "The number you have dialed is not
accepting calls at this time", when he (or his machine) dials my
number.


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: jwt![e-mail] (John Temples)
Subject: Re: Southern Bell Oddities
Organization: The Museum of Barnyard Oddities
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 19:25:37 GMT


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

> They have an automated repair voicemail system which takes down the
> number you're reporting via means of touch tones.  [...] you are
> transferred to a live operator who asks (again) for the number you
> want to report and the trouble to be reported ... apparently taking
> the time to put the number in during the touch tone phase is all for
> naught.

I've also noticed this with Southern Bell's repair system.  They put
you through a series of questions (e.g., "Do you have the problem at
all phones?") which is obviously designed to filter out the people who
don't know enough to determine whether they've got a bad phone or an
inside wiring problem.  I don't know why they ask you for your phone
number, when you always have to repeat it to the operator.  I've found
that as soon as you enter the voicemail system, you can just hit "0"
to get a live operator, bypassing the voicemail foolishness.


John W. Temples -- [e-mail] (uunet!jwt!john)

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?)
Date: 10 Oct 91 16:19:35 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


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

> [Moderator's Note: It is deception only if the person returning the
> call was deceived; and the extent to which the person was decieved is
> relative to how much they know about the phone system. Whose problem
> is that, and where do you draw the line? If I did not know ahead of
> time that placing a credit card call will cost more than a direct
> dialed call, should I be able to sue telco for deception? Where do you
> stop and start on this?   PAT]

If the information is in the phone book (Bell Atlantic notes in their
Yellow Pages that credit card calls to local numbers are billed at the
same rate as operator-assisted calls, etc.) then it would be
reasonable to expect a person to know it.  In other words, I would
have no problem if a phone book said that certain exchanges in your
calling area will result in charges, much like 976 and 1-900 numbers.

This takes care of New York, in the case of 212-540.  But now the
question becomes, is it reasonable to expect every single phone book
in every single area code where it is possible to dial 212-540 to
include the notice "dialing a number in the 540 exchange in the 212
area code will result in a charge similar to that incurred by dialing
a 976 number"?

I think not.  So what this boils down to is, if the NY phone book
mentioned the 540 exchange and its characteristics, then someone
putting a 212-540 number on a NY-area beeper wouldn't be at fault for
anything.  But if the scammer did it to someone else who did not have
reasonable access to this information, it would be fraud/deception/
whatever the legal term is.

Clarification: Above is MY OPINION on how this sort of thing SHOULD be
handled.  I do not mean to imply that any of the above is legally correct,
nor should any such inference be made.


[S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - [e-mail] ]
[WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)]


[Moderator's Note: But so far as we have been able to detirmine, calls
to 212-540 are NOT dialable from outside the New York City LATA, or at
least not dialable *and* premium-charge collectible. So why should
phone books in other cities worry about it?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?)
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 15:50:04 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: It is deception only if the person returning the
> call was deceived; and the extent to which the person was decieved is
> relative to how much they know about the phone system. Whose problem
> is that, and where do you draw the line? If I did not know ahead of
> time that placing a credit card call will cost more than a direct
> dialed call, should I be able to sue telco for deception? Where do you
> stop and start on this?   PAT]

The surcharges for credit card calls are detailed in the front part of
the phone book (all the ones I recall seeing, anyway).  If it's a
long-distance call handled by an IXC, you may not know the rate, but
you're given a strong indication that there might be a surchage.
There is also information there that gives you some idea what is a
long-distance call, and how much local calls cost.  Lots of phone
books have rate listings for calls within the area code by mileage,
(or sometimes zone), with the usual glaring omission of any rate or
zone for the "information services" exchanges.  In the presence of
such a rate chart, and the absence of any mention of 976 (or 540)
being special, I think it is reasonable to conclude that 976 or 540
numbers don't cost more than the highest rate listed on the rate
chart.  (If only it worked that way ... )

A challenge to the Moderator and John Higdon: show me where a
non-telcom-aware user would find out, *in writing*, that *ALL* 212-540
numbers carry a charge for information services in addition to a toll
charge, or that 212-540 numbers are significantly more expensive than
calling most ordinary exchanges in the area code (or most foreign
countries on this planet), or both.  For that matter, show me where
one would find out the same thing about 976 or 900 numbers.  If it's
not in the phone book, would an ordinary phone user know enough to ask
for the information?

My Southwestern Bell phone book mentions 976 numbers, and 817-703, but
not 900 numbers.  There was a bill insert about 900 numbers and
blocking availability, but bill inserts are generally seen only by the
family member who pays the bills.  That was also a couple of years
ago.  They've had plenty of time to put information about 900 numbers
and blocking into the most recent phone book, but they didn't.  (Yes,
I know few people read the front pages of their phone book, but the
information is at least there if they want it).  Mr. Moderator, and
John Higdon, do the phone books in your local areas warn about
information service charges on 900 and 976 numbers?

Demonstrating that there are a lot of commercials for specific 540,
976 or 900 numbers that state the charges isn't good enough.  Like the
1+ == toll call argument, demonstrating lots of examples doesn't prove
the general case.  Since this particular number on my pager didn't
state any information service charges, and all the ads for information
services state charges, isn't it reasonable to assume that there are
no information service charges on this call?  (I have also heard an ad
several times for a "toll-free 900 number".  Is this even possible?
or is it a scam or mix-up in the ad copy?).

I think phone companies ought to be required to put this information
in the phone book if they won't do it voluntarily.


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 01:13 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?


Ron Newman <[e-mail]>, <frankston![e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead), [e-mail],
[e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun), [e-mail] (Stan
Brown), Carl Moore <[e-mail]>, Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>

[and a host of others take either the Moderator or myself to task
for suggesting that the 900/976/540/10XXX700/whathaveyou business is a
non-problem.]

Now my question to all of you: who has actually HAD TO PAY such a
charge after making a reasonable attempt to get it removed from the
bill? 100% of you? 50% of you? One of you? Anyone you know? Anyone you
have ever heard of?

Come on folks. Is this REALLY a problem? Or is it an exercise in "what
ifs"?

And then there is this:

[e-mail] (Erik Blake) writes:

> Perhaps the next time someone phones me LD, I'll give some
> 'information' and then send a bill for $100. The way these 976/540
> numbers seem to work, I don't even have to inform the caller of the
> charge. It's wonderful!

If you can make it stick and actually collect and keep the $100, go
for it. Again, does anyone have a single, solitary, documented case
where someone had to chuck over big bucks when he was "duped" into
calling an information services number?

I am beginning to think that a lot of you are jealous that you cannot
make some pet scam or another work in the manner that you imagine
these scams work. Yes, it would be sleazy to put a sign on your
doorstep and have it read, "Now you owe me $100". You and I know it
will not work.  And no one is making any money over the accidental
calling of IP numbers either. Now do you feel better? No one has got
one up on you.

And one final point about the sleazy practice of putting these numbers
in pagers: who says that the operator of the service is putting the
number in the pager? Last week, a number appeared in my pager,
"408-266-4400". Do you know what this is? It is a free 900-style
"party line" that happens to sit not twenty feet away from me. Who
could have put that number in my pager? Certainly not the sleazy
operator of the service--that's ME! Must have been someone else. Get
the point? When a 900 number appears in your pager, how do you know
who put it there?

Especially if you publish your pager's phone number!


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

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

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 10:39:48 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?


>> [Moderator's Note: [...] If I did not know ahead of
>> time that placing a credit card call will cost more than a direct
>> dialed call, should I be able to sue telco for deception? Where do you
>> stop and start on this?   PAT]

> Related questions: How easy is it to find out what the call is going
> to cost ahead of time?  Would someone in 212 call a NYTel operator and
> ask for rates on this number and report back?  etc?

There's one underlying issue in this whole discussion of 900 and
212-540 numbers that we're still avoiding; specifically, when, all of
a sudden, did the mere act of calling certain phone numbers result in
the purchase of anything more than a completed call from the
"telephone company"?  Even though other things could be charged to a
phone bill (Pat pointed out Western Union telegrams the last time this
discussion came up), such charges were not automatic; we still had to
provide Western Union with billing information -- merely calling them
did not automatically put a charge, other than for maybe a toll call,
on our phone bills.

Since 900, 212-540. 976, etc. numbers are "retail purchases" and not
just phone calls, the same controls that are in place for VISA or
MasterCard purchases over the phone should be in place for call to
these numbers.  Minimally, this should be a separate PIN code for any
call costing more than the maximum toll charge for calls to that area
code.


Stan Krieger

All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even AT&T UNIX System
Laboratories if related to my employment, are my own.

Summit, NJ    [e-mail]

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Dell H. Ellison)
Subject: Re: Calling Number ID in California (No Decision Yet)
Date: 10 Oct 91 21:29:37 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

> this as an empty threat.  The telcos worst fear for their marketing
> of CNID is the availability of per-line blocking, since surveys
> have shown that in California, where the majority of people have
                                           ^^^^^^^^
> unlisted phone numbers, a very large percentage would choose per-line
> blocking.  This would detract from the core goal of CNID -- to

Is that really true?  The MAJORITY of people have unlisted numbers?
Over 50 percent??  That's a lot.  (If it's true.)


Dell H. Ellison       ...!mcdchg!motcid!ellisond
Motorola, Inc.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #815
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17657;
          13 Oct 91 16:34 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29776
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 12:54:37 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08008
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 12:54:27 -0500
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 12:54:27 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #816

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Oct 91 12:54:24 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 816

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telephone Wire Staples [John Higdon]
    Re: Telephone Wire Staples [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Information Wanted For Purchase of Cellular Phone [Andrew Klossner]
    Re: Laser Pointer Information Wanted [Will Martin]
    Re: Phone Problems [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KX-T123210? [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Surcharge for 911 in Pittsburgh [Joel Upchurch]
    Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine [Michael A. Covington]
    Re: Charge on 800 Calls [Lauren Weinstein]
    Re: Even More 5ESS Woes [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 21:16 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Telephone Wire Staples


Paul Selig <[e-mail]> writes:

> I've been able to find cable staplers, but the staples are too big for
> the small telephone wires.  All of the installers that I've seen use a
> stapler with a large Bell logo on the side.

Get an Arrow T-25 staple gun. This uses the rounded top staples that
are just the right size for anything up to about four-pair cable. It
is a nice, industrial unit that should be available at just about any
decent sized hardware store.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Telephone Wire Staples
Date: 13 Oct 91 15:20:38 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul
Selig) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 810, Message 4 of 12

[requesting information on the purchase of staples]

    There are several sizes of staples used for installing
telephone wires.

    The T-18 size is good for quad and 3 pair wire.

    The T-25 size is good for 4 and 6 pair and RG-59 Coax

    The T-37 size is good for 12 pair and doubled 3 pair etc

    The T-75 size is used for 25 pair cable and RG-8 Coax

    In a pinch, you can use the T-25 for T-18 type jobs.

    These guns cost between $30 and $50 each depending on size and
where you buy them. They will last a lifetime unless dropped from
ladders. You can buy parts to rebuild them.

    The staples come in several lengths. They are measured in mm
and fractional inches. For T-18, T-25, 3/8" will usually do the job.
The staples are available as shiny plated metal or painted "beige"
which is the telco name for "artificial limb pink". Staples come in
boxes of 1,000. They cost about $2.00 per box for the smaller sizes
and $5.00 per box for the T-75s.

    Yes, besides telco wire, these guns can be used for TV and
Ethernet Coax cable, speaker wires and even RS-232 cables.

    Where to get:

    Many electrical wholesalers (where electricians get conduit
        etc) carry them and will sell to the "public".

    Many electronic parts stores carry them.

    All Telco distributors carry them.

    Specialized Products Company cary the T-25 and T-75 guns. They
are at [phone]  International Number [phone].


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 15:08:16 PDT
Subject: Re: Information Wanted For Purchase of Cellular Phone


Suddenly I'm in the market for a cellular phone.  I look through
telecom and see:

Dennis G. Rears <[e-mail]> writing:

>  I am finally in the market for a cellular phone.  I need it

> [Moderator's Note: We've had numerous postings on this topic in recent
> weeks, and my recommendation would be to check out the past hundred or
> so issues of the Digest in the Telecom Archives. Or perhaps some of
> the readers will write direct to you and help with your questions.  PAT]

Okay, I can do that.  I looked through the last 250 postings, and
here's all I found:

> From: [e-mail]
> Subject: Advice Wanted on Purchasing Cellular Phone
> Date: 13 Sep 91 00:58:24 GMT

> 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.

> [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]

In short, there seem to be no such articles in the last 250 postings,
except for discussion on Motorola's new, not-yet-shipping product.  I
takes a *long* time to capture archives from my site -- grepping 250
postings took two hours.  Can you suggest a faster way to find this
information?  (I noticed that it's not in the FAQ file.)

  -=- Andrew Klossner  ([e-mail])
                       (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)

[Moderator's Note: Well, you could always write Andrew Klossner and
Dennis Rears to ask them what responses they received. :) Or, maybe
its about time to run another series of messages on specific cellular
phones with their good and bad points. If any readers want to get the
thread started, please submit messages. Regards grepping the archives,
I will have something to say about that in a special mailing hopefully
later today.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 7:57:59 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Laser Pointer Information Wanted


Laser pointers are available from a number of sources, and I found
three last night looking thru some catalogs. All are cheaper than the
Sharper Image $199 price, and one is noticeably cheaper:

That one first:

On page 3 of the Sept/Oct. 91 catalog from

Herbach & Rademan (H&R Company)
18 Canal St.
PO Box 122
Bristol, PA 19007-0122

(800-848-8001 or 215-788-5583; hours 0830 - 1700 Eastern Time, Monday-Friday)

is their stock # ES-LA102 pen-sized laser pointer at $140.00. Uses
TR175 battery or equivalent, operating time 1 hr. 15 min. continuous.
2.3 oz., 5 3/8" long 5/8" diameter, output 3mW. (They don't mention
that they offer spare batteries and I couldn't find them listed
elsewhere in the catalog. See below.) [H&R also has a retail store.]

Other sources:

Meredith Instruments
5035 N. 55th Ave., #5
PO Box 1724
Glendale, AZ 85301

800-722-0392 or 602-934-9387

has a laser pointer which appears to be identical to the one above;
the specs are the same except they claim a 5mW maximum output. Price
is $175.00, stock # LP-5, and extra TR-175 batteries are $5 each.

*******

MWK Industries
1269 Pomona Road
Cornona, CA  91720

800-356-7714 or 714-278-0563

sells their stock # 1FN6 Laser Pointer at $185.00, which again appears
to be the same item. No mention of batteries.

*******

Note: All these people have shipping charges based on price; since
this is a very light but very expensive device, every one of them will
be cheating you if you pay the default shipping charge. I would insist
on negotiating to be charged actual shipping costs as a condition of
sale.

*******

If you decide a cheaper, less high-tech device will suit you, H&R also
sels a "Flashlight Arrow Pointer" at $19.50 (stock # Q5826), that uses
4 AA batteries and high-intensity bulbs (spares are 3 for $11.75, so I
suppose they burn out frequently).

Hope this is of help!


Regards,

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

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

Date: Tue, 08 Oct 91 07:00:32 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jim Redelfs)
Subject: Re: Phone Problems
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


Jack Meth wrote:

> For some time now, at least once a day a caller cannot hear me
> speaking. We can hear the other party, they can't hear us. Sometimes
> we originate the call sometimes they do.
> How should a frequently but randomly occuring problem with phone
> service be diagnosed?

I suspect that your trouble is Central Office-related.  Cutting your
service to new (different) line equipment MAY solve the problem.

If the local repair folks can't find the problem, you might do well to
keep a log prior to your next call for service.

Track:  Time of day
        The number you were connected with
        Who originated the call

Does your problem occur on calls placed WITHIN your exchange, or
perhaps only on those extending to a different NNX?  It is likely
that, if the latter applies, your calls are frequently being carried
by a dying circuit pack.


JR   --- Tabby 2.2
MacNet Omaha [phone]  -  O.M.U.G. On-Line    (1:285/14)

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 11:13:12 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KX-T123210?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


A very common problem on many phones and KSU/KTU's that supposedly
have conference features is that the two (or more) end callers will
often have difficulty hearing each other, sometimes to the point that
they may appear to be inaudible to each other.

These devices do not use 'real' conference bridges, but simply connect
the two lines together using something like a 1:1 audio transformer.
This works, almost, but it is never possible to get a normal-level
signal between two off-premesis users with something like this.

If we assume that there will be a 6dB to 9dB loss on each connection
to the center user in the conference, the two end users will see at
least a 12dB to 18dB loss between themselves.  Add to this loss the
loss in the transformer (1-2 dB) and any other circuitry the
manufacturer has chosen to put into the conference circuit.  (Another
possible loss is due to the loading of the transformer in addition to
the load of the set.)  Many of these 'imported' phones use bridging
transformers that are similar to those you can by at Radio Shark and
elsewhere.  I've measured the loss across them in projects I have made
and never found one that did not have at least 1 dB loss.

>>REAL<< conference bridges are amplified and equalized and deliver
equal volume to all connections off of the bridge.  Doing this type of
amplification and equalization on the subscriber end of the loop is
somewhat of a black art since the bridge must be properly balanced to
avoid 'singing' and distortion.  Because the impedance -- both
resistive and reactive components -- of subscriber loops will vary
significantly, it is difficult for a manufacturer to install a 'one
size fits all' amplified and equalized conference circuit in a device
to be used at a subscriber's premesis.

(As a side note, I would be interested in hearing how John H. deals
with this in his 'party line' bridge.)

Even the 'real' conference bridges are sometimes quirky.  We have a
System-85 at work with 'real' conferencing, and sometimes it seems
that the conference circuitry is just on the point of oscillation --
there is a definite echo in there.

I'm sure if someone came out with a design of such a thing that could
work on the majority of real-world subscriber loops, the market would
be wide open and the developer could pursue a very lucrative patent.
(If Ma Bell doesn't have one already. ;-)


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)

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel Upchurch)
Subject: Re: Surcharge for 911 in Pittsburgh
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 05:48:17 GMT
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Ken Sprouse) writes:

> A recent {Pittsburgh Post Gazette} article said that the city was
> considering adding a one dollar per line surcharge to city residents
> phone service for the operation of the 911 dispatch center.  They went
> on to state that this was possible due to a change in state law which
> gave the city the ability to impose this charge.

I'm curious about what their plans are for 911 calls from pay phones.
Should I make sure I always have four quarters on my person when I'm in
Pittsburgh? :)


Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
[e-mail] {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel [phone]


[Moderator's Note: That's one dollar per line/month, not one dollar
per call. If the payphone is semi-public or a COCOT, then the one
dollar would be added to the phone bill of the proprietor. If a
public, 'genuine Bell' payphone, then telco would pay the dollar each
month in their tax settlements with the city, etc.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 02:43:28 GMT


Try a 0.001-uF, 200-volt capacitor across the line.  This should be very
cheap.


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, 12 Oct 91 23:02:11 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Charge on 800 calls


Greetings.  I suppose there is one clarification that should be made --
there is one case when you might get charged for calling an 800
number.  That one case is when you make a call from a sleazy hotel PBX
or private payphone.  Until new FCC regulations kick in, there's no
way to control what such entities might try to charge you for
practically ANY call.

But even in this case, there actually is *no* charge for calling the
800 number itself -- you're dealing with an arbitrary charge that the
hotel PBX or payphone operator is imposing through their local phone
equipment.  A call from an ordinary residential or business phone
would incur no charges for calling the same number.

However, if we learn of any domestic 800 numbers that *do* charge
ordinary domestic callers ... well, that's something that should not
be happening -- and so far there are no known examples of this.

By the way, the misinformation provided by IBT (the false statements
about a nickel charge for calling 800 numbers from home phones) is
very unfortunate and only helps to further confuse the already
confused average telephone subscriber!


 --Lauren--

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

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 23:54 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Even More 5ESS Woes


On Oct 12 at 23:05, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: The experiences you are describing there simply are
> not typical of 5ESS everywhere, at least here in Chicago. We *do* get
> call waiting when on a three-way call; we do get fast dial tone and
> generally decent and *quiet* (i.e. not noisy) lines. Maybe yours was
> just a very sloppy, poorly administered installation. I would not
> trade my existing service back for crossbar under any circumstances.  PAT]

My direct experience with digital CO switches is limited (for obvious
reasons, living in Pac*Bell Land), but I am advised by those in the
know that there is no known generic available for the 5ESS that allows
reception of Call Waiting during a Three Way call. Since I do not
doubt your powers of observation, there can only be one explanation:
you, Pat, are not served by a 5ESS. When I have called you, my ear has
told me that you are served by a 1AESS (the finest CO switch ever
built, IMHO). A test call to your prefix (not you at this hour!)
confirms my previous observation. And that would explain your complete
satisfaction with the service you receive.

I have heard that there is a generic available for the DMS100 that
strives to emulate the features on a 1AESS and possibly even has CW on
3W, but this is the only known digital implementation of this. Now
there has been considerable debate as to whether this ability is "part
of the spec", but since it was part of the 1/1AESS feature package
from the beginning it would be reasonable to assume that this is the
"standard". Like it or not, pre-divestiture AT&T defined a number of
standards that have been preserved since the breakup. But
unfortunately, AT&T has NOT seen fit to perpetuate its own definitions
by including CW on 3W on its pride and joy, the 5ESS.

So far, my experience is that AT&T stumbled on this one.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #816
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23908;
          13 Oct 91 19:33 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23705
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 16:23:28 -0500
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 16:23:28 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Telecom Frequently Asked Questions - Revised 10/13/91


Attached is the second printing (first revision) of the Telecom Frequently
Asked Questions file. My thanks go to David Leibold for his work in
editing this, and for the various contributors who sent material for
inclusion in this edition.  This file will be sent automatically to
all new subscribers to the telecom mailing list starting today. See
the end of the file for the address to use for corrections and
updates.

Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Moderator

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

Subj: FAQ - Frequently Asked Telecom Questions

TELECOM Digest - Frequently Asked Questions - v.2   9 October 1991

This is a list of frequently asked questions made in the TELECOM
Digest. As this list is rather new, some topics and questions will no
doubt be updated and added as time goes on.

Much of the telecom information that is requested can be found in the
TELECOM Digest Archives, which is a collection of text files on
telecom topics. These archives are available for access through the
FTP protocol at lcs.mit.edu, or through another Archive site that has
been set up at letni.lonestar.org.  The monthly posting of the
description of TELECOM Digest should contain more details on how to
access these Archives.

This list is in the archives under the file name:

         frequently.asked.questions

Direct netmail requests to persons posting on topics of interest to
you may also be helpful. In fact, doing things "behind the scenes"
can be more productive as the Digest Moderator is frequently
swamped with other items. Future editions of this list could
include netmail addresses of contacts for certain topics (say
for ISDN, cellular, area codes/numbering plan, consumer protection
matters, etc); offers to that end would be appreciated.

The index to the Archives should be obtained and kept for reference.
This index has also occasionally appeared as a posting in the Digest.
You may also read the file intro.to.archives in the Archives to get a
better understanding of the Archives.

A list of terms commonly used in TELECOM Digest may be obtained from
the Archives under the file names glossary.acronyms, glossary.txt and
glossary.phrack.acronyms.

Suggestions for other common questions, or corrections or other
amendments to this file may be made to [e-mail],
[e-mail] or [e-mail].  This file
will be updated as necessary and all information herein should be
considered subject to change.

Thanks to Nathan Glasser, Dan Boehlke and Maurice E. DeVidts and those
other inquiring TELECOM Digest minds for their frequent questions.
Tad Cook also noted an incorrect touch tone in the 1st edition of
FAQ, an error which should be corrected with the second edition.

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

Q: How do phones work?

A: A file in the TELECOM Digest archives under the name
   "how.phones.work" is available and should explain some details of
   the workings of the common telephone.

Q: What is a COCOT?

A: Customer-Owned Coin-Operated Telephone, or perhaps Coin-Operated
   Customer-Owned Telephone. Essentially, this is a privately-owned
   public telephone as opposed to the traditional payphone that
   is owned and operated by the local telephone company. The COCOT
   is the target of much scorn, as it often delivers less than what
   one would hope for in competition. Cited deficiencies of many
   of these units include lack of access to carriers like AT&T,
   default "carriers" that charge exorbitant rates for long distance
   calls, etc. Some of them don't even understand the new 908
   area code that is now officially in service in New Jersey.

Q: What does NPA, NNX, or NXX mean?

A: NPA means Numbering Plan Area, a formal term meaning the common
   North American area code (like New York 212, Chicago 312,
   Toronto 416 etc).

   NNX refers to the format of the telephone number's prefix;
   (the first three digits of a phone number). The N represents
   a digit from 2 to 9; an X represents any digit 0 to 9. Thus,
   NNX prefixes can number from 220 to 999, as long as they do
   not have a 0 or 1 as the middle digit.

   NXX means any prefix from 200 to 999 could be represented,
   allowing for any value in the middle digit. Obvious special
   exceptions include 411 (directory assistance) and 911 (emergency).

Q: What happens when all the telephone numbers run out?

A: Within an area code, there are a maximum number of prefixes
   (ie. first three digits of a phone number) that can be assigned.
   In the original telephone "numbering plan", up to 640 prefixes
   could be assigned per area code (of the NNX format, 8 * 8 * 10).
   Yet, prefixes get used up due to growth and demand for new
   numbers (accelerated by popularity of separate fax or modem
   lines, or by new services such as the distinctive ringing
   numbers that ring a single line differently depending on which
   phone number was dialed).

   When the prefixes of NNX format run out, there are two options
   in order to allow for more prefixes, and in turn more numbers:

      1) "splitting" the area code so that a new area code can
         accomodate new prefixes, or

      2) allowing extra prefixes to be assigned by changing from
         NNX format to NXX format.

   The preferred option is to go with 2) first, in order to avoid
   having a new area code assignment. Yet, this gives the area code
   a maximum of 160 new prefixes, or 8 * 10 * 10 = 800. When the
   NXX format prefixes are used up, then 1) is not optional.
   New York and Los Angeles are two regions that have gone from
   NNX to NXX format prefixes first, then their area codes were split.

   Interestingly enough, some area codes have split even though
   there was no change from NNX format prefixes to NXX. Such
   splits have occurred in Florida (305/407) and Colorado (303/719).
   The precise reasons why a change to NXX-style prefixes was not
   done in those cases is unknown to this author, but switching
   requirements in those areas, plus telephone company expenses in
   changing from NNX to NXX format (and the likelihood of an eventual
   area code split) are likely factors in these decisions.

   Note that it is prefixes, and not necessarily the number of
   telephones, that determines how crowded an area code is. Small
   exchanges could use a whole prefix for only a few phones, while
   an urban exchange uses most of the 10 000 possible numbers per
   prefix. Companies, paging, test numbers and special services can
   be assigned their own prefixes as well, such as the 555 directory
   assistance prefix (555.1212).

Q: Why does the long distance dialing within an area code often
   change so that 1 + home area code + number has to be dialed,
   or changed to just seven digits (like a local call)?

A: When prefixes change to NXX, that means that the prefix numbers
   can be identical to area codes. The phone equipment is no longer
   able to make an easy distinction between what is an area code and
   what is a prefix within the home area code, based on the first
   three digits. For instance, it is hard for central offices to
   tell the difference between 1+210 555.2368 and 1+210.5552

   Thus, 1 + area code + number for all calls is used in many
   area codes. Or ... just dialing seven digits within the area
   code for all calls, local or long distance (thus risking
   complaints from customers who thought they were making a local
   call when in fact the call was to a long distance exchange).

   It is up to each phone company to decide on how to handle prefix
   and dialing changes. The rules can change from place to place.

Q: Are we really running out of area codes?

A: Indeed, there are only a few possible area codes that can be
   assigned from the existing format. At present, all area codes
   have a 0 or 1 as the middle digit (212, 907, 416, 708, etc).
   However, the only standard area codes left to be assigned in
   that format would be 210, 810 and 910. It may be possible to
   free 610 from its usage in Canadian TWX service, and 710 from
   what is apparently reserved for government services.

   These exclude special cases such as area codes ending in -00 for
   special services like 800 or 900. Also, -11 area codes could
   be confused with services like 411 (directory assistance) or
   911 (emergency); indeed, a few places require 1+411 for directory
   assistance.

Q: What is Bellcore?

A: Bellcore, or Bell Communications Research, is a company that
   does a number of things for the telephone system in North
   America. It assigns area codes, publishes and sells technical
   documents relating to the operation of the phone system, and does
   research and development on various communications technologies.
   Recently, Bellcore did development on MPEG, a video data
   compression method to allow transmission of entertainment-quality
   video.

   The Bellcore catalogue can be ordered by calling 1 800 521 CORE
   (that is, 1 800 521 2673) within the USA, or [phone]
   outside the USA ([phone] is the fax number).

Q: How will we make room if the area codes are running out?

A: Bellcore, which oversees the assignment of area codes and
   the North American Numbering Plan in general, has made a
   recommendation that "interchangeable" area codes be allowed
   as of July 1995. That means that there no longer need to be
   a 0 or 1 as the middle digit of an area code, and in fact the
   area code will become NXX format. While some suggest that
   eight-digit local numbers or four-digit area codes be
   established, the interchangeable area code plan has been
   on the books for many years.

   One aspect of the plan is that, initially, the new area codes
   will end in 0 (such as 220, 650, etc). This would make it
   easier on a few area codes so that they could conceivably
   retain the ability to dial 1+number (without dialing the home
   area code) for long distance calls within the area code, provided
   that they have not assigned prefixes ending in zero that would
   conflict with new area codes. That option is not possible for
   many area codes that have already assigned some prefixes
   of "NN0" format, however. Eventually, the distinction between
   area code and prefix formats would be completely lost.

   It is conceivable that the date for changing North America
   over to interchangeable area codes (yes, this change will be
   felt throughout the U.S. and Canada) could be moved to an
   earlier date, or that the existing area codes plus the few
   waiting to be assigned will have to make do until 1995,
   causing some service shortages in some areas. Another possibility
   includes using some of the special -00 or -11 codes (like 200
   or 311) as area codes as a last resort.

Q: What are touch tones made of?

A: The touch tone system uses pairs of tones to represent the
   various keys. There is a "low tone" and a "high tone" associated
   with each button (0 through 9, plus * (star) and # (octothorpe
   or pound symbol). The low tones vary according to what
   horizontal row the tone button is in, while the high tones
   correspond to the vertical column of the tone button.

   The tones and assignments are as follows:

          1     2     3     A  :  697 Hz

          4     5     6     B  :  770 Hz
                                           (low tones)
          7     8     9     C  :  852 Hz

          *     0     #     D  :  941 Hz
        ----  ----  ----  ----
        1209  1336  1477  1633 Hz
               (high tones)

   When the 4 button is pressed, the 770 Hz and 1209 Hz tones
   are sent together. The telephone central office will then
   decode the number from this pair of tones.

   The tone frequencies were designed to avoid harmonics and
   other problems that could arise when two tones are sent
   and received. Accurate transmission from the phone and
   accurate decoding on the telephone company end are important.
   They may sound rather musical when dialed (and representations
   of many popular tunes are possible), but they are not intended to
   be so.

Q: Why is a touch tone line more expensive than a rotary dial
   line (in many places)?

A: This has been an occasional debate topic in the Digest. Indeed,
   there can be a surcharge from $1 to $3 per month to have the
   ability to dial using touch tone. In modern equipment, touch
   tone is actually better and cheaper for the phone company
   to administer that the old pulse/rotary dialing system.

   The tone dialing charge can be attributed to the value of
   a demanded service; tone is better, thus a premium can be
   applied for this privilege. Also, it is something of a holdover
   from the days when tone service required extra expense to decode
   with the circuitry originally available. This is especially
   true on crossbar exchanges, or where tone would have to be
   converted to dial pulses as is the case with step-by-step
   exchange equipment. Today, integrated circuits are readily
   available for decoding the tones used in dialing, and are
   a standard part of electronic switching systems.
   Some telephone companies have abandoned a premium charge
   for tone dialing by including this in local service.
   Others still hold to some form of tone surcharge.

Q: What's this about the FCC starting a modem tax for those
   using modems on phone lines?

A: This is one of those tall urban legends, on the order of the
   Craig Shergold story (yes, folks, Craig's doing okay as of last
   report and he doesn't need any more cards of any kind). This is an
   unsubstantiated rumour and as such should not be acted on.
   Official information from the FCC would come forth were such a
   proposal to occur.

   Reading up on regulators' announcements is a good pastime in
   any case, as one can get the information from the source and
   watch for such concerns.

Q: What is the calling card "boing" and what is it made of?

A: When a North American call is dialed as 0 + (area code) + number,
   a "boing" is heard after the number is dialed. This is the prompt
   to enter a telephone company calling card number to bill the call
   with, or to select the operator (0) for further handling, or in
   a growing number of areas to specify collect or third number
   billing for the call.

   The boing consists of a very short burst of the '#' touch tone,
   followed by a rapidly decaying dial tone. The initial '#' tone
   is used in case any tone-pulse converters exist on the line;
   such converters use the '#' to disable conversion of tones to
   dial pulses, a conversion which would interfere with card
   number dialing.

Q: How can I find out what my own phone number is?

A: If the operator won't read your number back to you, and if
   you can't phone someone with a Calling # ID service, there
   are special numbers available that "speak" your number
   back to you when dialed. These numbers are quite different
   from one jurisdiction to the next. Some areas use 200 222.2222;
   others just require 958; still others 311 and others have
   a normally-formatted telephone number which can be changed
   on occasion (such as 997.xxxx). Check the Archives for
   any lists of test numbers or "ANAC" (Automatic Number
   Announcement) numbers.

Q: Is there a way to find someone given just a phone number?

A: Sometimes. There are often cross-referenced city indexes available
   in libraries and other places that have lists ordered by the
   phone number. These directories go by names such as Mights or
   Strongs or other companies. Unlisted numbers are not listed,
   nor are they intended to be traced by the general public. One
   catch is that such directories are necessarily out of date
   shortly after their publication what with the "churn" of
   changing telephone numbers and addresses.

   In addition, there are phone numbers provided by telephone
   companies that connect to live lookup services. Operators at
   these numbers will determine a person according to the phone
   number. Only a few of these lookup numbers are intended for
   the general public (eg. Chicago and Tampa). Otherwise, most
   of these lookup numbers are for internal telephone company
   usage. Again, unlisted numbers are not intended to be provided
   by these services.

   Private detectives seem to have other means of getting these
   numbers, but that's another story...

Q: What is call supervision?

A: Call supervision refers to the process by which it is determined
   that the called party has indeed answered. Long distance calls
   and payphone calls are charged from the time the called party
   answers, and no charges should be assessed where the other
   end doesn't answer nor where the called party is busy or
   unreachable due to circuit problems.

Q: How come I got charged at a hotel for a call where no
   one answered? Why is the timing on some of the long
   distance carriers inaccurate?

A: Where real call supervision is unavailable or inconvenient,
   a ploy used by some call billing systems is to guess when
   a call might be answered. That is, a customer dials the call,
   and the equipment times the progress; after a certain point
   in time the billing will commence whether or not the party
   at the other end actually answers the phone. Thus, calls
   left ringing for more than five or six rings can be billed.
   Adding to the problem is the fact that calls don't necessarily
   start ringing at a fixed time after the last digit is dialed.

   Needless to say, some calls can be left uncharged in this
   scheme. Should the call be answered and completed before the
   billing timer goes off, the call won't be billed.

   There are reports that California requires proper billing
   and supervision of calls, at least as far as hotels are
   concerned. Other areas may adopt similar requirements.

Q: Are there other kinds of test numbers used?

A: Yes. Again, space (and available information) does not permit
   a complete list of what each telephone company is up to in
   terms of test numbers. The most common number is a "ringback"
   test number. When a two or three digit number is followed
   by all or the last part of your phone number, another dial
   tone occurs. Tests for dialing or ringing may then be done.

   Other numbers include intercom circuits for telephone company
   staff, or switching centre supervisors, or other interesting
   tests for call supervision or payphone coin tests. Again,
   this depends on the phone company, and such services are
   not usually found in the phone book, needless to say.

Q: How can I prevent the call waiting tone from beeping in
   mid-conversation?

A: If you place the call, and don't want to get interrupted,
   a call waiting suppression code is dialed before dialing
   the call itself. The most common code for this is *70 or
   1170 (on rotary dial phone lines). 70# (or 70 and wait on
   rotary phone) could also be used in some areas.

   Thus, to call 555.0000 so that call waiting is disabled,
   dial *70 (or whatever the correct code is for your area),
   wait for another dial tone, then dial 555.0000 as usual.

   Suppressing call waiting tone on an *incoming* call may
   be possible depending on how your phone company has set
   the central office. One possible way of doing this is to flash
   your switch-hook briefly, see if a dial tone comes on, then
   try dialing the call waiting suppress code (*70 or whatever).
   This method is not guaranteed, however; your phone company
   might be able to give a better answer if the preceding
   doesn't work.

   NOTE: each phone company will determine the capabilities
   of Call Waiting features, and what codes will be used to
   activate them. The codes are not necessarily the same
   from place to place. Please consult your phone company
   for official information in your particular area if any
   of the above codes do not work properly.

The following questions were suggested by Nathan Glasser
([e-mail]):

Q: What are the A, B, C and D touch tone keys used for?
   Why are they not found on touch tone phone sets?

A: These are extensions to the standard touch-tones (0-9, *, #)
   that had their origins in the miltary's phone network.
   The original names of these keys were FO (Flash Override),
   F (Flash), I (Immediate), and P (Priority) which represented
   priority levels that could establish a phone connection
   with varying degrees of immediacy, killing other conversations
   on the network if necessary with FO being the greatest priority,
   down to P being of lesser priority. The tones are more commonly
   referred to as the A, B, C and D tones respectively, and all
   use a 1633 Hz as their high tone.

   Nowadays, these keys/tones are mainly used in special applications
   such as amateur radio repeaters for their signalling/control.
   Modems and touch tone circuits tend to include the A, B, C and
   D tones as well. These tones have not been used for general
   public service, and it would take years before these tones could
   be used in such things as customer information lines; such
   services would have to be compatibile with the existing 12-button
   touch tone sets in any case.

Q: Where can I find a list of equal access (10XXX) codes?

A: The TELECOM Digest Archives has lists of these codes.
   They are contained in the files occ.10xxx.access.codes and
   occ.10xxx.list.updated in the Archives at lcs.mit.edu or
   letni.lonestar.org. New information on these codes, or
   other access codes, appears in TELECOM Digest on occasion
   as well.

Q: How can I tell who my default carrier is (or that of a 10XXX+
   carrier)?

A: Dial 1 700 555.4141, and that should get a recording indicating
   the default carrier. This should be a free call. From regular
   lines, dialing 10XXX + 1 700 555.4141 can yield the identifying
   recordings of other carriers. On payphones, AT&T is always a
   "default" carrier for coin calls (not for calls placed on other
   carriers cards, though), thus their recording is heard whatever
   carrier access codes are used.

FAQ submission from Dan Boehlke <[e-mail]> (with formatting
and some proofreading thrown in):

Q: What is the best way to busy a phone line?  I have a bank of modems
   which are set up as a hunt group.  When a modem dies I would like to
   be able to busy out the line that is disconnected, so that one of the
   other modems in the hunt group will take the call.

A: Our modem lines all enter on RJ21 "punchblocks" so I've got some
   rather nice clips that can be pushed over the terminals on the blocks
   and make contact with the pair that I want to busy out.  Between the
   two terminals on the clip I have a red LED and a 270 ohm 1/2w
   resistor in series.  As long as I get the clip on the right way, it
   busies out the line and lights up so I can see that I've got one
   of the lines busied out.

   Since most of our modems have error correction, I've even gotten away
   with putting one of these on a line that's in use -- when the user
   disconnects, the line remains busy and I can then pull the modem at
   my leisure.  The modem's error correction fixes the blast of noise
   from the clip as I slip it in.

   Brian

[Further notes:  A setup like this is not necessary.  For most systems
simply shorting tip and ring together will busy out the phone line.
Some older systems, and lines that do not have much wire between the
switch and the point at which it terminates will need a 270 ohm 1/2 watt
resistor.  The resistor is necessary because on a short line will not
have enough resistance to make up for the lack of a load.  Most modern
systems have a current limiter that will prevent problems.  Older
system may not have a current limiter and may supply more current than
modern systems do.  In the followup discussion, we learned that we
should not do this to incoming WATS lines and other lines that will
cause the phone companies' diagnostics centers to get excited.  A
particular example was an incomming 800 number that was not needed for
a few days. The new 800 number was subscribed to one of those plans that
let you move it to another location in the event of a problem.
Well the AT&T diagnostic center saw the busy'ed out line as a problem
and promptly called the owner. -dan]

>From Maurice E. DeVidts ([e-mail]):

Q: How can I get specifications on how Caller ID service works?

A: The official documentation on how the Caller ID or calling line ID
   works is available for purchase from Bellcore. A description of
   what those documents are and how to get them is available in the
   TELECOM Digest Archives file caller-id-specs.bellcore.

   In general, the Caller ID information is passed to the set in
   ASCII using a 1200 baud modem signal (FSK) sent between the
   first and second rings.

( end of list )

                         ---------

Send future Frequently Asked Questions direct to [e-mail]
and not via any of Telecom Digest's addresses.


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











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24706;
          13 Oct 91 19:50 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25669
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 18:04:36 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11117
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 18:04:25 -0500
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 18:04:25 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #817

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Oct 91 18:04:27 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 817

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    ITU Standards Available Online [Carl Malamud and Michael Schwartz]
    ZZZZZZ Saga to Come (And Request For Disk Space) [Lauren Weinstein]
    Unix ClassMate 10 Caller ID Monitor Daemon Source [Bob Izenberg]
    10xxx vs 950 vs 1-800 [David Lesher]
    Public FAX Machines/Phraud [Paul A. Houle]
    Hayes Compatible ISDN or Switched 56 Card For PC? [Harold Hallikainen]
    Seeking Unicom Expo Opinions [John Boteler]
    Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries [John Higdon]
    Re: Caller-ID Approved in MA [Bob Frankston]
    Re: A New COCOT Scam? (Maybe) [John Nagle]
    Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [John Higdon]
    Re: HBO/Cinemax and Sprint [Marshal Perlman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Michael Schwartz)
Subject: ITU Standards Available Online
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael Schwartz)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 04:27:55 GMT


As announced recently at Interop, the International Telecommunication
Union standards documents (including the CCITT Blue Book) are now
available online.  You can get them by anonymous FTP from
bruno.cs.colorado.edu (soon to be renamed digital.resource.org) in
pub/standards.  There is a HELP file in this directory that explains
what you need to know.  You can also access these documents by sending
mail to [e-mail], with the message body (not
subject line) containing commands to a mail server.  Use the command

    help

to get started.  Alternatively,

    send HELP

will send a more detailed description.

These documents will soon be available at a number of other sites as
well.

Please be aware that the standards on this server are being offered on
an experimental, volunteer basis.  They are currently in a preliminary
state of typesetting conversion.  Please bear with us concerning
imperfections.  The standards are being offered free of charge and we
expressly waive all guarantees and warranties.  If you want a
guaranteed version of the standards, you MUST refer to the printed
versions available for purchase from the International Telecommunication
Union.


Sincerely,

Carl Malamud
Michael Schwartz

The Digital Resource Institute and the Department of Computer Science,
University of Colorado, Boulder

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

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 17:22:44 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: ZZZZZZ Saga to Come (And Request For Disk Space)


Greetings.  There seems to be considerable interest in the early days
of telephone entertainment, in particular as this subject relates to
ZZZZZZ as it existed in L.A. starting over 20 years ago.

The experience of Z involves a wide range of topics related to
TELECOM.  These range from technical (in 1970, all there was to work
with was, as Mr. Spock would say, "zinc-plated, vacuum tube
technology" (well, maybe not *that* bad...), to interactions with
callers, TPC, and the PUC.  The story will have to broken up into a
number of segments and will almost certainly take considerable time
to be completed--so think of it as an old-time movie serial presented
in "exciting" installments (I'm not promising cliff-hangers,
though ...)

Of course, it would be interesting if the readership could actually
hear some of the Z tapes.  Well, that might be worth considering.  One
possibility would be to provide TELECOM with some digitized versions
of a few "classic" Z recordings for FTP access.  I suspect that it
would be best to provide these both in SUN/SPARC format (ulaw, 8192
samples/sec), and in a raw, unsigned byte format (also at 8192) for
everyone else.  However, the Telecom Archives are limited in disk
space, and even with compression these files are going to be fairly
large (average tapes would probably be a couple of minutes of length).

So, before there can be any consideration of providing actual audio,
we'll need to know that there is some FTP point with spare disk that
is willing to hold and provide anonymous access to those files for
TELECOM.  If you have an Internet system that falls into that
category, please let me know and we'll see if a few old tapes can live
again, so to speak, in the digital age.


 --Lauren--

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: Unix ClassMate 10 Caller ID Monitor Daemon Source
Organization: The Happening World
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 04:24:48 GMT


John Temples just posted his source for a Unix daemon that reads the
Caller ID from a ClassMate 10, looks up the number in a database and
displays the name of the caller.  If you don't get alt.sources but
want the program, drop me a line and I'll get you a copy.


Bob

DOMAIN-WISE: [e-mail]  BANG-WISE: ...cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei
UN-WISE: [e-mail]                POUND-FOOLISH: 1 512 346 7019 (voice)

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10xxx vs 950 vs 1-800
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 14:48:53 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


I've just found another reason for FGB access to carriers.  I'm
staying in short term quarters that includes phone service.  Besides
the obvious problem of only one line (primitive, right folks;-?) no
Etherhose, etc, outgoing calls go via the PBX.  (BTW, their AOS is
Metromedia.)

So LD calls must be 8+, even when it is an 8+1+800, while local calls
are 9+. Many a time, all the LD trunks are busy. But the MCI 950-
works just fine.

Variety is the spice of life.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 13:41:52 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Paul A. Houle)
Subject: Public FAX Machines/Phraud


        In the area where I used to live (603), there were a number of
pay fax machines in public libraries and similar places, and some
people in the BBS community discovered a number of methods of phraud
based upon these machines.  Some of these machines contain an
automatic dialer that automatically calls an 800 number, where an
operator picks up the phone and asks for your credit card number,
verifies it, and connects you to your destination fax machine, running
the call through.  I don't know exactly how answer supervision is
handled here, but using fax machines, one could use the carrier tone.

       I discovered that, when the machine was unplugged, one could
pick up the handset and get a regular dial tone.  There is no
touch-tone pad, so it's impossible to dial out normally, but one can
dial by clicking the switchhook, and bopping the switchhook ten times
connects you to an operator, and you can give her the phone number
that you want to dial.  I used this to make a local call just to see
if this could be done, and I mentioned this to a friend.

      Other people in the BBS community in that area later discovered
that there was no toll restriction on those lines, either, so one
could dial two zeros, get an AT&T operator, and then call his phriends
anywhere in the world.  A person armed with a tone dialer would have a
whole spectrum of phraudulent options availible to him -- the 'start a
conference and transfer control to a pay phone' trick, never mind just
calling 900 numbers with a tone dialer just for the hell of it.

      Of course, I can't advocate any of this behavior because it is
illegal or immoral, but public fax machines, like COCOTS, have some
weaknesses against phraud -- and they really could design them quite a
bit better so they both provide better service and are more resistant
to people with evil intent.


[Moderator's Note: The public Fax machine that was installed in the
post office downtown was a sham, security-wise. They had the phone
line plugged into a modular jack mounted on the wall next to it. By
unplugging the Fax machine and plugging in an ordinary phone, you got
dial tone that would get you anywhere. And no one at the post office
seemed to keep an eye on the machine or care who did what over in that
corner of the (relatively, in the wee hours of the morning) deserted
lobby area. The machine was removed a couple months ago and the phone
line -- I assume -- turned off ... but who knows.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Hayes Compatible ISDN or Switched 56 Card For PC?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 04:27:39 GMT


    I wonder about the availability of a card I could plug into a
PC that would look to the PC like a real fast (64 Kbps or 56 Kbps)
Hayes compatible modem.  Anything like this available?  It'd be useful
to me to exchange a few Kbytes of data every hour or so, which could
be done in a call of about a second or so.  Looking at my LD bill, it
looks like a daytime one minute call anywhere in the country costs me
about $0.24.  So, for $0.01, I should be able to do a two second call
and exchange 16 Kbytes of data (for ISDN).

    So, any card like this available?  Are telcos allowing a two
second call (and billing for two seconds).  Does the old two second
"billing delay" apply to ISDN or switched 56 calls?


Harold Hallikainen              [e-mail]
Hallikainen & Friends, Inc.     [e-mail]
141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4      phone [phone] fax [phone]
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590  telex 4932775 HFI UI

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

Subject: Seeking Unicom Expo Opinions
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 21:41:01 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>
Reply-To: csense![e-mail]


If you have attended NATA's Unicom Expo, I would be interested in your
observations of its usefulness, by email preferably.

Does the exhibition floor provide a good breadth of telecom products
in the industry or is this a very narrowly targeted show?

I already live in D.C., the site of Unicom 91, so this will not be one
of those 'get away and party all week' shows.  I save that for Comdex :)


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

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

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 16:31 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries


Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]> writes:

> Can a Remote Call Forward for an existing number assigned to a
> rotary forward multiple calls to the new site/number itself with
> multiple lines grouped into a rotary, or must each line at the
> originating site be Remote Call Forwarded separately? Is a rotary
> group even compatible with Remote Call Forwarding?

This is very confusing. How do you have "Remote Call Forwarding" for
an existing number? RCF is known as "simulated facilities" that allow
a customer to have a number in a given city permanently forwarded to a
number of his choosing. There is no outside plant equipment assigned
to this RCF number. If a number has real facilities (such as an
appearance somewhere) then it cannot have RCF.

A given RCF number can make multiple forwards simultaneously to the
target number which can itself be associated with a rotary (or more
correctly, a hunt group). This generally requires supervision on the
preceding call before the next can be forwarded and on rare occasions
requires a statement to the telco specifying how many lines will be
receiving the calls. But there is no such thing as an RCF hunt group.

Call Forwarding of the ordinary type can be used with a hunt group,
however. If a hunt group member is forwarded, it forwards all calls
and will not jump to the next member. So if you have three lines in a
hunt group and forward the first line somewhere else, the second and
third lines will never ring as a result of calls directed to the first
line.  This is typically used by businesses that have an answering
service that is forwarded to at night.


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

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

From: <frankston![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Approved in MA
Date: 13 Oct 1991 03:18 -0400


I'm puzzled about why it takes so long to implement Caller-ID.  I
realize that there might need to be some tweaking to adjust blocking,
but two years seems to be a long time for this adjustment. Is it that
the software just doesn't work on a DMS-100?

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: A New COCOT Scam? (Maybe)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 17:39:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


       Encountered a COCOT in LA which, when given a long distance
carrier code, responded with "Please deposit ten dollars".


John Nagle

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

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 11:40 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans)


[e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...) writes:

> An acquaintance of mine who used to work at Sprint (in an advertising
> internship) mumbled that MCI's F&F program was in jepoardy because it
> was too complicated to bill (i.e., who's on your list, how many are on
> MCI, etc.).

Mention has been made on this forum about how MCI and Sprint "savings"
plans seem to suddenly disappear without warning or notice of any
kind.  (If AT&T behaved in this manner it would make banner headlines,
but that is another can of worms.) For instance, MCI's "Around Town"
evaporated without a peep and Sprint Plus became the "standard" rate.

My prediction, based on past performance, is that this "Friends and
Family" deal is a temporary promotion designed to increase the PIC
customer base. Sooner or later, it will vanish without notice. People
will discover that there is no longer any 20% discount and calls to
the business office will reveal that for some Good Reason MCI has
discontinued the plan. Some, but not many, will switch back to their
old carrier.

Your post has mentioned a Good Reason for MCI to discontinue the plan.
Of course, it will have all those new PIC customers so everything will
have turned out OK (for MCI anyway) when it is "forced" to drop the
20% discount.

Now if MCI could just channel as much talent and energy into its
network as it does toward its marketing department ...


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Marshal Perlman)
Subject: Re: HBO/Cinemax and Sprint
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 18:46:30 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes:

> An ad appeared in yesterday's {Newsday} (10/9/91) about HBO/Cinemax
> and Sprint offering 100 free minutes using their SprintFone (sp) card
> if a person signed up for either of those cable services.  There was
> also something about 300 free minutes but I just kept on reading the
> paper.

I do not know if you people back east get this (most readers of this
are ... aren't they?), but we have these great books called
"ENTERTAINMENT 92" (or whatever year it is) and it is full of two for one
coupons FOR EVERYTHING, but anyhow ... in the back ... there are two offers
from Sprint: one is for 60 free minutes if you aren't a Sprint customer <if
you become one>, and the other one is 60 free minutes if you are a
Sprint customer ... flat out and simple.

AND UNLIKE THE DEATHSTAR (AT&T), they don't have those dumb
restrictions like "You can only call states with the first letter of
its name being a vowel ... and you can only call on the third rotation
of the solor plexis [isn't that a body part?] on every other
Wednessday ..."


Marshal Perlman   [e-mail]    Huntington Beach, California

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #817
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28847;
          13 Oct 91 21:43 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13237
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 19:57:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26406
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 19:56:57 -0500
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 19:56:57 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #818

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Oct 91 19:55:01 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 818

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [John Higdon]
    Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KX-T123210? [John Higdon]
    Re: Caller ID in Cincinnati [Stan Brown]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [John Higdon]
    Re: AT&T Advertising [John Higdon]
    Re: Making Your Own ISDN [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions List Revised [J.Gao]
    Telecom Archives Index / Access [David L. West]
    The Trouble With Telecom Archives [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 12:28 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?)


[e-mail] (Gordon Burditt) writes:

> A challenge to the Moderator and John Higdon: show me where a
> non-telcom-aware user would find out, *in writing*, that *ALL* 212-540
> numbers carry a charge...

I don't have any copies of NY telephone directories, so answering that
challenge will have to be deferred. However ...

> For that matter, show me where
> one would find out the same thing about 976 or 900 numbers.

 From Pacific Bell White Pages (San Jose-Santa Clara effective through
March 1992), Page A11:

BEGIN {quoted text}
California 900/976 Numbers

These are special numbers which allow you to access information and
entertainment services for a charge. The providers of services, not
Pacific Bell, are responsible for the content of programs.

The charge is set by the information providers and can range from
$0.05 to $20.00 per call for 900 numbers and from $0.20 to $2.00 plus
any applicable long distance charges for 976 numbers. You will be
billed for any 900 and 976 calls under the title "Information
Services" in your monthly bill.

For information on refund of 900 and 976 charges under certain
conditions, see "Consumer Rights and Information" section of this
guide.

Information Services Call Blocking

Most customers can choose to have calls to California 900 and 976
numbers blocked from their telephone line. This means that these
numbers cannot be dialed from your telephones. Residential customers
can order blocking for free. Blocking is not available in all areas.
If you have any questions on blocking please call your local Business
Office.

{and from page A48}
A One-Time Refund of California 900 and 976 Charges

Residential customers are eligible for refund of charges for calls
made to California 900 and 976 numbers. This refund is available
one-time only in most cases under the following conditions:

1. You did not know that you would be charged for the calls.

2. Your minor children made the calls without your permission.

3. Someone made the calls without your authorization.

You must request a refund within 60 days of the bill date on the bill
in question.

We will not disconnect your phone service for non-payment of any 900
and 976 charges. However, you will be responsible for paying charges
not covered by this refund.

END {quoted text}

That all seems rather plain to me. Granted, many people never crack
the front of the phone directory, but whose responsibility is that?
You can lead a horse to water ...

> They've had plenty of time to put information about 900 numbers
> and blocking into the most recent phone book, but they didn't.

It sounds as though you have a beef with Southwestern Bell.

> John Higdon, do the phone books in your local areas warn about
> information service charges on 900 and 976 numbers?

You betcha. You just read it.

> I think phone companies ought to be required to put this information
> in the phone book if they won't do it voluntarily.

I would have thought they all did. My general operating rule of thumb:
if Pacific Bell does something, all other telcos in the country have
been doing it for at least seven years.


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

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

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 13:19 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KX-T123210?


[e-mail] (Jack Winslade) writes:

> >>REAL<< conference bridges are amplified and equalized and deliver
> equal volume to all connections off of the bridge...

> (As a side note, I would be interested in hearing how John H. deals
> with this in his 'party line' bridge.)

There are two general ways to provide the amplification required for a
REAL conference bridge. One is switched gating used by TelLabs and
others. In such a conference, the loudest person speaking effectively
shuts off the transmit side of all the other participants. Only one
transmit is enabled at a time, determined by who is actually speaking.
This has the disadvantage of sounding like a speakerphone, but keeps
the noise level down on the bridge.

The other method is a "mix-minus" system where the transmit side of
each line is amplified and fed to each of the other receive sides, but
not its own. Now this IS a black art, but allows for a conference in
which all participants can be heard at all times, much like a normal
telephone call. This is the method that my party-line uses and it does
require carefully adjusting the level and equalization on each line.

An amusing note: the night the crossbar cut to 5ESS, the party line
bridge went completely to hell. It squealed and howled to beat the
band. I had to do a considerable amount of level and eq readjusting to
get things to quiet down.

Both conferencing methods require precision hybrids to split the two
wire line to a four wire domain.

> Even the 'real' conference bridges are sometimes quirky.  We have a
> System-85 at work with 'real' conferencing, and sometimes it seems
> that the conference circuitry is just on the point of oscillation --
> there is a definite echo in there.

This is obviously a "mix-minus" that needs adjustment.


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

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

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 11:43:09 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: Caller ID in Cincinnati
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)


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

> Cincinnati Bell phone store representatives told me they will not
> offer caller ID until Ohio Bell does.  I wonder if this is because of
> the equipment Cincinnati Bell has is not as advanced at this moment or
> more so because they are just playing the game conservatively.
> Cincinnati tends to be a conservative town.

No, it is because the PUCO (Public Utilities Commission of Ohio) has
not yet approved Caller ID.  If Cincinnati Bell is not a perty to the
hearings (which I don't know), then I would guess they're expecting to
ride in on Ohio Bell's coattails.

Information can be had from:

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
180 East Broad St   Columbus OH  43215
1 800 282 0198; my phone book doesn't say whether that works from
outside Ohio but I would imagine not.


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

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

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 11:49 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card


[e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

> I still think AT&T is silly for not having a 1-800 number for their
> phonecards.  That's why I carry a Sprint card just in case I get
> caught behind a dainbramaged PBX.

That is why I, as the administrator for a number of PBXes, set up the
routing tables to process '0+' calls to AT&T by default. If you use
one of the phones on such a system and you dial '9 + 0 + AC + NUMBER',
you will get the AT&T 'kabong'. The OCCs have their 800 and 950
numbers and you are free to use them if you like.

On those systems that have a PIC other than AT&T, the switch prepends
a '10288' on '0+' calls. This way all cases are covered and '10XXX' is
not even required. And I will be the first to admit that setting up
'10XXX' on a PBX in any secure way is very difficult, if not
impossible.


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

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

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 21:27 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertising


S. Spencer Sun <[e-mail]> writes:

> I've been greatly amused by the AT&T ads since the accident or
> whatever recently ... but this one takes the cake (maybe belongs in
> rec.humor)

> >From this week's {Newsweek}, picture of a guy talking, "I have
> confidence in [AT&T] -- I've never had a problem.  I mean, why fix
> something that's not broken?"

> <snicker>

Hee hee, yourself. What amuses ME is the hay that the OCCs try to make
on AT&T's liberally publicized failures. Over the past decade, there
has been exactly one total system outage and one or two regional AT&T
outages that have received press attention. MCI and Sprint have been
very quick to crow and gloat over this, but conveniently leave out the
fact that their systems suffer almost constant minor outages of their
own.

For some reason, the press seems to be uninterested (because it
happens so often?) in the numerous Sprint "fiber cuts" or the
mysterious call incompletions that plague MCI, Sprint, and all the
others who own and operate networks. And what is worse than the actual
outages is the cavalier attitude that a network failure is of about
the same importance as a grocery store running out of a particular
brand of dog food.

Well, after all, you can always use AT&T if nothing else works.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Making Your Own ISDN
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 05:32:24 GMT


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

> the thought behind all of this is that the ISDN technology would make
> it easier, in the long run, to interconnect various parts of a
> repeater system with some form of standardization.  Being digital, the
> ISDN signal could even be sent over the air with no change in sound
> quality.  While I have seen catalogs of interesting looking ISDN IC's,

    I think the problem area here is that the ISDN data being sent
down the twisted pair is real high speed digital (as I recall, it'll
be at least 128 Kbps to handle the 64 Kbps voice in each direction,
plus the signalling in each direction).  If you just drop this into a
typical FM transmitter (going around preemphasis networks and audio
band limit networks, and ignoring restricted RF bandwidth of the
transmitter), you end up with a REAL WIDE RF signal.  I'd guess that
some more efficient modulation technique could be used to get the
bandwidth down to something suitable for UHF use (my favorite
modulation technique is QAM).

    I've always thought the amateur community should use some of
the higher frequency bands (10 GHz and up) to set up a digital
backbone.  They could provide the equivalent of DS1 or DS3 circuits
going point to point around the country.  The ends of these links
would be handed over to the amateur computer community (such as Fido
Net), who would handle traffic routing, etc.  The equivalent of the
telco "local loop" would be the local ham repeater, which links the
local operator into the backbone (equivalent to the long distance
carrier).  At the real high frequencies, a simpler modulation
technique could be used (perhaps FSK), since more spectrum is
available.

    Just some thoughts ...


Harold

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

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 20:08:12 EST
From: [e-mail] (J.Gao)
Subject: Re: FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions List Revised


In comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Moderator wrote:

> Dave Leibold has sent along the second edition (first revision) to the
> Telecom FAQ list. I'm getting it edited up now, and will try to have
> it available in the archives over the weekend sometime, as well as out

Where is this archives, please?

> in circulation here as a special mailing. New subscribers on the list
> will receive it automatically when they sign up beginning around the
> first of the week.

How can I subscribe to it?


Thanks,

J. Gao


[Moderator's Note: By now you should have received a copy of the FAQ
for telecom. It was sent out to the mailing list on Sunday afternoon
and put in the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup at the same time. A copy
was also placed in the Telecom Archives. If you did not get a copy in
your mail (if you are on the telecom mailing list) or in today's feed
of comp.dcom.telecom to your site, then you can get a copy from the
Archives or by writing to me. New subscribers to the mailing list will
automatically get a copy sent out as part of the autoreply to new
readers.  For more information on the Archives, see the next message. PAT]

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

Date: Tue,  8 Oct 91 08:05:34 EDT
From: [e-mail] (David L West)
Subject: Telecom Archives Index / Access


Pat,

     You are probably tired of hearing this, but I could sure use a
tutorial on how to obtain an Index of the material stored in the
Telecom-Digest Archives, and additionally, access to the same.


[Moderator's Note: Sometime Sunday evening I plan to send out a new
version of the Telecom Archives index (when requesting files via
anonymous ftp) and a copy of the help file for reference when asking
for files via the mail/ftp service operated especially for telecom by
one of our readers. It will go to the mailing list as well as to the
comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup. Read the next message for a little more
background on the Archives.   PAT]

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Trouble With Telecom Archives
Date: Sun 13 Oct 1991 19:10 CDT


Later this evening I will be sending out the most recent index to the
Telecom Archives, along with a help file on how to obtain the archives
files using an email/ftp service provided by one of our readers. Of
course, anonymous ftp can also be used, as will be explained in the
file.

But for now, I want to address a problem with the archives that makes
them difficult to use, and ask for the assistance of someone who is
experienced in programming to help alleviate the problem.

For some time, I've wanted to see an index to the back issues of the
Digest. This might be difficult to construct for issues prior to
Volume 9 because of lack of standardization in many of the early
issues. But everything from 1989 forward was done the same way. We
need to have all the old issues broken up into individual files (there
are currently fifty issues per file). We need to have an index which
allows cross reference checking by article name (what author wrote it,
what volume and issue it was in plus subsequent <re>plies); by author
name (what articles were written, what issues the articles appeared
in); by volume and issue (what articles were in that issue and who
wrote them); and by keyword (a dozen or so common words which appear
in article titles -- what volumes and issues had those keywords in the
subect index.) We would apply it to *all* the old issues, with the
understanding it would be complete from volume 9 forward and catch-
as-catch-can prior to that point. A big task? You bet! And I cannot do
it myself ... yet the archives is growing to the point that it is now
very cumbersome and unweildy trying to search for things.

In the old days, when we had an issue every couple days, the telecom-
recent file (the most recent issues until fifty have accumulated) took
a couple months to fill. Now it fills every two or three weeks. If you
want to get a single missing back issue, you've got to pull many, many
megabytes across the net just to get one thing. This has to change, or
very soon, the archives will be worthless as far as retrieval of back
issues of the Digest is concerned.

I'm open to your comments, in private mail which won't be published in
the Digest.  I'm more interested in someone actually *doing* it
instead of just talking about it.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #818
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05650;
          14 Oct 91 0:33 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16179
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 20:56:27 -0500
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 20:56:27 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Exploring the Telecom Archives


The Telecom Archives is a large repository of files relating to
telephony. In addition to over ten years of back issues of TELECOM
Digest (a/k/a TELECOM Digest), the archives contains numerous files of
interest on specific topics relating to telecommunications.

The archives can be accessed two ways:

1) Anonymous FTP:

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

     Then use regular FTP commands for your session. There are several
     sub-directories devoted to various topics such as security.

2) Email, using an email/ftp server:

     A service to obtain archives files via email has been made
     available specifically for readers of comp.dcom.telecom and
     TELECOM Digest who do not have ftp access at their site.

     Caution: Users at UUCP sites should consult the administrator
     at their site *before* pulling some the *huge* telecom files
     back to their site. Since UUCP sites cooperate with one another
     in matters such as the cost of phone lines, transmission times
     and such, your administator may not want to alienate the
     neighbors by hauling humongous mail back and forth. Clear it
     first!

Various email/ftp servers will work, but here is a help file for the
one I recommend.

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

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

Here is a help file, prepared by Doug Davis:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Command: send index

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

Mailing addresses:

  [e-mail]:      The mail server itself

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

  [e-mail]:                         My address.


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

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


doug
(Mon May 27 1991)


[Moderator's Note: Doug has not mentioned to me if this part of the
job is finished yet as of today (10-13-91).  PAT]

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

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

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

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


total 3340    (as of 10-13-91)
drwxrwxr-x 12 telecom  telecom      5632 Oct 13 21:13 ./
drwxrwxr-x 24 root     wheel        1024 Oct 13 01:03 ../
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Mar  2  1991 1981-86.volumes.1-5/
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Mar  2  1991 1987.volumes.6-7/
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Mar  2  1991 1988.volume.8/
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Mar  2  1991 1989.volume.9/
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Mar  2  1991 1990.volume.10/
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Oct  8 23:51 1991.volume.11/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       663 Jan 27  1991 READ.ME.FIRST
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     25799 Sep 12  1990 abernathy.internet.story
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     68508 Mar 14  1991 aos-new.fcc.proposals
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     68224 Nov 20  1990 aos-rules.procedures
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     60505 Feb 24  1991 apple.data.pcs.petition
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     18238 Nov  9  1990 area.214-903.split
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     35017 Mar  2  1991 areacode.guide
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9397 Mar  2  1991 areacode.program.in.c
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20826 Mar  3  1991 areacode.script-c.moore
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21264 Apr 14  1990 areacode.script-dupuy
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9078 Mar  2  1991 areacode.script-revised
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       474 Feb 11  1990 att.service.outage.1-90
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     18937 Aug  1  1989 auto.coin.collection
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      4788 Jun 10  1990 books.about.phones
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21702 Nov 20  1990 braux.bill.call.blocking
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     61504 Jul 30  1990 caller-id-legal-decision
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      4569 Apr 14  1991 caller-id-specs.bellcore
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39449 Dec 14  1990 cellular.carrier.codes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16188 Mar 14  1991 cellular.fraud.abernathy
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2755 Mar 14  1991 cellular.fraud.prevention
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     17016 Aug  5  1990 cellular.phones-iridium
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24455 Feb  6  1991 cellular.program-motorola
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     15141 Aug  1  1989 cellular.sieve
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       298 May 31  1990 cellular.west.germany
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16292 Mar 18  1990 class.ss7.features
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15023 Sep 30  1990 cocot-in-violation-label
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     38981 Oct 12  1990 cocot.complaint.sticker
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     70477 Sep  5  1990 computer.bbs.and.the.law
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     23944 Aug  1  1989 computer.state
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      9150 Jan 31  1990 country.code.list
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11370 Feb  9  1990 country.codes.revised
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11267 Feb 25  1990 cpid-ani.developments
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       436 Mar 16  1991 deaf.communicate.on.tdd
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15877 Sep  1  1990 dial.tone.monopoly
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     28296 Sep 29  1990 dialup.access.in.uk
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39319 Aug  1  1989 docket.87-215
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13622 Aug 18 21:42 e-mail.system.survey
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16367 Sep  1  1990 e-series.recommendations
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      3422 Jan 20  1990 early.digital.ESS
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     62602 Aug  1  1989 ecpa.1986
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     97987 Aug  4  1990 ecpa.1986.federal.laws
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39956 Jul 14  1990 elec.frontier.foundation
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      5922 Feb 22  1991 email.middle-east.troops
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20660 Sep  5  1990 email.privacy
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8504 Jan 27  1990 enterprise-funny-numbers
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8234 Sep 26 16:59 exploring.950-1288
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     19836 Nov 20  1990 fax.products.for.pc
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     33239 Aug  1  1989 fcc.policy
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     19378 Aug  1  1989 fcc.threat
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       484 Jan 14  1990 fcc.vrs.aos-ruling
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      9052 Aug  1  1989 find.pair
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     47203 Aug  1  1989 fire.in.chgo.5-88
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1998 Jan 27  1990 fire.in.st-louis.1-90
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       377 Jan 27  1990 fires.elsewhere.in.past
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1247 Feb 10  1990 first.issue.cover
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24825 Oct 13 16:39 frequently.asked.question
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14105 Nov 24  1990 genie.star-service
-rw-r--r--  1 map      telecom    117277 Sep 21 22:20 glossary.acronyms
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     43101 Jan 27  1991 glossary.isdn.terms-kluge
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     42188 Jan 14  1990 glossary.phrack.acronyms
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67113 Jan 14  1990 glossary.txt
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     68804 Feb  2  1990 hi.perf.computing.net
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2337 Jan 27  1990 history.of.digest
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32625 Mar 29  1990 how.numbers.are.assigned
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     31520 Aug 11 01:49 how.phones.work
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15302 Jan 20  1991 how.to.post.msgs.here
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1616 Nov 20  1990 index-canada.npa.files
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       411 Nov 20  1990 index-minitel.files
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     10406 Oct 13 21:13 index-telecom.archives
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1861 Sep 20 23:15 index-telecom.security
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       343 Jan 20  1991 index-tymnet.info
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       936 Mar  3  1991 intro.to.archives
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12896 Nov 20  1990 isdn.pc.adapter-hayes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     10590 Aug 11 01:50 lata.names-numbers.table
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      4816 Aug  1  1989 lauren.song
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom       801 Aug  1  1989 ldisc.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      2271 Aug  1  1989 ldnotes.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     13675 Aug  1  1989 ldrates.txt
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12961 Aug 18 21:42 lightning.surge.protect
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12260 Jan 20  1990 london.ac.script
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12069 Mar  5  1990 london.codes.script
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15604 Aug  1  1989 mass.lines
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom       463 Aug  1  1989 measured-service
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Nov 20  1990 minitel.info/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     36641 Aug  1  1989 mnp.protocol
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2450 Jan 20  1990 modems.and.call-waiting
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     29973 Aug 11 01:58 monitor.soviet.xmissions
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      7597 Feb 10  1990 named.exchanges
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16590 Oct 21  1990 net.mail.guide
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      3014 Jan 27  1990 newuser.letter
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32815 Mar 25  1990 nine.hundred.service
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     34805 Jul 30 00:57 npa.301-410.split
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2795 Aug  3 16:09 npa.510.sed.script
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     45105 Mar  2  1991 npa.800-carriers.assigned
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     30091 Jul 23 19:27 npa.800.carrier.list
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13779 Sep 19  1990 npa.800.prefixes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     45109 Mar  2  1991 npa.800.revised
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     33440 May 12  1990 npa.809.prefixes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15488 Nov 20  1990 npa.900-carriers.assigned
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15099 Mar  8  1991 npa.900.how.assigned
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Feb  2  1991 npa.exchange.list-canada/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16534 Feb 11  1990 nsa.original.charter-1952
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9886 Jan 23  1990 occ.10xxx.access.codes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      6847 Mar  2  1991 occ.10xxx.list.updated
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      7714 Jul 23 19:26 occ.10xxx.new.revision
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8593 May  5  1990 occ.10xxx.notes.updates
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14354 Aug 12  1990 octothorpe.gets.its.name
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8504 Jan 27  1990 old.fashioned.coinphones
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      2756 Jan 27  1990 old.hello.msg
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     60707 Aug 18 21:44 pager.bin.uqx
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13079 Aug 22 01:34 pager.ixo.example
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     70153 Aug  1  1989 pc.pursuit
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      5492 Aug  1  1989 pearl.harbor.phones
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11489 Sep 29 20:07 phone.home-usa
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     28922 Aug 11 01:49 phone.patches
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     38772 Aug  1  1989 pizza.auto.nmbr.id
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14189 May  6 02:39 radio-phone.interfere.1
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11696 May  6 02:40 radio-phone.interfere.2
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8452 May  6 02:40 radio-phone.interfere.3
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     17950 Jan 14  1990 rotenberg.privacy.speech
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      4184 Jul 27 23:58 sprint.long-dist.rates
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20526 Jun 11 00:32 st.louis.phone.outage
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9764 Jan 20  1990 starline.features
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     46738 Jan 18  1990 starlink.vrs.pcp
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    103069 Apr 26  1990 sysops.libel.liability
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      3857 Aug  1  1989 tat-8.fiber.optic
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     27533 Feb  9  1990 telco.name.list.formatted
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     31487 Jan 28  1990 telco.name.listing
-rw-rw-r--  1 ptownson telecom    320013 Oct 13 19:51 telecom-recent
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       610 Sep  5 01:00 telecom-recent.read.first
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Sep 20 23:17 telecom.security.issues/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21831 Jan 20  1991 telsat-canada-report
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     11752 Aug  1  1989 telstar.txt
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     18138 Sep 29 19:58 toll-free.tolled.list
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Dec 10  1990 tymnet.information/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     26614 May 29  1990 unitel-canada.ld.service
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       427 Sep 20 22:59 usa.direct.service
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       116 Oct 22  1990 white.pages
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     37947 Aug  1  1989 wire-it-yourself
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      4101 Aug  1  1989 wiring.diagram
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24541 Aug  1  1989 zum.debate

Next is the index for the directory of telecom security issues:

total 1025
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Sep 20 23:15 ./
drwxrwxr-x 12 telecom  telecom      5632 Sep 20 23:14 ../
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24515 Sep  3 02:06 atm-bank.fraud
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      6144 Mar 14  1991 cellular.fraud.abernathy
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2755 Mar 14  1991 cellular.fraud.prevention
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13343 Feb 25  1990 computer.fraud.abuse.act
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     27395 Jun 23  1990 craig.neidorf.indictment
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9354 Jul 30  1990 craig.not.guilty
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67190 Jun 23  1990 crime.and.puzzlement
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     62602 Aug 12  1990 ecpa.1986
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     97987 Aug 12  1990 ecpa.1986.federal.laws
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21918 Dec  2  1990 illinois.computer.laws
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom         0 Sep 20 23:15 index-telecom.security
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     28935 May 19  1990 jolnet-2600.magazine.art
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     30751 Mar  7  1990 jolnet-attctc.crackers
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     43365 Jan 28  1990 kevin.polsen
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     35612 Apr  1  1990 legion.of.doom
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20703 Aug 12  1990 len.rose-legion.of.doom
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2516 Jun 14 01:03 len.rose.in.prison
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    184494 Jun 22 22:04 len.rose.indictment-1
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    192078 Jun 22 22:05 len.rose.indictment-2
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67099 Nov  4  1990 telecom.usa.call.block-1
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     31995 Nov 20  1990 telecom.usa.call.block-2
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     10833 Nov 20  1990 telecom.usa.call.block-3
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14821 Sep 12  1990 war.on.computer.crime

There are several other directories not included in this article,
dealing with Minitel, Canadian areacodes/prefixes, and other things.

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

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

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


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14781;
          15 Oct 91 2:29 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09407
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 00:41:55 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18018
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 00:41:46 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 00:41:46 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #819

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Oct 91 00:41:35 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 819

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine [Robert L. McMillin]
    Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine [Nick Reid]
    Re: Phone Listening Crimes [Mike Morris]
    Re: Phone Listening Crimes [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [Roy Smith]
    Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [Mark Fulk]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [S. Spencer Sun]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Roy Smith]
    Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries [David Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 17:13:43 PDT
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine


Charlie Rosenberg <[e-mail]> asks about RFI suppressors:

> Recently all the messages left on my answering machine have the same
> radio station playing in the background.  [additional stuff deleted]

> I am more than happy to buy a suppressor, but any suggestions as to
> what I should buy?

AT&T makes one that works quite well.  Ask for their Radio Frequency
Interference (RFI) filter at an AT&T Phone Center.  It fixed a problem
I had with a modem and a clear-channel radio station that was nearly
in my back yard.

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Reid)
Subject: Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine
Organization: Oregon State University, CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 08:14:59 GMT


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

> Recently all the messages left on my answering machine have the same
> radio station playing in the background.  Last time I had this
> problem, I call repair service and they gave me a new line and the
> the store and put a "supressor" on my phone.  I said, "what kind of a
> suppressor"?  They said, "Just go to the store and ask for one, you

An RF filter which AT&T call a "Z100A" filter (or equivalent).  About
$14.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Phone Listening Crimes
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 19:33:41 GMT


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

>    This reminds me of the occasional "party line" that would
> occur when I was in high school (years and years ago).  One night, I
> discovered that I could hear other people on the phone when I dialed a
> friend whose line was busy.  I could also talk to these people.
> Rather than rely on my friend being on the phone, I dialed my own
> number, getting a busy.

>    My guess as to what was happening had to do with the impedance
> of the busy tone generator.  I guessed that all of us who got a busy
> number were physically swithced to the busy tone generator, which
> would ideally be a zero ohm voltage source.  Any impedance above zero
> ohms would allow crosstalk between the callers.  I seem to recall us
> high school kids also discovering a number that just gave us a quiet
> line that we could also all call and talk.  This was probably a
> crossbar switch (1967 or so, Pac Bell in the SF east bay).  I guess
> that now busy tone is generated using dsp techniques?  Just send a
> bunch of numbers to the subscriber D/A converter?

This was very popular with the local kids up until they went from step
to ESS on the 446 and 447 exchanges. I know this was in the 1975-1985
time frame, perhaps earlier.

There would be notes on the bulletin boards all over town telling the
kids to call their own numbers at precisely 7pm (doubtless to load the
busy generator) for a "party line".  Apparently they used the same
busy generator for both exchanges.

I always thought that if I could turn up a large enough conference
bridge surplus I could have some fun.  Now the 976 people have done
the same thing.


Mike Morris   WA6ILQ    818-447-7052 evenings
PO Box 1130   Arcadia, CA. 91077

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

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 13:00:36 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: Phone Listening Crimes
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


Related to crosstalk, but definitely a better connection ...  ;-)

A long time ago in another life in a galaxy far away (ca. 1971 or so)
I was served by one of Ma Bell's aging 'panel' switching offices.
This system had some amazing quirks, one of which was to dump you
right into the middle of an existing conversation.

This did not happen often, but occasionally.  It seemed to happen in
two cases.  One was when the receiver was picked up.  Instead of dial
tone, there was a muted connection to another conversation in
progress.  I would usually say 'hello' into the transmitter, but could
not get a response.  Hanging up and going back off hook would clear
this.  (Although not guaranteeing a quick dial tone next try.)

Another case was when a number was dialed on the same switch.  After
the last number was dialed and the call should have been set up, just
before the ringback or busyback should have occurred, there was a loud
'clunk' and a three-way connection was made into an existing
conversation, sometimes with a lot of noise as well.  ('Hello ??'
'Who the hell is this ??'  'What are you doing on our phone ??' etc.)
These were infrequent, but they happened a number of times.  Again
hanging up and retrying resulted in a successful ring, a busy, or any
of several other quirky failed call indications.

One particular case I remember quite well.  The panel switch had a
quirk where on a busy line, it would not return busy tone immediately
but would give one or two cycles of ringing tone (sometimes with busy
tone in the background) followed by a 'clunk' and a normal busy tone.
(A CO tech said this was common and was due to dirty contacts.)  I
dialed the number of a friend of mine in the same switch (crossing my
fingers as usual, hoping the call would go through) and just before
the ring/and/or busy should have occurred, I heard maybe three seconds
or so of a conversation between two friends of mine quite distinctly.
I yelled into the transmitter, but it cut to busy tone in just a few
seconds.  I mentioned the incident to them, and yes, they were talking
at that time, no they did not hear me in there, and maybe they heard
some clicks, but those were so common they could not say so for sure.

So thus endeth Yet Another Story about an incident that got me
interested in this stuff in the first place.  ;-)


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: Mon, 14 Oct 91 13:24:49 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?)
Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York)


[e-mail] (Gordon Burditt) writes:

> show me where a non-telcom-aware user would find out, *in writing*,
> that *ALL* 212-540 numbers carry a charge...

John Higdon replies:

> I don't have any copies of NY telephone directories, so answering that
> challenge will have to be deferred. However ...

    My curiosity (and sense of outrage) piqued, I just grabbed my
1989-1990 Manhattan Area Code 212 NYNEX White Pages (sorry, couldn't
find this year's; I can't imagine things have changed much) and
perused the 56 pages of fine print before the listings.  Didn't find
any mention of 540 numbers being anything special.  In fact, the only
mentions of the 540 exchange I found at all were in the listings of
phone numbers to call to speak to your Residence or Business Service
Representitive.  In both listings, the 540 exchange appears perfectly
ordinary.  Are there really residential customers in the 212-540
exchange!?

    I even went one step further, I dialed "0" (from my 718 area
code residence phone) and asked the NYTel operator who answered for
the place-name (a buzzword I picked up here) for 212-540.  I was told
that that wasn't a call NYTel handled so she couldn't tell me.  Upon
enquiring further how I could find out where it was, she suggested I
call my business office.  I tried again and got a different operator
who asked if I got that number from "the paper".  I said "yes", and
she said it was a "customer dialable number", or something like that.
Pressing the issue, I asked her (politely) what that meant, and she
said there would be an extra charge.  Ah ha!  56 pages of fine print
and two determined phone calls later, I finally found out that 212-540
was something special.


[e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Fulk)
Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?)
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 13:53:32 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt) writes:

>> A challenge to the Moderator and John Higdon: show me where a
>> non-telcom-aware user would find out, *in writing*, that *ALL* 212-540
>> numbers carry a charge...

> From Pacific Bell White Pages (San Jose-Santa Clara effective through
> March 1992), Page A11:

Long quote of Pac Bell white pages, explaining 900/976 billing,
deleted.

>> I think phone companies ought to be required to put this information
>> in the phone book if they won't do it voluntarily.

> I would have thought they all did. My general operating rule of thumb:
> if Pacific Bell does something, all other telcos in the country have
> been doing it for at least seven years.

I have a counterexample to this claim.  I just searched the 40 pages
of information in the front of the 1991 Rochester Telephone (NY) white
pages, as well as the 24 pages of government and 800 number listings
after that, and found no references whatsoever to 900 or 976 numbers.
I read all the titles and topic sentences of paragraphs, so if that
information is there, it is really buried.  This is surprising, since
the local news shows have covered 900 number problems a few times
already.

Fine print really angers me.  Anything in the front matter of a phone
book, beyond the first page, is fine print as far as I am concerned.
If I read every long explanatory pamphlet I received from Sprint, the
phone company, my credit card holders, the other utilities, the
various taxing agencies, the manufacturers of my cars, my banks,
insurance providers, and mail order companies, I wouldn't have much
time left for anything else.  For telephone information, I would have
to memorize a bunch of stuff so as to not run into trouble when I
didn't have my phone book handy.  If I happened to read that 212-540
numbers were service providers, I would probably forget that
information; it wouldn't be worth remembering because I would have no
reason ever to call such a number.

Fortunately, most of these companies bother to make important
information available easily, generally by posting it near the point
of use.  For example, L.L. Bean's return policy and shipping rates are
printed next to the order form in their catalog.  Citibank Mastercard
puts its current finance charges on every bill.


Mark Fulk

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Date: 14 Oct 91 02:43:07 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


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

> Ron Newman <[e-mail]>, <frankston![e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead), [e-mail],
> [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun), [e-mail] (Stan
> Brown), Carl Moore <[e-mail]>, Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>

> [and a host of others take either the Moderator or myself to task
> for suggesting that the 900/976/540/10XXX700/whathaveyou business is a
> non-problem.]

> Now my question to all of you: who has actually HAD TO PAY such a
> charge after making a reasonable attempt to get it removed from the
> bill? 100% of you? 50% of you? One of you? Anyone you know? Anyone you
> have ever heard of?

> Come on folks. Is this REALLY a problem? Or is it an exercise in "what
> ifs"?

So what you're saying is, as long as the victim succeeds in getting
the charge removed, nothing should be done to the perpetrator?  What
an enlightened view.

Ever notice what happens with credit card fraud?  The specific example
I have in mind is when your card gets stolen and the scum that finds
it starts using it to buy stuff.  I'm sure the companies and the
police do not settle for just removing the charge from the victim's
bill.

Let me add one more thing here ... I had a talk with the friend I
mentioned (we usually consult each other about heavy matters <grin>)
and the basic point he was making was that it is not the
responsibility of the government to protect people from their own
stupidity.  Maybe so ... I suppose we'll get the "legal" answer when
this court case gets settled.

I still stick to my point though, that there is a difference between
someone not knowing anything through stupidity, and someone not
knowing something because it was unreasonable for the person to know
it.  (Oh, same friend, the one who is legally-connected, mentioned
that the NY phone company would pretty much HAVE to include the info
that one will be charged for calling 540 numbers, which is what I was
saying too...)


[S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - [e-mail]]
[WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis,38.4k)]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 10:40:15 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?
Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York)


I'm afraid I've lost track of who originally said this:

> Hell, I know about '540' and I have not been to NY in over ten years. Is
> the contention here that people who live in NY go around with blindfolds
> on and cotten stuffed in their ears?

    That's about the most asinine thing I've read in a long time.
I've lived and/or worked in NYC for 14 years and have lived in or near
NYC all my life.  I'm tuned into this sort of stuff more than most
people.  I'm not a phone wizard by the standards of the folks that
inhabit comp.dcom.telecom but I would guess I know more about
telephony than 99 out of 100 random people.  I certainly don't go
around with blindfolds on and cotton stuffed in my ears.  Until this
topic came up on this forum, if you showed me a 540 phone number out
of context (i.e. on my beeper display, assuming I had a beeper, as
opposed to on a sign in the subway advertising aural sex) it would
never occur to me it would be anything unusual.


[e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 20:39:52 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


J.H said:

> This is very confusing. How do you have "Remote Call Forwarding" for
> an existing number? RCF is known as "simulated facilities" that allow
> a customer to have a number in a given city permanently forwarded to a
> number of his choosing. There is no outside plant equipment assigned
> to this RCF number. If a number has real facilities (such as an
> appearance somewhere) then it cannot have RCF.

Alas, John is again suffering from Pac*Bell disease. Several other
regionals, including BS in FL. are now offering RCF that consists of
Remote-Controlled Call Forwarding on a real assignment. I thinks it's
about 1.5* the cost of old CF.  In recent weeks BS changed the name in
their ads, likely to reduce customer confusion. After all, if CDT is
confused, think of the public;-}


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #819
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17782;
          15 Oct 91 3:21 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23689
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 01:34:37 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29333
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 01:34:25 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 01:34:25 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #820

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Oct 91 01:34:17 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 820

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Caller ID Availability [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: CNID Availability Newsletter [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: Caller-ID Approved in MA [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Even More 5ESS Woes [Tad Cook]
    Re: Telephone Wire Staples [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Telephone Wire Staples [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: What's the Caller ID Spec? [S. Spencer Sun]
    Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [David G. Lewis]
    Re: Charge on 800 Calls [Edwin D. Windes]
    Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 [Mike Morris]
    Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking [S. Spencer Sun]
    Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs? [Mike Berger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Scott Hinckley)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Availability
Date: 14 Oct 91 12:52:25 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> I recently saw in the September issue of Radio Electronic on page 67
> that CLID was available in the following states; AL, CA, FL, GA, IL,
> IN, MD, ME, MI, NC, NE, NJ, NV, OH, OK, SC, TN, VA, VT, WV.

It is not available in AL yet either. (The PSC OK'd it, but with the
per-line/call block required as an option. SCB then decided it wasn't
worth doing.)


VoiceNet:Scott Hinckley | ATTnet:[phone]  | VW & Apple Forever!
Internet:[e-mail] | UUCP:...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott
US snail:110 Pine Ridge Rd / Apt# 608/ Huntsville / AL / 35801
DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions

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

Subject: Re: CNID Availability Newsletter
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 14:46:33 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> csense![e-mail]
(John Boteler) writes:

> Although there ain't no free lunch, those who wish to keep abreast of
> the progress of Calling Number ID around the nation (better than Radio
> Electronics:) might wish to try out a newsletter advertised in the
> back of "Voice Processing" magazine -- for free.

I just called about this newsletter.  Only the first issue is free,
then they want you to pay for a subscription.

Future callers may want to bear that in mind if they are expecting
more than one free issue.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Approved in MA
Date: 14 Oct 91 18:22:00 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


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

> I'm puzzled about why it takes so long to implement Caller-ID.  I
> realize that there might need to be some tweaking to adjust blocking,
> but two years seems to be a long time for this adjustment. Is it that
> the software just doesn't work on a DMS-100?

Simpler than that.  CallerID requires Signaling System 7 to deliver
the caller's number, and the "presentation restricted" indication, to
the destination office.  New England Telephone is just getting around
to beginning to install SS7 in Massachusetts, starting at the North
Shore and not hitting Boston for a while.


Fred R. Goldstein   Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA
[e-mail]  voice: [phone]
Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?

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

From: [e-mail] (Terry Kennedy)
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Date: 14 Oct 91 21:16:03 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


  Due to my posting here about 201-200, I received a message from
someone at AT&T who offered to help in any way he could with the
problem. As my co-worker only has a single residence line, I instead
forwarded the message to the telecommunications manager for the other
college (the one with many thousands of Centrex lines on the noisy
switch). I'll keep the group informed -- the AT&T supervisor seemed
quite eager to assist.


     Terry Kennedy           Operations Manager, Academic Computing
     [e-mail]     St. Peter's College, US
     [e-mail]    [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 16:37:04 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In two cases here in the Omaha area, systems have converted to the
5ESS with corresponding modem problems.  Fortunately over time, all
problems were resolved.

In 1985 or so, the West Center office converted from a 5 crossbar to a
5ESS.  Following this, I received a deluge of complaints from users in
that office of line noise on the BBS line.  Similarly, calls to that
office from all over the area would frequently result in noisy
connections.  For over a year, the Omaha prefixes of 333, 334, and 330
had the reputation of being 'BAD' BBS prefixes.

Just over a year ago, the 156th. St. office (the one that serves our
area) cut from a very clean 1AESS to a 5ESS.  Almost immediately this
was accompanied with a flood of 'noisy line' complaints from BBS
users.  What was funny was that many local calls were dirty, even at
lower speeds, but LD calls on both AT&T and Sprint were quite clean.

Several of the users phoned in repeated 'line noise' complaints to Ma
Bell and feedback from some Ma Bell employees confirmed such things as
trunk interface units connected improperly.  Eventually the new office
became as clean as, if not cleaner than the old one.

As of now, all lines that I know of from both of these 5ESS systems
are clean.  Personally, I think there is less background
hiss/loss/distortion on the 5ESS than there was on the 1AESS.  When
the cut was made, I did several test calls, and in many cases I could
hear noise and distortion.

The one thing I have noticed is that the dial tone on both the 1AESS
and the 5ESS out here in the west part of the city sounds 'dirtier'
than it did when I lived closer in and had service on a 1ESS and a 1
crossbar.  Holding the receiver just slightly away from the ear
reveals a definite raspy quality (possibly harmonics or just plain
noise) which was not there on the older switches.


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)

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

Subject: Re: Even More 5ESS Woes
From: hpubvwa![e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 14 Oct 91 07:19:49 GMT


John Higdon <[e-mail]> sez:

> My direct experience with digital CO switches is limited (for obvious
> reasons, living in Pac*Bell Land), but I am advised by those in the
> know that there is no known generic available for the 5ESS that
> allows reception of Call Waiting during a Three Way call. Since I do
> not doubt your powers of observation, there can only be one
> explanation: you, Pat, are not served by a 5ESS.

Wrong!  I am served at home by a #5ESS by US West.  Take my word for
it.  It IS a #5ESS!  I just did a test.  I called up our now famous
800-555-5555 and then hookflashed, called a local weather number from
KOMO TV/Radio, then hookflashed again to conference.  I listened to
both recordings babbling away on my speaker phone, then picked up
another phone on my other line and dialed the line I was conferenced
on.  I heard a call waiting tone.

I also do not experience the problems that John Higdon does with his
#5ESS.  The audio is great, the switching is fast, and they just
hooked up some kind of backbone between the switches in town (SS7?)
and the ringback tone starts the instant I go buttons-up on the last
digit ... even in other exchanges.


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: Sun, 13 Oct 91 18:09:42 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jim Redelfs)
Subject: Re: Telephone Wire Staples
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


Paul Selig wrote:

> can anyone name a source for the cable staplers (and staples) that
> telephone installers use?

We use staple guns manufactured by Arrow.  The T18 model using T18
staples (rounded for quad wire, also marked "Monel") is what I use
most often.  The T25 model uses a larger, rounded staple.  Those
staples come in either 7/16 or 9/16-inch lengths -- suitable for
fastening three to six pair station wire.


JR    Tabby 2.2
MacNet Omaha [phone]  -  O.M.U.G. On-Line    (1:285/14)

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Wire Staples
Date: 15 Oct 91 01:32:32 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


> The T-25 size is good for 4 and 6 pair and RG-59 Coax
> The T-75 size is used for 25 pair cable and RG-8 Coax
> Ethernet Coax cable, speaker wires and even RS-232 cables.

Some folks NEVER staple COAX. Some folks are less particular ...

> The staples are available as shiny plated metal or painted "beige"

Some sizes are also available in MONEL for a LOT more money. They will
NOT rust and are popular for outdoor use near salt water.

If you only have a small amount of work to do once, try a tool rental
yard.

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: What's the Caller ID Spec?
Date: 14 Oct 91 02:45:25 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


Incidentally, another friend of mine mentioned that a friend of HIS
built a kludge caller-ID to computer interface ... he hooked wires up
to the LED's or whatever in the display, then sent these signals to
the computer.  The computer then determined the actual digits by
checking to see which segments of the display digit were lit up.

(Not a very useful post but perhaps interesting ... I found it kinda
neat.)


[S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - [e-mail] ]
[WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 13:45:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tiny
Bubbles...) writes:

> AT&T people: From your perspective, how difficult would it really be
> to implement the billing for something like that?  How much harder
> would it be than standard billing or Reach Out billing?

Well ain't that just typical.  Let's ask the AT&T folks to answer the
tough technical questions, then use their answers to grab market
share ...  (That was a joke, by the way.  Don't get mad, Bob.)

Gosh, it's great to be part of a Critical National Resource.

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

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 10:26:05 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Edwin D Windes)
Subject: Re: Charge on 800 Calls
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL


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

> I just talked to Illinois Bell and found out that they charge me five
> cents not only for every local call, but also for each call to an 800
> number and also for each call that is handled by my long distance
> company (MCI)...

And our Moderator squeeks:

> [Moderator's Note: This is absolutely false! Its too bad you did not
> get the name of the employee who told you those things; I'd like to
> see them get into a training class and get help as soon as possible.
> The monthly 'network access' fee you pay as part of your basic monthly
> service takes care of telco's expenses in extending you to your LD
> carrier or the LD carrier of the 800 number you are calling. You pay
> *nothing* above that monthly fee to the local telco. The reason such
> calls are 'free from payphones' is because they are 'free', period.  PAT]

The asterisks around "nothing" don't prove your assertion PAT.  If you
do a little investigation on this subject, you may be surprised.  Could
you please provide references for your notes?  They are tolerable when
you are correct, but really irritating when you are way off.


[Moderator's Squeek: My references are these: (1) Lauren W. submitted
a message a couple days ago in agreement. He is rather knowledgeable.
(2) my telephone book says the monthly access fee is intended to pay
the telco for their expenses in connecting the caller to the long
distance gateway of choice, by 1+ default or 10xxx dialing. (3) I make
lots of long distance and 800-number calls monthly. I examine my phone
bill closely. I have yet to see a five cent charge for these calls,
either listed separatly or imbedded in the rate charged by the long
distance carrier or buried in the 'monthly service' charge from IBT.
And what has your investigation revealed which might surprise me?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 19:39:14 GMT


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

>    VERY INTERESTING!  I've heard all about various proposals to
> allow blocking of caller ID in general (whether on a per line or per
> call basis) as part of the proposals for caller ID here in California.
> Am I to guess that we already have caller ID on calls we place to 800
> numbers?  Does the general public know this?  (I didn't) This must get
> kinda complicated when we go thru an alternate long distance carrier
> (using 950 or 800 access).  I've also seen ads for equipment/software
> that ties caller ID in with your customer database so you know all
> about the customer when you answer the phone.  Are "mail order"
> companies currently doing this with 800 numbers?

Yes.  I have had a couple customer disservice persons ask me "Have you
moved recently?" when I've called them from work.  All my credit
cards, including American Express fall into this category.

It's obvious that they have my account up on the screen before they
answer the call.


Mike Morris   WA6ILQ   818-447-7052 evenings
PO Box 1130   Arcadia, CA. 91077
All opinions must be my own since nobody pays
me enough to be their mouthpiece ...

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking
Date: 14 Oct 91 02:18:35 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Glenn F. Leavell) writes:

> I just spoke with Southern Bell, and I was told that there is no way
> for me to block the calls from my Athens, Georgia phone from going
> into the Caller-ID system.  Are there any other states in which
> Caller-ID is offered without ANY option of blocking, free or for a
> fee?

If you find a state that does, are you going to move there? <grin>


[S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - [e-mail] ]
[WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 18:56:11 GMT


[e-mail] (Bob Izenberg) writes:

> I was in a privately-owned mailing service office the other day and
> saw their sign announcing their new fax machine.  Their cost for fax
> transmissions was four dollars (US) per page, plus the cost of any
> non-local call.  This seems a high price for sending a fax, but maybe
> I'm taking too much for granted.  I'm sure that Digest readers can
> give me the economics of operating a public fax machine.  What's the

Here in Champaign, IL. the public library will send a fax anywhere in
the country for 75 cents/page flat rate (including phone call).  The
local copy shops charge around $ 1.50 per page.  Cheap FAX machines
are available for $400 and up -- you can get a pretty good one for
$700.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #820
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21128;
          15 Oct 91 4:16 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24909
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 02:19:57 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03463
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 02:19:45 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 02:19:45 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #821

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Oct 91 02:19:32 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 821

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KX-T123210? [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN or Switched 56 Card For PC? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Area Code 410 Already Works [S. Spencer Sun]
    Re: AT&T Advertising [S. Spencer Sun]
    Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries [Ken Abrams]
    Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Information Wanted For Purchase of Cellular Phone [Bob Yazz]
    Re: ZZZZZZ Saga to Come [James Parkyn]
    Re: Calling Number ID in California (No Decision Yet) [John Gilbert]
    Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: ISDN on BBC [Alan Boritz]
    Re: Telecom FAQ List [Joshua E. Muskovitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KX-T123210?
Date: 15 Oct 91 02:26:45 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


>>>REAL<< conference bridges are amplified and equalized and deliver
> equal volume to all connections off of the bridge.  Doing this type of
> amplification and equalization on the subscriber end of the loop is

If one has a digital switch, there is what is known as "the instant
speaker" algorithm. One simply feeds everyone whichever digitised
voice byte that for that 1/8000 sec has the largest absolute value.
Who ever is speaking will obviously be heard. If several are all
speaking, you get remarkably much like what you would hear from an
analog bridge. Your ears/head can do an amazing amount of filtering.

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN or Switched 56 Card For PC?
Date: 14 Oct 91 17:24:13 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

>     I wonder about the availability of a card I could plug into a
> PC that would look to the PC like a real fast (64 Kbps or 56 Kbps)
> Hayes compatible modem.  Anything like this available?

Sure.  From Hayes!  Hayes has both internal (PC/XT/AT and compatibles)
and external ISDN adapters.  They both use the Hayes AT command set
with ISDN extensions.  The internal card also has available the Hayes
ISDNBIOS, for very high-speed data transfer.  If you'd like more
information, contact Hayes ISDN Technologies in San Francisco at
415-974-5544.

> Are telcos allowing a two second call (and billing for two seconds).

> Does the old two second "billing delay" apply to ISDN or switched
> 56 calls?

No, the two-second delay doesn't apply.  But the shortest billing I'm
aware of is six seconds (tenths of minutes).


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: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Area Code 410 Already Works
Date: 14 Oct 91 02:20:48 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Douglas W. Martin) writes:

[found out, semi-accidentally, that 410 already works for 301 split]

My understanding was that the 410 area code was supposed to be active,
in effect, on top of the 301 area code, beginning this November.
Shortly before I left for college here in NJ, the 301 sysops in
WWIVnet had a get-together in which someone mentioned that 410 was
already working then (this was in August I think, might have been late
July).  However at this time it did not work reliably or from anywhere
in Maryland because other sysops reported trying it and not meeting
with success.  I think I'll try it when I call home next time.


[S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - [e-mail] ]
[WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)]

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertising
Date: 14 Oct 91 02:30:07 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


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

> S. Spencer Sun <[e-mail]> writes:

>> I've been greatly amused by the AT&T ads since the accident or
>> whatever recently ... but this one takes the cake (maybe belongs in
>> rec.humor)

>> From this week's {Newsweek}, picture of a guy talking, "I have
>> confidence in [AT&T] -- I've never had a problem.  I mean, why fix
>> something that's not broken?"

>> <snicker>

> Hee hee, yourself. What amuses ME is the hay that the OCCs try to make
> on AT&T's liberally publicized failures. Over the past decade, there
> has been exactly one total system outage and one or two regional AT&T
> outages that have received press attention. MCI and Sprint have been
> very quick to crow and gloat over this, but conveniently leave out the
> fact that their systems suffer almost constant minor outages of their
> own.

Yes, but while Sprint and MCI may capitalize on AT&T's failures when
in fact they have more or less the same reliability, Sprint and MCI
don't make reliability the main selling point of their ads and they
haven't eternally published ads that try to drive it into the heads of
American consumers that their company is synonymous with reliability.
AT&T is always pushing how error-free it is.  AT&T also finds it
necessary to have people in its TV ads say things like "I tried the
others but they just couldn't measure up" (when in fact I have yet to
notice major differences between the major LD carriers).

Then I'm reminded of the story I heard (I forget if it was on this
group or rec.humor.funny but it was several years ago) about someone
who was talking to an AT&T Rep about establishing some sort of
individualized service for his business and he asked the rep (They
were talking on the phone) to mail him some info.  The rep replied
that they didn't have any, and he said "You mean you CAN'T put it in
writing?"  Dead silence on the other end for several seconds.  Then
promised to put something in the mail right away.

(OK, don't get me wrong, MCI and Sprint aren't exactly angels when it
comes to advertising, but for some reason I have an ingrained bias
against AT&T.  So I'm imperfect, sue me <grin>)


[S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - [e-mail] ]
[WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 15:30:27 GMT


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

> Can a Remote Call Forward for an existing number assigned to a
> rotary forward multiple calls to the new site/number itself with

Yes.  You need only convert the old "listed" number to RCF and specify
the number of simultaneous calls you want it to be able handle when
placing your order.  There is, of course, a slight additional charge
for the capability to forward more than one at a time.  Rates vary by
telco; check with your local company.  The rest of the numbers in the
"old" rotary (hunt group is really a better term since "rotary" has
several different uses) can simply be disconnected, assuming that
people only dialed the main number.


Ken Abrams         nstar!pallas!kabra437
Springfield, IL    [e-mail]
                   (voice) 217-753-7965

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone?
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 16:26:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan'l
DanehyOakes) writes:

> Current plans are for RBOCS and other local companies to roll-out SMDS
> in the first half of 1992.  Interexchange SMDS should follow within a
> year.

I believe MFS (Metropolitan Fiber Systems) is offering SMDS now.  I
saw them at the TCA show in San Diego a few weeks ago.


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

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted For Purchase of Cellular Phone
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 02:28:59 GMT


I'd like to see a thread on specific cellular recommendations.

My use of cellular would be occasional (and personal), rather than
frequent (and business-oriented).

When I found out how cheap it really is to have an 800 number I was
amazed, and got one forthwith.

It would be nice to learn that the costs I imagine for cellular were
inaccurate as well.

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

From: [e-mail] (James Parkyn)
Subject: Re: ZZZZZZ Saga to Come
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 23:59:35 GMT


In addition to hearing about Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z, I would like to know how
many folks heard of the "Wrong Number" (714/535-3635) back in the 70's
and it's friendly competitors called Zzygot and Aardvark, both in
SoCal. The "Z" number was incredibly inspirational and led to the
Wrong Number being created.  The "W-N" required building long-life
answering machines with high audio almost completely from scratch as
nothing was really available. The name was deliberately chosen for
it's consequences on the 411 operators! By 1978 there were five lines
operating and the total call count for the year was in the high
900,000's. Too bad 976 didn't exist then.

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

From: [e-mail] (John Gilbert)
Subject: Re: Calling Number ID in California (No Decision Yet)
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 21:09:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail]
(Dell H. Ellison) writes:

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

>> this as an empty threat.  The telcos worst fear for their marketing
>> of CNID is the availability of per-line blocking, since surveys
>> have shown that in California, where the majority of people have

>> unlisted phone numbers, a very large percentage would choose per-line
>> blocking.  This would detract from the core goal of CNID -- to

> Is that really true?  The MAJORITY of people have unlisted numbers?
> Over 50 percent??  That's a lot.  (If it's true.)

I don't think it is all of California, just areas.  A recent article
in the Seattle times about privacy reported that areas of significant
population studied show a trend towards unlisted numbers, with many
areas averaging over 30%.  It cited that some areas in the Los Angeles
region are over 50%.


John Gilbert   [e-mail]   ...!uunet!mdisea!gilbert

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine
Date: 15 Oct 91 02:36:53 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> Try a 0.001-uF, 200-volt capacitor across the line.  This should be
> very cheap.

If you only use a 200 volt unit, put it on the phone side of the
hook-switch (i.e. NOT on the line at all times). A 600 volt one would
be much safer if you want to have a common cap at some block where
phone/ans-machine/modem all meet.

Normal CO voltage is 48, but might be boosted to 72 or 96. Ringing is
biased by that, so peaks can get near 200v. For that reason, even the
best protectors telco might put on your line are rated no lower that
230 volts and often are a LOT higher. If you live in a lightning prone
area, the 600 volt cap should last longer.

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

Date: 14 Oct 91 17:23:37 EDT
From: Alan Boritz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN on BBC


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

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

>> Speaking of heavy signal processing, I remember going to a New York
>> SBE meeting and getting a tour of Andy Alford's multiplexor antenna.

>> station's segments of the multiplexor had common household fans aimed
>> at their exposed innards.  Each of the stations with a fan punched up
>> the bass and used companding.  It was amusing to watch a VU meter
>> measure their audio level: Never more than a 4db change in amplitude.
>> (PPM metering told a much different story, however.)

> I don't think "punched up bass and companding" would make the use of
> a fan necessary on the multiplexor.

The fans were made necessary because of seasonally high ambient
temperatures within the mooring mast, since there is no ventilation
system installed in that area of the building.  The apparent
sloppiness is a testimonial to something other than "ingenuity," since
a few clever station "engineers" rigged more asthetically pleasing
muffin fans under the reject loads.  When I last inspected them in
August, the "household fans" were gone and most of the muffin fans
were seized or burned out.  The extra fans were merely a precautionary
measure, since the reject loads should be well within manufacturer's
tolerance during normal operation.

The system was designed with thermostatic switches and optional fans
for the diplexor cavities, but it appears that after the power
increase project in the 70's all thermostatic switches were gone in
favor of everyone running their cavity cooling fans continuously.
Unfortunately, that also means that the interlock has no temperature
sense, but at least 10 of the 11 stations on the system have a VSWR
alarm that will shut down all the stations in the event of a VSWR
fault.

However, none of the stations use "companding," just a garden variety
of contemporary broadcast audio processors.  I would hope the original
writer wasn't referring to the uncalibrated reject load reflectometers
as "VU" meters, since they look similar and are mounted on the
diplexor supports.

> The power on an FM should be independent of the modulation, unless
> real high frequencies modulate real heavily, going outside the
> bandbass of the multiplexor, which I don't think was the case.

Well, the last AEL transmitter in the US is still there, though not in
daily use.  Just fire up one of Arno Meyer's old half-finished AEL
exciters into that thing and you'll see LOT'S of heat! ;-)

Incidently, speaking of FM's and high temperatures, the system failure
earlier this year wasn't caused by air temperature at all.  The
neoprene sleeve inside one of the diplexors (through which a tuning
bullet slides) shrunk, allowing dust and dirt to enter the inside of
one of the diplexor cavities and deposit itself within one of the rf
hybrids.  An arc across the contamination started it burning, and the
rest is history.  Funny thing was that Alford identified precisely
that problem about 20 years earlier (even the section that recently
burned), and presented a method of preventing it from happening.
Needless to say, it was never followed, even though all of the
stations received a copy of the inspection report.  Sure gives you a
warm fuzzy feeling to know that radio stations in the nation's largest
radio market know their business so well, eh?  ;-)


[e-mail]
former Telecom Manager, Empire State Building

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

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 13:48:41 EDT
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom FAQ List


I'm sure I'm just one of many who will point out the last few errors
in the list, and I still applaud the effort, but here goes:

With regard to the default long distance carrier at coin phones, I
have encountered a number of RBOC coin phones (in MA and NY) that do
not use AT&T as their default carrier.  Specifically, I encountered
one in the lobby of the Marriot in Saratoga Springs, NY (a NYTel
phone) which had MCI listed as the default carrier.  And yes, I did
use it and confirm that.


josh

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #821
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14857;
          15 Oct 91 23:32 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14043
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 21:41:02 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24993
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 21:40:51 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 21:40:51 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #822

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Oct 91 21:40:39 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 822

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN or Switched 56 Card For PC? [Robert L. McMillin]
    MCI's F&F (Since I Started This Thread) [S. Spencer Sun]
    Call Parking (Was: Why Can't I Pickup This Call?) [Richard H. Miller]
    Re: Laser Pointer Information Wanted [Robert L. McMillin]
    Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions [Steve Gaarder]
    AT&T 0+ For Local Calls in NY [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    CO Line Conditioning [Bruce J. Miller]
    Latest AT&T Announcement: ROA/Calling Card Changes [Ed Greenberg]
    Very Nice Motel Telecom Policy [Ed Greenberg]
    Long Distance Horoscope in Israel [Warren Burstein]
    Pal Charged For Five-Hour LD Call [Michael Ho]
    BT Sleaze [Charles Hoequist]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 19:14:20 PDT
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN or Switched 56 Card For PC?


> So, any card like this available?  Are telcos allowing a two
> second call (and billing for two seconds).  Does the old two second
> "billing delay" apply to ISDN or switched 56 calls?

Two years ago, when I got my last Hughes Aircraft phone bill (they
actually sent us a monthly summary of the phone charges made against
our access codes back then), the smallest 'quanta' of time charged was
a tenth of a minute, or six seconds.  I rather doubt that you would be
able to get your bill charged by the second, and in any event, even
six second billing wouldn't be available to you unless you were on
some kind of bulk calling program with the telco.  (Sprint says they
don't charge in less than six-second intervals, anyway.)


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: MCI's F&F (Since I Started This Thread)
Date: 14 Oct 91 02:14:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


Ok, in fact, you can get F&F on MCI calling card calls ... the reason
I thought you couldn't is beacuse I strongly remembered calling
someone using my calling card while I was on vacation who is on my F&F
list.

Then I remembered that while his BBS and the phone number for his net
server (he runs a server for WWIVnet) were on my F&F list, I never put
his voice number on my F&F list, thus misleading me into thinking that
you couldn't get F&F discounts on your calling card.

Apologies for being confused :-)


[S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - [e-mail] ]
[WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard H. Miller)
Subject: Call Parking (Was: Why Can't I Pickup This Call?)
Date: 14 Oct 1991 02:15:22 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx


In article <[e-mail]> Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.
fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes:

> I suspect that almost nobody but a switchboard operator would
> routinely use this feature, which may explain why Boeing either hasn't
> implemented it on its 5ESS, or hasn't bothered to tell all its
> employees about it.

I find this not to be the case. We have call parking on our SL-1[00?]
PBX. Our department uses it very heavily since we operate two machine
rooms and have console positions at any number of telephone locations.
It is much easier to park a call and move to the correct location and
retrieve it. This is true since most of the instruments only have one
real number [or in some ases a pseudo-number since they are not
direct-dialable] so we can't place the call on hold.


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

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

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 18:33:39 PDT
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Laser Pointer Information Wanted


In a messaged dated Thu, 10 Oct 91 7:57:59 CDT, Will Martin
<[e-mail]> wrote about laser pointers, getting one
small detail wrong:

> MWK Industries
> 1269 Pomona Road
> Cornona, CA  91720
  ^^^^^^^

That's Corona, CA, 91720.

On the same subject, I spotted a company selling laser pointers at the
North Orange County Computer Club's monthly swap meet for the meager
sum of $100 each.  They worked just fine, although the housing was a
little plain-Jane black box.  If I had known then ...

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

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 02:18:47 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions


Where I work, we have a Pnansonic KXT-123211 mini-PBX.  The manual,
sadly, in not very well written, and leaves me with some questions.
Aparrently, either standard telephones or special Panasonic ones can
be used (so far, all we have hooked up are the latter).  Does the
system automatically detect which type of phone is hooked up, or do
you need to program it?  Can two of the special sets be connected in
parallel to one port (clearly, two regular ones could be)?

Also, we are about to outgrow the beast's 32-extension limit.  Since
we have all these Panasonic phones, I presume that the most economical
upgrade is to another Panasonic.  Any suggestions for suppliers?


Thanks,

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

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

Date: 14-OCT-1991 02:33:47.80
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T 0+ For Local Calls in NY


I just noticed today after using a payphone (a COCOT no less!) from
Roslyn, Long Island, NY (516-621) that AT&T is now allowed to offer 0+
for LOCAL calls in NY. I tried this about two months ago, and it
didn't work back then, so this seems to be something new.

(Note that this wasn't unique to to COCOT -- I also tried it from a
NYTel payphone immediately afterwards, so this wasn't a case of
"splashing" via the COCOT's AOS -- the COCOT simply prefixed 10288 to
call Intra-LATA calls with an area code. Thus, a call to Little Neck,
in area code 718 is really a local (toll?) call from Roslyn, and thus
NYTel would get any 0+718 calls, but the COCOT seems to have thought
that 718 was an "AT&T" Long Distance call, and prefixed it with 10288.
Local 0+621-9970 from the COCOT got NYTel just fine, though.)

AT&T recently made a big deal about providing 10288 access even for
local calls, one of the reasons being that customers "know" to dial
10288 for AT&T, and thus they are frustrated at payphones (or
whatever) in areas which don't allow 10288 dialing for Intra-LATA
calls.

I'm not sure how this reasoning applies to areas where the LATA is the
same as the area code, Connecticut or Rhode Island for example.

In Connecticut, you dial 0 + seven digits to anywhere in the state,
while AT&T tells its customers to dial 0 + area code + seven digits.
Same goes for Rhode Island.  Even if CT or RI were to allow 10288 + 0
+ seven digits, AT&T customers could STILL not follow "standard" AT&T
10288 dialing procedures, as dialing 0 + 203 + seven digits is not
allowed in CT or RI.

Note that this is NOT the same thing as allowing "Sequence Calls"
after getting on the AT&T Calling Card System, (which Sprint, MCI, et.
al. customers can do already, and thus AT&T should do this as well for
competitive reasons.)

Thus, in single LATA areas where 0 + area code + seven digits is not a
valid dialing string, why is AT&T pushing for this? It will only
confuse their customers even more (ie, blocked calls).

The only thing I can come up with is that AT&T knows that after the
present "Area Code" system is exhausted, 0 + Area Code + seven digits
will eventually be required, and thus see an opporunity to have a
"standardized" system once again (not that it ever really was), or
they see 10288 + 0 + dialing as a small way to start providing
Intra-LATA service. Thus, after they are allowed to provide this
service, they will start asking for 10288 + 1 + access as well, and
penetrate Intra-LATA markets which at the present deny any Intra-LATA
competition.

One interesting note -- although AT&T (and any other IXC) can not
provide 10288 service in MOST of Connecticut, if you dial into or out
of the Greenwich area served by NYTel as a sequence call on an AT&T
Calling Card Call, the call is allowed. These are two separate LATAs,
and this is presumably why such calls are allowed. Note that you can
also use SNET (CT) or NYTel (NY) to provide Calling Card Service, thus
one can call from Greenwich to Hartford, and hear "Thank you for using
New York Telephone", even though the call terminates in SNET territory
(Hartford) and is only carried by NYTel for a short distance in CT.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce J. Miller)
Subject: CO Line Conditioning
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bruce J. Miller)
Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, Great Valley Labs, Paoli, Pa
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 12:57:40 GMT


We have a requirement to provide data communications for a customer
who is providing the transmission media, which is specified to be a
"four wire leased line with CO conditioning".  We had assumed, perhaps
incorrectly, that "CO conditioning" was the same as "unconditioned".
Our customer maintains that there is a specification for "CO
conditioning", but has yet to provide us with a copy.  The customer is
providing the modems, which range from single channel 2400 baud sync
through multiplexing 6 x 2400 baud units.

Can a helpful reader provide me with a definition for "CO conditioning",
or point me to an easily obtainable source (anonymous FTP would be
nice) for such a definition?  Email me directly, or post a followup is
you think this of general interest.

Thanks in advance to all respondees.


[e-mail] (Bruce J. Miller)  (or [e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 17:16 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Latest AT&T Announcement: ROA/Calling Card Changes


According to an outbound telemarketer working for AT&T, who disturbed
the peace on my closely held unlisted phone number, the Reach-Out
America discount applied to calling cards will no longer be offered on
AT&T handled calls billed to your LEC calling card number.  As of
December, you must use your AT&T calling card, with the unconnected 14
digit number, to get the ROA discount.

I tried the telemarketer out on some follow-on questions, and she
could respond with nothing but "I don't know."

I asked her if my AT&T card would work for intra-lata calls in my home
LATA?  "I don't know."

I asked if my AT&T card would work for intra-lata calls in a foreign
lata, like out of state.  "I don't know."

I asked a few more similar questions.  "She didn't know."

She was eminently capable of reading her script, but that was all.

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

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 17:19 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Very Nice Motel Telecom Policy


I stayed at the Harris Ranch Inn, an chomp-and-snooze on Interstate 5,
midway between LA and SF this weekend.

The telecom policy was as refreshing as a dip in their lovely pool:

    Free access to AT&T Long Distance by dialing 9 + 0 + number.

    Free local calling in the 209-935 (Coalinga) local exchange.

    15% over AT&T rates (plus tax) for calls billed to the room.

    No telecom deposit for a customer paying cash on check-in.

I was impressed.  Only downside was no modem port.

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Long-Distance Horoscope in Israel
Date: 13 Oct 91 19:38:13 GMT
Organization: WorldWide Software


An ad appears from time to time in various Israeli papers advertising
dial-a-horoscope numbers.  The strange thing is, they're in Australia.
This is made clear in the ad, it even tells you that you will pay
between 4.24 and 6.06 shekels a minute ($1.78 to $2.55) which is
probably the regular rate to Australia.  The service, it would appear,
is delivered in Hebrew.

The numbers are all 611 41 17 XX.  61 is the country code for
Australia, perhaps the rest of the number will mean something to
someone who knows about Australian tariffs.


[e-mail]   Jerusalem

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Pal Charged For Five-Hour LD Call
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 04:42:09 GMT


Okay, gurus, this question is a natural extension of a couple of
threads floating around in here.

A friend of mine who lives on my same prefix (and thus is on my same
digital, possibly 5ESS, switch) just got roached by his LD carrier.

Seems he changed extensions while on a phone call to California and
forgot to hang up the extension.  He discovered his faux pas over five
hours later.

I told him, "No problem, after 30 seconds or so that line disconnected
and your phone just went off hook."  No such luck.  The IXC -- Lincoln
Telephone Long Distance, an offshoot of the local telco -- said they
had records of a 5 hour 23 minute call, and if he didn't want to pay
it, he didn't really need to have long distance service.

I told him he didn't need LTLD and advised him to go back to AT&T.

Aggravating factors:

*  He has auto-debit from his checking account (I advised him to
   tell the bank that charges are in dispute and should not be
   paid as requested, but the contract you sign with the telco
   appears to waive that right and give the telco unconditional
   control over its auto-debits... I told him to try anyway and
   start screaming to regulators).

*  LTLD is a subsidiary of the local telco and can, theoretically,
   shut down his local service if it feels like it.

*  The Nebraska PSC has become trained to become industry lapdogs
   ever since the Nebraska Legislature stripped them of their rate-
   setting authority.  They've already told him they're unwilling
   to do anything.

Does anyone have any useful information that could be used in his
defense?  Is the disconnect time controlled by a tariff of any kind?
Is the disconnect time controlled by the originating CO or the
terminating end?  Any pointers would be appreciated.


  ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska | Internet: [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be
         applied to any university agency.

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

Date: 15 Oct 91 09:31:00 EDT
From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: BT Sleaze


The following is taken from the 24 May 91 issue of _Private Eye_, a
British magazine known for digging up embarrassing tidbits (and
getting sued a lot):

"More news has emerged of the inefficiency of British Telecom and the
hidden costs in our telephone bills as BT puts pressure on its
departments to present good 'end of year' figures.

"A disgruntled BT engineer has told the _Eye_ how the pressure has
encouraged inefficiency and buckpassing. The problems concern the
green BT boxes in our streets and on telegraph poles. Each box acts as
a small exchange and contains one 'speaker pair' which allows enginers
to ring through to the main exchange to rectify faults on individual
lines.

"Until recently when finding a fault on the 'speaker line'
the engineer would use any other line to dial the operator and
specifying a service call. No charge would be registered. But now the
engineer has been issued with a hi-tech credit card and individual PIN
code of 13 digits, which have to be dialled before the number being rung.
As this is such a long-winded procedure many engineers simply pick
any old line -- yours or mine -- and make the necessary calls. Subscribers
have no way of checking whether their lines are used in this way and the
cost is absorbed into quarterly bills.

[ nb: all English residential lines charge by units; different tariffs
show up by how fast the units tick over. There is no flat rate calling. ]

"Having found a fault on the 'speaker' line the engineer must then
fill in an 'external plant fault form' including the address of the
box in question and the problem. This is then sent to the maintenance
department. The buck-passing starts when the forms mount up until a
suitable pile can be shunted back to the engineers, asking for the
number of the box (although no such detail is required on the original
form). This could be dealt with by the maintenance department simply
picking up the phone: but instead the job is put off for a few more
weeks to contain costs.

"The maintenance department claims most speaker pairs are working,
while the engineering department reckons around 30 percent are out of
order."


Charles Hoequist   |Internet: [e-mail]
BNR Inc.           | 919-991-8642
PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #822
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17767;
          16 Oct 91 0:40 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09752
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 22:44:26 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13291
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 22:44:15 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 22:44:15 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #823

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Oct 91 22:43:51 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 823

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    ISDN Lab Tour Report [Jeff Wasilko]
    FCC Commissioner Qualifications: Proposed Legislation [Nigel Allen]
    Change 800 Vendors But Same Number! [J. Philip Miller]
    Who Was Theodore Vail? [Charles Hoequist]
    AT&T/SkyTel Venture [Ed Hopper]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko)
Subject: ISDN Lab Tour Report
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 22:19:44 EDT
Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY


Last Wednesday, a group of Telecom'mers from RIT and Mitel were
invited to Rochester Telephone's ISDN Technology Showcase Lab.

Rochester Tel was tariffed for BRI ISDN in 4/91, and for Centrex,
Business and Residential ISDN service in 7/91.

Rochester Tel History: Rochester was one of the last metro areas to go
dial service. The conversion to direct dialing was started after World
War II, and finished during the 1960's using mostly #5 crossbars. In
1981 Rochester Tel installed their first digital switch (an NEAX 66?),
and in 1982 they installed their first 5ESS. Since then, there have
been 55 cutovers.

Rochester Tel Now: Rochester Tel serves 343,000 customers with 470,000
lines. They have over 7,000 miles of fiber. All COs have digital
switches, with 96% of the lines served on digital switches (there are
three COs with a 5ESS co-located with something else). All of the 5ESS
switches are at 5E5 generic or later (most are at 5E6, and some at
5E7).

Rochester Tel is actively pursuing SS7. Over 90% of their LD trunks
are SS7 trunks, and they are pushing for LEC connectivity (to be able
to pass CLASS-type data from region to region). They use two AT&T 2A
STPs.

ISDN: 18 host COs and three remote COs are equipped for ISDN, meaning
that ISDN is accessible to 75% of Rochester Tel's customers (Roch
Tel's service area includes a large, mostly rural area south of
Rochester). Right now, Rochester Tel has 4500 ISDN lines active (with
1000 of those for 30 customers [Can you say Centrex? I knew you could
 ;-)] and 600 lines for Rochester Tel's own use).

Rochester Tel's lab had a variety of interesting devices. The one that
I think holds the most promise is an AT&T device called the Hydra
(note that the Hydra we saw was an alpha-test model and the final unit
might be very different or never be produced).

The Hydra is a combination NT1 (the NT1 sits between the telco's line
and the customer's phones) and power supply with battery backup (all
ISDN devices need a power supply at the customer's premises). The
Hydra's main function is that it allows you to use existing analog
devices with an ISDN BRI connection. The Hydra provides a series of
line cards for analog devices, and one or two RS-232 ports for
switched data over the D channel). All of the standard ISDN features
(and many more like wake-up calls and time-scheduled control of
extensions) can be controlled from touch-tone phones, and the device
supports intercom between phones. The Hydra is currently in beta-test
in other areas. It's hoped that the device will cost around $500.

Other interesting devices were the video conferencing (near real-time
video and audio over one B channel), Group IV fax (four-second fax
transmission) and a wide variety of neat ISDN sets from AT&T and
Fujitsu. Other more mundane ISDN applications are file transfer, LAN
connections and 3270 Coax elimination.

One current practical application of ISDN is high-quality audio.
Rochester Tel is part of a NY ISDN trial which involves ISDN
connections from Jamestown (southwest NY state), Rochester and
Manhattan. The studio that produces the voice-overs for Inside Edition
promos is here in Rochester, and they use a standard ISDN line to send
the voice-overs to Manhattan.

One point about ISDN that I didn't know is that it's possible for up
to 8 ISDN sets to share one 2B+D (BRI) connection (and I think one
NT1). More realistically, two users can share one BRI, and not really
miss much functionality. Each user would have access to
packet-switched data on the D-channel, and would share the 2 B
channels for voice. Since all of the special features (like conference
calling) are done in the switch, the user can still have multiple line
appearances on their set.

The down side of Residential ISDN in the Rochester area is that the
tariff is for 1B+D (not 2B+D). Also, with only 9600 baud
packet-switched data available (and a kilochar charge for data
connections), I can't see how it can compete with untimed high-speed
dial-up modem connections. For $500 these days (the cost of something
like the Hydra or an ISDN phone with data capability) you can buy a
v.32 modem and get a second line. Will residential ISDN ever become a
reality?

For those folks in the Rochester area, I'm scheduling a tour of the
Plymouth Street CO/Control Center. If you're interested in attending,
drop me a line and I'll let you know what I work out.

(Disclaimer: Some of the numbers may be wrong -- I had a bit of a
difficult time deciphering my notes.)


Jeff Wasilko         ([e-mail] or
RIT Communications    [e-mail])

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

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 19:36:33 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: FCC Commissioner Qualifications: Proposed Legislation
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto


Bill Sepmeier ([e-mail]) posted a
message on FidoNet's FCC echo announcing that Mr. (first name not
specified) Ritter of the U.S. House of Representatives had introduced,
or planned to introduce, legislation to require that at least one
member of the Federal Communications Commission be a professional
engineer or have equivalent skills, in light of the increasingly
complex technical questions the FCC has to deal with.

I am not clear whether the bill has actually been introduced, as the
FidoNet message included only a "discussion draft", rather than an
actual bill showing a bill number and date of introduction.

If you would like more information, I suppose you could write to:

   Mr. Ritter
   U.S. House of Representatives
   Washington, D.C. 20515
   or to your representative.

I am a Canadian, and don't understand U.S. domestic politics well
enough to know how good a chance of passing this bill has. Perhaps
engineering groups will be lobbying strongly for it.

(If anyone wants to follow up on this, it would be interesting to know
whether Mr. Ritter is an engineer himself, or whether he represents a
high-technology district.)


                       [DISCUSSION DRAFT]
                        September 4, 1991

102 CONGRESS
1st Session
                          H. R.  ______


                 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


Mr. RITTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
committee on _________________

                             A BILL

To amend the Federal Communications Act of 1934 to require that
at least one member of the Federal Communications Commission be
skilled in the engineering sciences.


   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives

   of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the "Federal Communications

Commission Engineering Sciences Qualifications Act of 1991".

SECTION 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--

        (1) the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was

    created in 1934 as a technical regulatory agency,

    mandated to regulate the radio frequency spectrum so as

    to make available a rapid, efficient, nationwide and

    worldwide wire and radio communication service;

        (2) in the 56 years since the creation of the FCC,

    the technical sophistication and complexity of radio

    spectrum regulatory issues has increased significantly.

    At the same time, of the 64 past and present FCC

    commissioners, only 8 have been engineers, or have had

    apparent training in the engineering sciences; and

        (3) though the FCC commissioners may appoint

    professional assistants, few have engineering assistants,

    and such is not a suitable substitute for firsthand

    comprehension of technical complexities and technical

    policy alternatives.

 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT.

    Section 4(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended

 by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

                     (page2)

     "(6) At least one Commissioner shall, by virtue of

possessing at least a bachelor of science degree in any

engineering discipline from an Accreditation Board for

Engineering and Technology-approved educational institution,

or by virtue of holding senior or fellow status in a

nationally recognized engineering society, or by virtue of

registration as a professional engineer, be skilled in the

engineering sciences at the time of his or her

appointment."

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

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

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Philip Miller)
Subject: Change 800 Vendors But Same Number!
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 8:20:04 CDT


In {Update}, a SWBT rag (no 3, 1991) there is an article extolling the
virtues of 800 service, I found the following interesting paragraph:

And, toward the future -- with its eventual operation pending
regulatory approval -- Bellcore (Bell Communications Research), the
regional Bell operating companies' joint R&D arm, is developing a
database that could put all 800 numbers into a central system.  That
would allow businesses to switch 800 suppliers without changing their
800 numbers -- saving them costly revisions in their advertising and
marketing copy, for example -- and 800 calls to be routed to different
numbers per time of day or week or caller location, a big booon to
telemarketing efforts.  "It would free companies to shop for the best
800 service price," figures Dan Winters, SWBT's St. Louis based area
manager for access product management, "without having to go through
the hassle of completely changing their number."

Anyone know more information about this proposal?  Is it based on a
centralized database where every switch in the country would have to
query it in order to complete each 800 call, or is it distributed to
each switch or ...?


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

Date: 15 Oct 91 10:16:00 EDT
From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who was Theodore Vail?


The Moderator noted:

> I'd not put a lot of stock in what a phone center rep told me about
> anything unless s/he could first answer a simple question in 25 words
> or more: Who was Theodore Vail?

Although well exceeding the 25-word limit, I thought the rhetorical
question deserved this answer, quoted from the book _Uncle Joe
Cannon_, a biography of House Speaker Joseph G. Cannon:

"...I was on Newspaper Row, on Fourteenth Street, where the newspaper
men had their offices, and I met Uriah Painter, one of the veteran
Washington correspondents. He was also a good business man. Painter
asked me if I had ever seen a telephone and I confessed that I had
not.

"We went into his office and he walked over to a little box on the wall.
He put a little instrument to his ear, rang a bell and spoke into
the box. He said, 'Hello, Puss, how are you? I want you to speak to
Mr. Cannon, who is here in my office.' He handed me the receiver and
putting it to my ear, as I had seen him do, I heard Mrs. Painter's
voice distinctly. It was amazing. Then he told her to play on the
piano and I heard the music. It was magic.

"I was very much interested, and Mr. Painter told me about the young
Scotchman Bell, how they were organizing a company and insisted the
men who invested their money could not lose. He said if I had a
thousand dollars to invest, I would be sure to double, perhaps
quadruple my money in a few years; I might even make ten thousand by
getting in on the ground floor. I had been much impressed by hearing a
human voice that I recognized come out of that little piece of
metal ... but I was even more impressed by the propostion to get in on
the ground floor. I remembered my experience with the wonderful
discovery to make gold out of any old thing, and I said, 'Nay, nay
Brother Painter, I've tried these get-rich-quick inventions and I am
done'.

"Not long afterwards I went down to the office of the Superintendent
of Railway Mails to get a young man appointed to that service. The
Superintendent, Theodore Vail, was a bright young fellow, accommodating
and always ready to help me when he could. That morning Mr. Vail was
not there. His assistant told me that poor Vail had suddenly become
moonstruck and resigned to be the manager of a telephone company that
had been foisted on the market. Vail had saved up about four thousand
dollars, and in a crazy moment he had blown it all on telephone stock
and resigned from the Government service. Worse than that, he had
persuaded every friend in the office who had a dollar to let him have
it for investment.

"We all liked Vail and were much concerned about his suddent madness,
for he was a good Superintendent of Railway Mails and we though he had
a future in the service. We condemned him for the reckless use of his
influence over other young men in the service who had saved a little
money, and we did not know what would become of them when the magic
bubble burst and the telephone stock went like that of the company
that was to make gold out of junk. [which Cannon had invested in
several years earlier]

"Some years later, I was in Boston and met Theodore Vail. He was round
and olly and looked prosperous. He was the President of the American
Telephone Company and the Western Union Telegraph Company.  I asked a
mutual friend how much Vail was worth, and he said at least
twenty-five million. All those fool friends who had let Vail have
their savings thirty years ago had made money ... I had the same
opportunity as Vail but guessed on the wrong card."


Charles Hoequist   |Internet: [e-mail]
BNR Inc.           | 919-991-8642
PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478


[Moderator's Note: Thanks so much for bringing back a wonderful story
which has been told time and again, but never grows too old to hear
again.  PAT]

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

Subject: AT&T/SkyTel Venture
From: [e-mail] (ED HOPPER)
Date: 15 Oct 91 17:48:04 GMT
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575


AT&T ANNOUNCES *** AT&T and SkyTel Corp. yesterday (10/14/91)
announced the industry's first international "wireless mailbox"
enabling business people on-the-move to link electronic mail and
paging capabilities with a notebook computer.  The AT&T Safari
notebook computer is the first fully featured computer able to receive
wireless messages from the SkyTel satellite-based messaging network,
and AT&T EasyLink Services is the first public electronic mail vendor
to establish a connection to that network.  With SkyTel's network and
the new SkyTel Link (a pocket-sized message receiver and an interface
adapter), Safari notebook users will have a Wireless Mailbox to
receive electronic mail any time, across North America and in other
parts of the world.

The gateway between AT&T EasyLink Services and SkyTel will give
several hundred thousand users of AT&T's electronic mail services the
capability to send messages to users of the SkyTel Link and the AT&T
Safari notebook computer.  A signal from the message receiver notifies
users that they have incoming electronic mail from the SkyTel network.
The interface in the SkyTel Link package connects the receiver to the
Safari notebook computer so messages can be downloaded for viewing.
Downloaded messages can be read, stored and edited using pre-loaded
Windows-based software, including AT&T Mail Access PLUS for Windows.
The messages also can be read directly on the receiver.  The Safari
Wireless Mailbox package has a suggested retail price of $450.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #823
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20569;
          16 Oct 91 1:50 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11169
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 16 Oct 1991 00:07:23 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26721
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 16 Oct 1991 00:07:11 -0500
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 00:07:11 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #824

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 16 Oct 91 00:07:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 824

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems [Jacob R. Deglopper]
    Fire Alarm Box Systems (was Emergency Dialers) [Nicholas J. Simicich]
    What's in Washington? [John Boteler]
    McCaw Announces Nationwide Service [Ed Hopper]
    Effect of Calls to D.C. During the Thomas Hearings [Fred Brooks]
    US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service! [William Kucharski]
    Telecom Articles in The Economist, Oct 5 [Werner Uhrig]
    Gadget Needed to Prevent Other Extensions From Picking Up [Stephen Pearl]
    Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries [John Higdon]
    Re: South African 'M' Numbers [Pat Verner]
    Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Caller ID Blocking [Charles Hoequist]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Subject: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 01:39:55 GMT


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) tells us:

> In Truro, Nova Scotia in the early 1970's (and probably for much earlier),
> the fire department had a network of red fire alarm boxes, each with a
> three-digit number. When an alarm was pulled, a horn at the fire hall
> would sound out the number twice (5-4-3 would be five hoots, a short pause,
> four hoots, a short pause, three hoots, a longer pause, and then the
> original sequence again).

> I haven't encountered a system like this elsewhere.

Believe it or not, the National Institutes of Health Fire Department
in Bethesda, MD still uses this system.  It's been supplanted by
computer decoders and the such, but the pull stations on the grounds
and in some buildings simply come out on this telegraph.  The computer
does the lookup for the location though, and NIH is a fulltime paid
department which does more HAZMAT work than fire.


   _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad
   [e-mail] -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve
   Opinions my own...

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 16:26:10 EDT
From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fire Alarm Box Systems (was Emergency Dialers)
Reply-To: Nick Simicich <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] Andrew C. Green writes:

>  [e-mail] (Nigel Allen) tells us:

>> In Truro, Nova Scotia in the early 1970's (and probably for much earlier),
>> the fire department had a network of red fire alarm boxes, each with a
>> three-digit number. When an alarm was pulled, a horn at the fire hall
>> would sound out the number twice (5-4-3 would be five hoots, a short pause,
>> four hoots, a short pause, three hoots, a longer pause, and then the
>> original sequence again).

There was one of these in Peekskill, NY, until recently.  It had a
very loud klaxon that sounded the code for where the alarm box was.
People hated that klaxon, and someone even tried to organize a
neighborhood rally against it, but the fire department stood firm,
even though they had a radio system to alert volunteers, and finally
someone took matters into their own hands, and sabotaged it.  The
people who sabotaged it didn't manage to kill it completely, and it
still bleated feebly at 6:00 PM every day as well as whenever anyone
called in an alarm or pulled a box for a couple of weeks before it
finally died.

The fire chief insisted that it was absolutely required, and after six
months of blessed peace and quiet, replaced it with a louder, more
obnoxious one.  But this didn't last very long, and I think that the
six month gap managed to show that modern communication methods had
supplanted and replaced the klaxon, and it was finally disconnected
for the last time a couple of years ago.


Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, [e-mail]) -SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318

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

Subject: What's in Washington?
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 20:37:05 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


One stop to make in Washington for telecom-interested readers is the
Smithsonian Museum of History and Technology.

Although I have heard that many displays at other facilities around
the country put this one to shame, this one gives an informative
overview of the various stages in the evolution of telephony. They
even have a small 'breezeway' connecting two parts of the display area
with an overhead speaker spewing out an MF tone and 2600 sequence!

I am disappointed that they don't have a true Stepper there, but there
is a two-station intercom setup with an imitation Type 6A Strowger
thrown in; pick up the receiver, wait for the tone plant to spin up
(poor thing!), and pulse out your call. There is also an operating
panel switch and the guts of some ESS1 switching and electronics
modules.

History and Technology is on the mall in a rectangular, rather modern
looking building, and is well worth the visit for the other exhibits
on display there.

Enjoy!


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

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

Subject: McCaw Announces Nationwide Service
From: [e-mail] (ED HOPPER)
Date: 15 Oct 91 17:48:11 GMT
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575


 From {The Wall Street Journal}:

McCaw Cellular Communications will announce the beginnings of a
national cellular phone service that lets customers receive calls no
matter where they are in its system.  Today, cellular customers must
dial a set of access codes to make and receive calls in territories
not served by their regular service provider.  McCaw said it will
announce tomorrow that it has linked at least four U.S. regions into a
"North American Cellular Network" served by computerized exchanges
that will automatically pass calls to its subscribers regardless of
where they are in the McCaw networks.

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

From: sma2![e-mail] (Fred Brooks)
Subject: Effect of Calls to D.C. During the Thomas Hearings
Organization: Guns For Peace
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 18:47:54 GMT


Does anyone have stats on the level of calls and effects on the
telephone system during the Hearings and vote?


Fred Brooks   Portland Oregon


[Moderator's Note: The telecom manager for the Senate reported to the
AP that 505,000 calls were received on Friday alone. That is to say,
completed calls inbound through the centrex to various senators,
employees or the main switchboard number. That number did not include
'lost' calls, i.e. where the caller abandoned the call after a number
of rings had passed with the call unanswered because the operators
were unable to attend to it. Nor did it include busy signals. C&P Tel
said they took a terrific pounding all weekend, with no immediate let
up in sight as of Monday. C&P also noted there was a large number of
incompleted call attempts both in and out of the Senate on Friday.
People dialing 9 could not get an outside line, and many calls going
in simply never got there, let alone reach a busy signal or unanswered
ringing. I guess it was a real mess all weekend. Telecom people at the
White House also reported their system was considerably overtaxed for
several days, with the operators at 202-456-1414 unable to answer in
any realistic timeframe. The Western Union machines in the Senate
telecom office which receive incoming `opinion-grams' (or whatever
they call the messages the public can send in) were printing
continuously over the weekend and running about nine hours behind
schedule in their ability to keep up.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (William Kucharski)
Subject: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service!
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 20:43:45 GMT


Listening to today's (10/15) Rush Limbaugh program, a very interesting
event occurred.  Mr. Limbaugh had a 900 phone number, (900) VIP-RUSH,
which you could call to get information about his program and, more
importantly, to leave comments on a voice mail system.

Well, today Rush urged listeners who wanted to make a comment
regarding Judge Thomas and were frustrated attempting to call in to
the radio program to call the 900 number and leave comments there (he
had someone monitoring the voice mail and was occasionally playing
selections on the air.)

About one hour into the program, Rush announced a new number for the
VIP-RUSH line, because US Sprint had CANCELLED their service in
mid-show, stating that they were unable to deal with the load to their
network and were terminating service IMMEDIATELY.  Their other 900
provider, which uses MCI, said that MCI's network was running at 100%
capacity for a 900 phone poll regarding Thomas on yesterday's show,
but MCI didn't yank their service, either.

I can understand US Sprint's desire to protect their network from
overload, but their action today seems a bit harsh, to say the
least ...

William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
Internet: [e-mail]   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, not those
uucp:    ...!{boulder,sun,uunet}!stan!kucharsk   | of Solbourne...
Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501

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

From: [e-mail] (Werner Uhrig)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 05:12:09 -0500
Subject: Telecom Articles in The Economist, Oct 5


The British weekly magazine {The Economist} features in its Oct 5, 1991
issue a special center section of 20+ pages of articles and
(interesting) ads, titled "A Survey of Telecommunications: The New
Boys".  In it is addressed the telecommunications situation and future
of Europe (West and East), the US, as well as the Third World.  A few
(highlighted) random quotes:

The first article "Politics on the Line" starts out with:

Step inside the bedroom of a smart hotel in any West European city,
and look at what is on offer.  A bellboy could spend several minutes
demonstrating all the electronic gadgets that hotel-hopping executives
have come to expect.  But on the bedside cabinet, beside the TV's
remote control unit, the light dimmer switches and the radio alarm,
sits a curious example of Ersatz-technology: an old-fashioned
telephone, masquerading as its modern equivalent.


and highlighted:

The telecoms monopolies of the past face new competitors heeding the
call of the market, not the ministry.  Politicians and civil servants
now have less time than they think to ditch their old ways, writes
Duncan Campbell-Smith.


and "Tomorrow's Bulging Pockets" starts out:

Some people, like Britains's chancellor of the exchequer, still sneer
at them as the plaything of the yuppie. ("One of the greatest scourges
of modern life", he called them in his budget speech last March.)  But
mobile telephones are changing the ground rules of the telocoms
industry, by transforming its basic product.


and highlighted:

Once they offered entrepreneurs the only way into telecoms.  But the
day is coming when mobile telephones could see the old-timers off.


"High Roads and Low Roads" starts with:

Almost all reformers share the same ultimate goal.  They want to shake
a new commercialism into the monopolies descended from the post,
telegraph and telecommunications age - the companies are still
labelled as the "PTTs" (with the P, as it were, now silent).  the
usual first step has been to break the cosy arrangement that used to
link the typical PTT to its domestic equipment manufacturer ... Postal
and telecoms have to be separated, and disentangled from the machinery
of state.


and highlighted a graph that shows that in France the number of lines
increased from <4 million in 1970 to 30 million in 1991 and a text
stating:

Too many reformers see competition much as St. Augustine saw chastity ...


[for reprints of articles in this or any other issue of {The Economist},
in the US contact Bradley Cleaton in New York, voice [phone],
fax [phone]]

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

From: [e-mail] (Starbuck)
Subject: Gadget Needed to Prevent Other Extensions From Picking Up
Date: 15 Oct 91 18:29:24 GMT
Organization: the Worlds Welfare Work Association


Hi!  Sorry for the cryptic subject but I have no idea what the gadget
I'm looking for is called.

Basically, I am looking a device that when hooked up to a phone
extension, prevents other people in the house from picking up the
phone extension and listening in.  It should make all the other
extensions dead.  Is there such a gadget?  I remember reading about it
somewhere.  Any pointers to where it may be obtained would be very
appreciated. Thanks!


Stephen Pearl (Starbuck)    Work: [phone]   Home: [phone]
UUCP:  rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!pearl  Internet: [e-mail]
GEnie: S.PEARL6        CI$: >internet:[e-mail]
US MAIL:  359 Lloyd Rd, Aberdeen, NJ 07747


[Moderator's Note: Radio Shack has exactly what you want. Just
describe it to them the way you did here. Under ten dollars.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 01:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries


David Lesher <[e-mail]> writes:

> Alas, John is again suffering from Pac*Bell disease. Several other
> regionals, including BS in FL. are now offering RCF that consists of
> Remote-Controlled Call Forwarding on a real assignment.

PLEASE. I may live in Pac*Bell Land but I do not live in a vacuum. The
poster was asking about RCF, Remote Call Forwarding NOT Remote-
Controlled Call Forwarding. Even I was able to deduce that from his
original post. We have exchanged e-mail, and indeed, his questions
were about ordinary, standard, RCF. Everything I said about RCF, the
topic in question, was true.

> In recent weeks BS changed the name in their ads, likely to reduce
> customer confusion. After all, if CDT is confused, think of the
> public;-}

In this case, I was not confused.


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 20:14:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Pat Verner)
Subject: Re: South African 'M' Numbers


On <13 Oct 1991 13:19>, Dave Leibold wrote:

> South Africa seems to have something called M-numbers; this
> could be a toll-free service as it was listed without reference to
> a charge rate.
> The code listed was 043 362 which presumably got an operator
> who would complete the call from there. This was to have been
> changed to the 0401 area code, which would be an automated service
> at that point.

> Anyone confirm or deny these findings (which were found in a
> Johannesburg directory)?

I would guess that the "M-" would be a "Manual" exchange, certainly
the number 043 362 would indicate a small exchange near East London.
The 0401 code corresponds to the town Bisho, about 40 km North and
West of East London.

The lack of a charge rate could be because this call would be charged
in units of three minutes or part thereof, and would be explicitly shown
as such on the account.

Toll-free numbers are indicated by a prefix 080-.

I wonder what the date was of the Johannesburg directory, as I have
just spent a while with the Pretoria book and an old Johannesburg book
in an attempt to trace this info :-)


Regards,

Pat

Msged/Q 1.60
* Origin: Pats Point in Pretoria, RSA *HST* (5:7101/22.6)
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!5!7101!22.6!Pat.Verner
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Oct 91 09:17:00 EDT
From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Caller ID Blocking


Glenn Leavell writes:

> Are there any other states [ besides GA ] in which
> Caller-ID is offered without ANY option of blocking, free or for a
> fee?

By coincidence, I just returned from a Bellcore video on CLASS
features, and the presenter's standard example of a state which
offered Calling Number Display with no blocking option whatever was
New Jersey.


Charles Hoequist   |Internet: [e-mail]
BNR Inc.           | 919-991-8642
PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #824
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23393;
          16 Oct 91 2:55 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00021
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 16 Oct 1991 01:12:31 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00690
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 16 Oct 1991 01:12:17 -0500
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 01:12:17 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #825

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 16 Oct 91 01:12:09 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 825

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [John Higdon]
    Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [Steve Thornton]
    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [John Higdon]
    Charges to 800-555-2323 [Tom Lowe]
    800-555-2323: No Charge and Never Was [[e-mail]]
    Re: 800-555-Anything Seems to be a Toll Call [Don Phillips]
    Re: ITU Standards Available Online [[e-mail]]
    Re: AT&T Advertising [Tom Horsley]
    Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? [Rolf Meier]
    Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Andrew C. Green]
    Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN Card or Switched 56 Card for PC [Bud Couch]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 00:45 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?)


[e-mail] (Mark Fulk) writes:

> Fine print really angers me.  Anything in the front matter of a phone
> book, beyond the first page, is fine print as far as I am concerned.
> If I read every long explanatory pamphlet I received from Sprint, the
> phone company, my credit card holders, the other utilities, the
> various taxing agencies, the manufacturers of my cars, my banks,
> insurance providers, and mail order companies, I wouldn't have much
> time left for anything else.

Now hold it right there. Several people have legitimately pointed out
that the various NY telcos have been somewhat lax about printing
900/976/540 information and I agree that an improvement is in order.
But to declare that you do not have time to learn about things you use
in daily life is outrageous. So you complain if the telephone charges
you for things you do not know about. And perhaps when your car fails,
you can blame the manufacturer for insisting that you read the owner's
manual, eh? And when your bank leavies a hefty charge because you
mistimed some deposits or withdrawals you can bitch about that as
well.  Do you purchase complex instruments or equipment and then throw
the manual away? I can imagine that your satisfaction with products
must be very low. "If it doesn't work the way I think it should, then
to hell with it!"

LIFE is a bitch. And the less you know (or care to learn) about the
things that you use in life, the more of a bitch it will be. I have no
sympathy for you. Those things that I do not care to learn about, I
pay someone to handle them for me (such as accounting and taxes).
Otherwise, it is up to ME to learn how things work. Yes, you bet I
read those pamphlets from the bank, from my IEC, from my local telco,
from the California State Franchise Tax Board (or at least give it to
my accountant), from my car manufacturer, from my motorcycle
manufacturer, etc., etc. Perhaps you are too busy to learn how to use
the telephone.  Maybe you shouldn't use one, except under close
supervision.

In essence, I seem to be able to read all those pesky instructions and
I hardly qualify for genius status. What arrogance to declare that you
are "too busy" for such things!

> Fortunately, most of these companies bother to make important
> information available easily, generally by posting it near the point
> of use.

And do they provide icons if you don't want to bother to learn how to
read?


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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 10:27:50 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?)


Regarding the notification of costs of "special" dialing services,
here's what it says in the 1991 Boston NYNEX White Pages about 1-900,
976, etc.  Obviously there's nothing about New York 540, as this ain't
New York. Note the absence of any cost information:

[begin quoted material]

Selective Blocking Service  [under "Optional Services, p.16]

Selective Blocking Service (SBS), available in most Massachusetts
exchanges to single-party residence and single-line business
customers, blocks access to some or all prerecorded announcement and
talk lines. These lines are identified by their own distinct numeric
prefix and provide services such as:

      >   550 - Group Conversation Lines
      > 1-900 - Long Distance Programs of all types
      >   940 - Adult Programs (prerecorded) *
      >   976 - General Information Programs (prerecorded)

* All customers are automatically denied access to 940 (Adult) calling
but will have access to 900, 976, and 550 lines. Any customer wanting
access to 940 (Adult) calling must give New England Telephone written
authorization to remove the blocking.

[end of quoted material]

The section then goes on to describe the types of blocking and how
much they costs involved for residential and business subscribers.

You will notice that NET/Nynex seems to regard the moral aspects of
calling porno ("Adult", right) lines to be significant, but not the
costs. These types of numbers are referred to as "services" and
"programs", but no mention at all is made of how much they cost, not
even the minimum/maximum mentioned in the Pac Bell book as reported by
Mr. Higdon.

While I'm not nearly as offended by the suggestion that I read my
contracts as Mr. Fulk is, I do think this is a shoddy practice. I
_did_ read it, and it says nothing about it.  To suggest, as Mr.
Higdon does, that "everybody knows that" is a poor excuse for leaving
it out of the official descriptions of services -- the White Pages.
There are pages of rate information further on in the book, with
nothing about added-cost calls. I don't like it, I don't like 1-900
numbers, and I don't like NET.


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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 00:51 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?


[e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun) writes:

> So what you're saying is, as long as the victim succeeds in getting
> the charge removed, nothing should be done to the perpetrator?  What
> an enlightened view.

No. "Victim" and "perpetrator" are your words. I never said anything
about victims or perpetrators. My point was that I had yet to hear of
an instance where a person unwittingly dialed an information service
number and was expected to pay for the call regardless. "Fraud" was
not part of my mention.

But then no one has ever mentioned the matter of fraud committed
against IPs by people who claim all manner of phony reason why they
should not have to pay, either.


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


[Moderator's Note: Thanks to everyone who participated in this very
interesting thread. There were many diverse opinions expresssed, but
due to a backlog of other items, it must be closed now, with no
further rebuttals printed.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue Oct 15 08:24:15 EDT 1991
Subject: Charges to 800-555-2323


It used to be that if you wanted credit for a wrong number or
disconnected call, you would call 800-555-2323.  These days, you have
to call the AT&T operator.  That's what the recording on that number
means!


Tom Lowe   AT&T Bell Labs   Holmdel, NJ   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue Oct 15 16:03:15 EST 1991
Subject: 800-555-2323:  No Charge and Never Was


800-555-2323 used to be an AT&T Coin refund center for money lost in
payphones.  Callers are now directed to call an AT&T Operator to
arrange for credit or refunds.


Dave

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

From: Don Phillips <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800-555-Anything Seems to be a Toll Call
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 05:32:18 GMT
Organization: Research Unlimited, Escondido, CA


Just some additional data points:

 From a coin-operated, Pac*Bell phone (in La Mesa), 1-800-555-5555 was
a "free" call (no intercept, but the message advising of the 95
cents/minute was there).

 From a coin-operated, non-Pac*bell phone(in Escondido), the same
number got a recording requesting that I deposit 60 cents!  Maybe they
get a discount :-) A call to 1-800-555-1212 went through without
interruption.


Don Phillips          [e-mail]  or
Research Unlimited    ...!ncr-sd!blkhole!don
Escondido, Calif.     My opinions are just that, and no more.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ITU Standards Available Online
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: 15 Oct 91 12:55:17 EET


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
colorado.edu (Michael Schwartz) writes:

> As announced recently at Interop, the International Telecommunication
> Union standards documents (including the CCITT Blue Book) are now
> available online.  You can get them by anonymous FTP from
> bruno.cs.colorado.edu (soon to be renamed digital.resource.org) in
> pub/standards.  There is a HELP file in this directory that explains
> what you need to know.  You can also access these documents by sending
> mail to [e-mail], with the message body (not
> subject line) containing commands to a mail server.

This  is  very  interesting  news as I work closely with Blue Book
standards.

I retrieved the ISUP specifications in the (two) ASCII file formats
and in the Word for Windows format. The ASCII versions have troubles
with tables and diagrams but the latter version resembles quite good
the original printed text (except for the missing SDL diagrams and
some tables). The TROFF file format seems to be the ideal one,
unfortunately our (company) text processing system is based on NROFF
which doesn't support the tables.

 From the perspective of the switching vendor one application might be
the annotation of the Recommandations for internal use, e.g.
commenting on design / implementation details or defining test plans.

I am interested to know how this pilot project will continue. Are
there plans:

    -  to  convert the Recommendations of the current study period (to
    appear in the White Book soon) ?

    - to convert and distribute also temporay documents (TD)  produced
    in  the  study  periods  and  make  so the developments inside the
    CCITT more transparent for a wider audience ?

    -  to  establish  "electronic" meetings (e.g. using media like in-
    ternet  news  /  mail) for expert meetings or audits and enable so
    the participation of people with limited time / budgets ?

    - to offer other file formats then those currently supported ?

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Horsley)
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertising
Date: 15 Oct 91 14:03:16 GMT
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division


It seems to me the latest rounds of AT&T television ads must have been
written by some company with a name like "Death Wish Marketing, Inc.".

A while back we got the AT&T sponsored ads with two identical phone
calls being made where the MCI call is shown to be *cheaper* than the
AT&T call (MCI countered with an ad that said something like "If AT&T
doesn't mind, we'd like to save your business a few hundred dollars a
year ...").

Now we have a new series of ads on the ``We want you back'' theme,
where the entire commercial consists of descriptions of businesses
which have left AT&T for someone else (the pictures of the businesses
show what appear to be perfectly happy thriving workplaces).

You have to wonder if AT&T actually paid real money to an ad agency to
design these incredibly bad campaigns. I can just see their next
slogan:

   "AT&T - it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick!".

P.S. I don't even have anything against AT&T, I have always used them for
long distance, but these ads make me wonder if anyone with even a small
particle of brain works in AT&T marketing.

P.P.S. Actually, I even wonder if maybe these are really MCI ads...


domain: [e-mail]       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444

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

From: mitel!Software![e-mail] (Rolf Meier)
Subject: Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones?
Date: 15 Oct 91 16:13:18 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> [e-mail] (Tom Horsley) writes:

>> I don't really believe this either, but my question is: Are there any
>> cordless phones which use digital transmission between the handset and

> Yes, there is, at least one. It is called Forum and made by Nokia.

If you are referring to the CT2 Forum, it is made by Shaye Communications,
which is owned by Sinclair and Timex.

Other makers of CT2 digital cordless phones are Motorola and GPT.

CT3 digital cordless phones are made by Ericsson.

Forget about getting one in the US unless you are a keen experimenter.
They are expensive and require an experimental license in the United
States.

Digital cordless telephony is an area that the U.S. is rapidly falling
behind in.  Canada will adopt a standard later this year.  Europe and
the far east are already seeing the deployment of thousands of units,
and the DECT standard comes into effect next year in Europe.  There is
no sign of the FCC making this technology available to Americans.


Rolf Meier/Mitel Corporation

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 15:28:46 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County


[e-mail] (Marvin K. Hoffman) writes:

> Such fire alarm box systems have been dropped in most of the country
> because:

>    b.  anonymous false alarms since someone can pull a box and
>           run away.

True, although I remember seeing some verrry old film (in a TV
documentary on weird inventions) on a product to combat this, circa
1930, I'd say. It showed the pole-mounted alarm box enclosed within a
shoebox-shaped housing. Pulling the alarm would lock the housing
around the perpetrator's wrist, holding him or her to the spot until
the fire engine arrived and the firefighters released the caller. I
don't know what this invention was named; the phrase "Caller I.D."
comes to mind ... :-)


Andrew C. Green       [phone]
Datalogics            Internet: [e-mail]
441 W. Huron          UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg
Chicago, Il. 60610    FAX: [phone]

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN Card or Switched 56 Card for PC
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 21:44:16 GMT


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

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

>> Are telcos allowing a two second call (and billing for two seconds).

>> Does the old two second "billing delay" apply to ISDN or switched
>> 56 calls?

> No, the two-second delay doesn't apply.  But the shortest billing I'm
> aware of is six seconds (tenths of minutes).

I think that you are wrong about this, Toby. The latest version of the
FCC regs (CFR 47) that I have ( revised 10/1/90) specify that "the
answering terminal equipment prevents both transmission and reception
of data for at least two seconds after the answering terminal equipment
transfers to the off-hook condition". Sec 68.314, Billing Protection.
The note also states that this applies to digital services inter-
connected to the analog telephone network, which certainly describes
ISDN.

I also know that my company has implemented this two second billing
delay in both of our Switched 56 product lines.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #825
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26648;
          17 Oct 91 3:12 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07639
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 17 Oct 1991 01:16:12 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32090
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 17 Oct 1991 01:15:49 -0500
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 01:15:49 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #826

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Oct 91 01:15:31 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 826

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: UFGATE: "How Does It KNOW?" [William Degnan]
    Re: UFGATE: "How Does It KNOW?" [Jack Winslade]
    Re: #5ESS Ringmate Broken  [David Ptasnik]
    Re: Calling Number ID in California (No Decision Yet) [Lauren Weinstein]
    Re: Telephone Wire Staples [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [Andy Sherman]
    Re: AT&T/SkyTel Venture [Robert J. Woodhead)]
    Re: Change 800 Vendors But Same Number! [Al L. Varney]
    Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? [Dan'l DanehyOakes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (William Degnan)
Date: 14 Oct 91  16:10:48
Subject: UFGATE: "How Does It KNOW?"


On <Oct 09 14:30> J. Brad Hicks writes:

> One of the new changes looks impossible to me, how does this work?
> Apparently the domain "z1.fidonet.org" points to multiple hosts
> on the Internet, and vice-versa.  In the old days (a year ago?), all
> FidoNet to Internet traffic went through a single FidoNet node, both

Well ... kind of. If the net the addressee is in doesn't have a
gateway, the mail defaults to f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org. In our maps we
list the nets for which we gate. You can send outbound through almost
any gateway. Inbound may come through your local gateway or it still
may be routed via the default gateway (when it hits somebody who
doesn't have current maps).

> All well and good. But if I send mail to Jane_Doe@n999.f199.z1.
> fidonet.org, how does "z1.fidonet.org" determine which FidoNet node to
> route the mail to?  Or does all Internet mail into the FidoNet still
> pass through 1:114/15 and then get routed, like in the "old days"?

This is a trick question. Here is a trick answer. "No."

If Jane is at 1:199/999 then her address would be jane.doe@f999.n199.
z1.fidonet.org.

It only goes to stjhmc (1:114/15) if it is a net for which he gates or
if mail defaults to him.

> Does this mean that you can't route to ... f<net>.z1.fidonet.org
> unless <net> has a dedicated UFGATE?

No, but if it goes to stjhmc, it may be routed via the fidonet backbone,
perhaps going the long way.

Here is a list, but really you don't need to know because it "do".

(Check your nodelist for local listings)

FidoNet <-> uucp Approved Gateways -- Dated 10-12-91
    (Authorized to use Guucp in Fidonet nodelist)

Corrections to:
                 Hostmaster (David Dodell)

                 Fidonet  = 1:114/15
                 Internet = [e-mail]

SiteName    Node        Gateway for Net

afitamy     1:110/300   [ 110 ]
artspc      1:170/203   [ none ]
blkcat      1:109/401   [ 109, 261, 265, 276 ]
branch      1:369/11    [ 135, 369, 3609 ]
buscard     1:324/121   [ 324 ]
busker      1:105/14    [ 17, 40, 105, 345 ]
business    1:363/42    [ 363 ]
casino      2:515/800   [  2:220,  2:221,  2:222,  2:227, 2:490 ]
camphq      1:143/42    [ none ]
catpe       5:7104/2    [ none ]
ccfcc       1:205/42    [ 205 ]
cmhgate     1:226/20    [ 226 ]
cpanet      1:270/311   [ none ]
dawggon     1:105/6     [ none ]
dehnbase    1:104/418   [ none ]
eddysf      2:285/406   [ none ]
egsgate     1:250/98    [ 250 ]
ehsnet      1:233/13    [ 233 ]
eilc        1:3610/60   [ none ]
emdisle     1:300/14    [ 300 ]
fidogate    1:125/777   [ 125 ]
fidosw      1:125/111   [ none ]
fquest      1:19/23     [ none ]
gisatl      1:133/411   [ 133 ]
gnfido      2:254/70    [ 2:254, 2:25]
gstore      1:103/234   [ none ]
halluc      1:109/345   [ none ]
hndymn      1:114/30    [ none ]
hnews       1:141/420   [ none ]
hourglas    1:269/310   [ none ]
idic        1:104/424   [ 104 ]
isengard    1:234/15    [ 234 ]
isishq      1:163/162   [ none ]
jadpc2      1:202/723   [ 202 ]
kcufgat     1:280/500   [ 280 ]
kennel      1:143/8     [ none ]
kisbbs      1:3624/11   [ 360, 3624 ]
klbbs       1:141/370   [ 141 ]
lansend     1:143/3     [ 143 ]
linn        2:320/101   [ 2:320 ]
lri         1:105/126   [ none ]
malymi      1:103/110   [ none ]
masnet      1:259/404   [ 259 ]
mcastl      1:107/528   [ none ]
mcws        1:102/851   [ 102, 103, 206, 207 ]
mdf         1:382/39    [ 382 ]
memco       1:139/610   [ 139 ]
neis        1:267/201   [ 267 ]
newport     1:107/820   [ 107, 278 ]
nss         1:129/104   [ none ]
nwark       1:391/1060  [ 391 ]
oamicus     1:367/9     [ 367 ]
ocitor      1:124/2206  [ none ]
ofa123      1:103/302   [ none ]
ohiont      1:157/512   [ 157 ]
orioneb     1:141/705   [ none ]
pacifier    1:105/101   [ none ]
palind      1:124/3107  [ none ]
paranet     1:104/422   [ none ]
pdnfido     1:107/230   [ none ]
psycho      1:3610/75   [ 374, 3610 ]
puddle      1:105/42    [ 2,3,4,5,17,134,138,153,340,342,343,344,

                            346,347,348,349,350,351 ]
quadrant    1:105/209   [ none ]
redstar     1:115/639   [ none ]
resq        1:269/133   [ none ]
rochgte     1:260/222   [ 260  ]
royaljok    1:120/183   [  11,108,115,120,121,154,159,201,227,228,
                           230,231,232,236,237,238,239,2200,2201,
                           2210,2220,2222,2230,2240,2250,2260,2270
                           2280,2290 ]
rrgate      1:101/660   [ none ]
shire       1:114/55    [ none ]
slinky      1:147/63    [ 147 ]
spuzz       1:143/642   [ none ]
srrt        1:322/337   [ none ]
sscreen     1:141/9     [ none ]
stjhmc      1:114/15    [ 1, 114, default gateway for all un-gated nets ]
sunbrk      1:343/15    [ none ]
tdkt        1:282/31    [ none ]
terrabit    1:282/341   [ 282 ]
therip      1:228/24    [ none ]
tinylk      1:170/500   [ 170 ]
umagic      1:373/12    [ 373 ]
urchin      1:106/88    [ none ]
w8grt       1:234/1     [ none ]
weyr        1:140/22    [ 140 ]
wsyd        1:325/2     [ 325 ]
yantar      1:129/128   [ none ]
zorro9      1:16/390    [ 16, 101, 322 ]


William Degnan,  Communications Network Solutions
-Independent Consultants in Telecommunications-
P.O. Drawer 9530       | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530  | ![e-mail]  | Voice [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 20:34:56 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: UFGATE: "How Does It KNOW?"
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


UFGATE does not know about anything except what it is given.

If I am correct, all of the fidonet.org domain is served out of a
nameserver at ieee.org and the zone and net in the message determine
how it is routed.  The default Internet to Fidonet gateway is 114/15,
but many other nets have their own using other Internet/UUCP
connections.  The routing information knows this, and sends the
correct net's traffic to the correct Internet or UUCP system.

Another trend that has come up recently is that systems that use
Fidonet technology are getting set up in domains other than
fidonet.org.  To the outside world, these may appear as such things as
MX'ed sites within an Internet domain or mapped or unmapped UUCP
sites.  Believe it or not, there is a lot of Usenet news flying around
out there in FTS-0001 packets.


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
DRBBS, Keep On WOC'n in the Free World  (200:5010/666.0)

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: #5ESS Ringmate Broken
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 9:38:56 PDT


[e-mail] (Larry Rachman) wrote:

> I just tried to place what I thought was a simple order with the telco
> business office. It was for two lines; the first hunts to the second,
> and the second has two 'Ringmate' numbers on it (that's what New York
> Telephone calls the coded ringing service here).

> The rep told me that it wouldn't work that way; that if the first line
> hunted to the second, then the Ringmate wouldn't work. (Actually she
> told me the lines had to have separate *billing*, but I'm sure that
> she must have been meant they couldn't hunt.)

> My questions are:

>        1) Do Ringmate and hunt really conflict?

>        2) Is there a later version of the generic that fixes it, and
>           if so, what is its version name/number?

I have a situation that seems to work, would meet your needs, and be
acceptable to the telco.

I'm on a #5, I have one line billed under one name that has call
forward busy to my second line billed (billed under a different name).
The second line has ringmate for a third number.  Every thing works
just fine, and call forward busy is less expensive than hunting.  At
least you now know it's possible.


Dave

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 10:39:19 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Calling Number ID in California (No Decision Yet)


The latest info I have is that, *overall*, the majority of numbers (or
subscribers?) in California are unlisted.  This is especially true in
the metro areas such as L.A., S.F., and S.D.  While there are no doubt
parts of the state where this is not the case, presumably the high
percentage of unlisted numbers in the metro areas swamps them out,
statistically.

Part of the question may revolve around whether we're counting
telephone subscribers or telephone numbers.  Sometimes the articles
that discuss such matters are unclear on this point.

I'd welcome more up-to-date statistics for both that would clarify the
figures and validate (or invalidate, for that matter) this topic.

Another increasingly common "trend" in California, by the way, is for
people who *are* listed in the book to not show any address.


 --Lauren--

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 17:48:33 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Wire Staples


A good mail order source for the staple guns is Tools on sale.  They
sell the whole line of Arrow staple guns.  The T-25 is $25.25 and
staples are about $1.50/K. I have have had good luck ordering several
power tools from them. The T-25 gun is sutabile for most work.
Smaller wires might not be stappled as tight however, if a larger than
needed gun is used.

The steel staples should do for most purposes.  The Monel (tm, I
think) staples, being nickel based, are used where corrosion would be
a problem for steel staples. (outside, bare conductors, etc)

Tools on Sale
216 W. Seventh St.
St. Paul, MN 55102-2599
(They have an 800 number but I don't have it with me.)


Patton Turner   [e-mail]    KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 23:44:57 EDT
Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


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

 that I wrote

>> Remember that the tricky part of bypass is that modern toll switches
>> are not designed to interface with local loops.  They switch traffic
>> on trunks.

> Hmmm ... with a DMS-200 (a trunk switcher only) it is not too
> difficult to come up with a trunk group that works very well with a
> phone tied to the other end of each trunk.  Just using a little magic
> with the miscellaneous drop equipment.

> I'm guessing that AT&T switches are just as easy to arrange that way.
> The trick is the right circuit engineer who can figure out how to make
> the telephone set look like a trunk to the switch.

Oh, yeah, I could probably find the facilities *somewhere* to get a
voice line attached to a 4E.  Who knows where, though?  In the POP?
In the End Office?  The point of my posting was not so much that it
couldn't be done, but rather that it was probably not worth the
effort.


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: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: AT&T/SkyTel Venture
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 05:02:28 GMT


[e-mail] (ED HOPPER) writes:

> AT&T ANNOUNCES *** AT&T and SkyTel Corp. yesterday (10/14/91)
> announced the industry's first international "wireless mailbox"
> enabling business people on-the-move to link electronic mail and
> paging capabilities with a notebook computer.

> The interface in the SkyTel Link package connects the receiver to the
> Safari notebook computer so messages can be downloaded for viewing.

One wonders what provisions for encryption are provided by the system;
if the messages are delivered "in the clear" then anyone with a little
bit of technical skill can read any mail delivered via this method.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 23:54:54 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Al L Varney)
Subject: Re: Change 800 Vendors But Same Number!
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J.
Philip Miller) writes:

 [I've trimmed it]

> In {Update}, a SWBT rag (no 3, 1991) there is an article extolling
> 800 service, I found the following:

> And, toward the future -- with its eventual operation pending
> regulatory approval -- Bellcore (Bell Communications Research), ...
> is developing a database that could put all 800 numbers into a
> central system.  That would allow businesses to switch 800 suppliers
> without changing their 800 numbers ... and [allow] 800 calls to be
> routed to different numbers per time of day ...  "It would free
> companies to shop for the best 800 service price."

> Anyone know more information about this proposal?  Is it based on a
> centralized database where every switch in the country would have to
> query it in order to complete each 800 call, or is it distributed to
> each switch or ...?

  Yes.  And sorta.

  The revised FCC order for Docket 86-10 was released 9/16/91(?),
allowing the database mechanism to support "portable 800 numbers" to
be used under some conditions that address its current weaknesses.  In
essence, each LATA will have one or more switches with access to a LEC
database containing the 800 number data.  Each LEC will probably have
two or more databases (capacity + reliability will determine how
many).  Each database will be accessed with an existing SS7 mechanism
that asks the 800 number to be translated into an IXC (or route within
the LATA), along with a possible real DDD number and other information.

  One of the many unanswered questions in the Order was the issue of
database maintenance (updates).  Bellcore has proposed a central
mechanism that would allow updates to be propagated to the appropriate
databases, but the exact mechanism of getting the data to Bellcore and
paying all the parties is, as far as I know, undetermined.  For
example, the potential for "slamming" must be examined -- how does
Bellcore assure that database changes are really desired by the
customer?  And how does the customer verify that ALL THOSE DATABASES
got updated properly?  And who's at fault if they aren't?

  The plan for the BOCs and GTE to solve these and other issues is due
into the Common Carrier Bureau on 3/1/92.  Public comment period will
follow.

  Reference the FCC News Report No. DC-1925, 8/1/91 on the proposed
order.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Subject: Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone?
Date: 15 Oct 91 17:39:09 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan'l
> DanehyOakes) writes:

>> Current plans are for RBOCS and other local companies to roll-out SMDS
>> in the first half of 1992.  Interexchange SMDS should follow within a
>> year.

> I believe MFS (Metropolitan Fiber Systems) is offering SMDS now.  I
> saw them at the TCA show in San Diego a few weeks ago.

Well, hey, you can't really blame me for not mentioning it.  I mean, I
_work_ for Pacific Bell, after all ...


Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Net.Roach

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #826
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25929;
          18 Oct 91 1:46 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10400
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 17 Oct 1991 23:58:21 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08813
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 17 Oct 1991 23:58:09 -0500
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 23:58:09 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #827

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Oct 91 23:57:34 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 827

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions [John Higdon]
    Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service! [John Higdon]
    Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service! [John M. O'Shaughnessy]
    Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 [Robert Virzi]
    Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: Charge on 800 Calls [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: Latest AT&T Announcement: ROA/Calling Card Changes [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Who Was Theodore Vail? [Sandy Kyrish]
    Re: Even More 5ESS Woes [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: FCC Commissioner Qualifications: Proposed Legislation [Al L. Varney]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 23:53 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions


[e-mail] writes:

> Does the system automatically detect which type of phone is hooked
> up, or do ou need to program it?

If the KSU does not receive return data from an electronic set, it
assumes a standard telephone is connected and will behave
appropriately. That is, it will use loop supervision and send ring
voltage.

> Can two of the special sets be connected in parallel to one port?
> (Clearly, two regular ones could be.)

No, the data from the two sets would conflict with each other.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 07:43:40 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> Pulling the alarm would lock the housing
> around the perpetrator's wrist, holding him or her to the spot until
> the fire engine arrived and the firefighters released the caller.

One hopes the firemen arrive at the box before the fire does!


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 00:31 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service!


[e-mail] (William Kucharski) writes:

> I can understand US Sprint's desire to protect their network from
> overload, but their action today seems a bit harsh, to say the
> least ...

Several observations. First, Sprint has previously annouced its
intention to discontinue 900 service for everyone eventually. Second,
I guess Sprint has never heard of "choke" methods for dealing with a
high volume of calls directed to a single number. I know for a fact
that MCI knows how this is done (although in the situation that I was
aware of, they botched it badly).

Once again, this is an example of when the going gets tough, the OCCs
will fold on you every time.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (John M. O'Shaughnessy)
Subject: Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service!
Organization: Open Systems Architects, Inc., Mpls, MN
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 11:52:09 -0500


I find it hard to believe that anyone's 900 service was cut off
(permenently?) due to technical reasons.  One of the neat things I
remember about my visit to Sprint's command center in Atlanta was that
any surges in calls could be easily rerouted.  Now, of they blocked
the calls due to service overload because of some contractual
agreement, that I might understand.


John M. O'Shaughnessy            [e-mail]
Open Systems Architects, Inc.    Minneapolis, MN

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Virzi)
Subject: Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555
Date: 16 Oct 91 16:53:35 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA


I think I may be able to offer two explanations as to why the
800-number to access {USA Today's} information line may function the
way it does.  This is pure speculation on my part -- I have no
knowledge of the particulars of the situation.

What happens is this -- Whether you call their info line via
800.555.5555 or 900.555.5555 you get the same recorded message telling
you that the call will cost 95 cents per minute.  Controversy raged in
this forum over how they (or anyone) could charge for an 800-call.

{USA Today} has been offerring this service via a 900-line for some
time now.  I think it is safe to say that very few service providers
are making money charging for information access, particularly in the
residential market.  It is possible that {USA Today} is also finding
it difficult to sell telephone access to information.

If this is in fact the case, they may be taking either of two
approaches.  First, they may try giving the information away for free
for a while, just to get people hooked.  Once enough people are
hooked, the 800 number could be yanked, leaving the info-junkies no
choice but to pay the 900-number rates.

A second possibility is that this is a precursor to the introduction
of advertisements to the system.  {USA Today} may give the service
away to callers, providing they are willing to listen to ads. {USA
Today} would then make their money by selling ads to other companies
interested in reaching their callers.  This is more in line with the
newspaper's modus operandi anyway.  Advertisers provide the major
revenue stream, readers do not.

For either scenario, the reason for the "billed at 95 cents per
minute" message may simply be that they have only got one system, and
no matter how you call that system, the opening message warns you
about the charge.  Don't forget, the message is not provided by the
network, it is delivered by CPE (USA Today's, in this case).  If there
were a regular old telephone number to call, I bet it would also warn
you about the 95 cent charge.

As I said earlier, these are only my guesses as to what's going on.  I
don't know anything about the particulars of this case.  I might as
well add that GTE, GTE Labs, or anyone else takes no responsibility
for what I have said, nor do they necessarily agree with it.


Bob Virzi   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 15 Oct 91 14:09:12
Subject: Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555


[e-mail] (Mike Morris) writes:

> It's obvious that they have my account up on the screen before they
> answer the call.

   According to the {Wall Street Journal}, AmEx used to answer the
phone with "Hello, Mr. Morris," but that freaked too many customers
out.  ("How did you find my name?  Are you watching me?" etc.)  Now
they feign ignorance.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 15 Oct 91 13:57:31
Subject: Re: Charge on 800 Calls


Our Moderator writes:

> (3) I make
> lots of long distance and 800-number calls monthly. I examine my phone
> bill closely. I have yet to see a five cent charge for these calls,
> either listed separatly or imbedded in the rate charged by the long
> distance carrier or buried in the 'monthly service' charge from IBT.

   It sounds like you have flat-rate service.  When I went to the
University of Chicago, I (and most people I knew) had metered service.
5 cents sounds just about right for a message unit (soon to be 8.3
cents here in DC).

   Pat, if you don't have metered local service, your 800 calls are
being covered by the flat-rate plan.  And if you do have metered
service, how could you know the number of local calls you've placed so
precisely that you could detect the addition of a few 800 and LD calls
to the total?


[Moderator's Note: We have not had flat rate service here in YEARS.
All calls are billed in 'units', at prices ranging from 3.5 to 5 cents
depending on the time of day and the number of units consumed that
month. And I know how many calls I have made because the bill from IBT
is broken down each month to tell me (this is standard practice now
with IBT). It says so many calls to the A zone, so many to the B zone,
so many to the C zone, etc. And it says nothing about a charge for 800
calls or a surcharge for long distance calls. On another page where
the monthly service is broken down however it does say the monthly
'network access fee' compensates IBT for calls handed off to various
other carriers for long distance calls, etc.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Latest AT&T Announcement: ROA/Calling Card Changes
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 09:50:53 EDT


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

> According to an outbound telemarketer working for AT&T, who disturbed
> the peace on my closely held unlisted phone number, the Reach-Out
> America discount applied to calling cards will no longer be offered on
> AT&T handled calls billed to your LEC calling card number.  As of
> December, you must use your AT&T calling card, with the unconnected 14
> digit number, to get the ROA discount.

While I don't want to start a flame war on outbound telemarketing, let
me point out that AT&T is a company with whom you have an established
business relationship (related to your unlisted telephone) involving
the extension of credit.  Is it unreasonable that they (us) have your
telephone number?  I assume the date has to do with the 1/92 deadline
in the MFJ for eliminating remaining shared network arrangements like
the current shared calling card database.

> I tried the telemarketer out on some follow-on questions, and she
> could respond with nothing but "I don't know."

> I asked her if my AT&T card would work for intra-lata calls in my home
> LATA?  "I don't know."

The answer is yes.  The LECs (at least BOCs, anyway) are able to get
verification services from AT&T's separate card database, just as AT&T
can get verification services from the BOCs soon to be separate card
database.  That is how inter-lata calls get billed to Universal Cards
(as well as the new Calling Cards).

> I asked if my AT&T card would work for intra-lata calls in a foreign
> lata, like out of state.  "I don't know."

Same answer as above.  The only caveat I have is that I have know idea
what the deal is in independent telco territory.  Your mileage may
vary there, but that caveat seems to apply to a *LOT* of issues.

> I asked a few more similar questions.  "She didn't know."
> She was eminently capable of reading her script, but that was all.

Sigh.


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, 16 Oct 91 14:36 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Was Theodore Vail?


The story about Theodore Vail prompts me to add these historical tidbits.

Theodore Vail's eight years of service in the Government Railway Mail
Service did much towards revolutionizing the abominable mail system.
Vail introduced mail sorting; previously, local postmen selected their
mail from randomly stuffed mailbags brought by train, and sent the
remainder ricocheting around the country.  His department also devised
the first civil service tests in an attempt to rid themselves of
political patronage employees.  When the government heard about the
idea, it developed a nationwide program.

Also, Vail's understanding of the value of a networked system of
telephones is due in part to his comprehensive view of the national
railway and telegraph systems.

In 1879, the 33-year-old Vail accepted a $3,500 annual salary to
manage the struggling Bell Telephone Company.  It represented a
$1,500 salary cut, but Vail had tired of his unsuccessful dealings
with Congress and was anxious to promote the telephone enterprise.
Vail's co-workers and supervisors couldn't believe that a "nice
fellow like Vail" could abandon his job for a "piece of wire with two
Texan steer horns attached to the ends, with an arrangement to make
the concern blate (sic) like a calf."  One congressman wrote: "Can't
you wait and see if Congress will not fix your salary?  Don't rob the
public of an invaluable servant just because we tried to cheat and
starve you."

BTW, I always wished he'd had a son named Noah Vail.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Even More 5ESS Woes
Date: 16 Oct 91 15:58:02 GMT


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

> New observed annoyance with the 5ESS:

I don't know just what anyone else is on, but I know that I'm
connected to a 5ESS since we own our own switch. We are currently
running the 5E6 generic and I have experienced none of the problems
John described. This may be because we don't really push the switch,
so there is no reason for delays, but the reason we don't push it is
that we specified capacity requirements in the bid and got enough
switching modules to handle the present and anticipated load.

As to audio quality issues, the first thing I noticed on the day of
cutover was the amazingly clarity. The audio quality was a significant
improvement from the days of old. There is no noticable drop in levels
on three-way. Since I consider call waiting a social abomination, I
can't comment on it.

I should mention that I'm on an all digital connection from the local
CO (which has both a 1AESS and a DMS100) to my desk. Maybe the analog
cards are causing the problem, but I was still on analog service when
the switch was installed and I noticed no problems then, either.


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.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 11:06:47 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Al L Varney)
Subject: Re: FCC Commissioner Qualifications: Proposed Legislation
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.
fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes:

> Bill Sepmeier ([e-mail]) posted a
> message on FidoNet's FCC echo announcing that Mr. (first name not
> specified) Ritter of the U.S. House of Representatives had introduced,
> or planned to introduce, legislation to require that at least one
> member of the Federal Communications Commission be a professional
> engineer or have equivalent skills, in light of the increasingly
> complex technical questions the FCC has to deal with.

 [... stuff deleted ...]

> (If anyone wants to follow up on this, it would be interesting to know
> whether Mr. Ritter is an engineer himself, or whether he represents a
> high-technology district.)

  From the 1991 National Communication Forum 9/30/91 Luncheon Program,
where the Honorable Dr. Ritter addressed a large audience of Telephone
and Telecommunications diners.

"Congressman Don Ritter, PA, will discuss his vision and proposed
legislation for a nationwide "seamless" integrated fiber-optic
network.  Congressman Ritter is one of a handful of members of the
House with a technical background and the only one at a doctoral level
 -- a doctor of science from MIT."

The speech was a re-iteration of his view on the need for a
nation-wide high-speed, high-capacity comm. network, funded and/or
directed by the US government.  In his view, this is the comm.
equivalent of the current Interstate Highway system, with similar
reasons for construction: Better comm. inside the US will result in
more efficient, competitive products and services in the US.  His
views were, in effect, that private industry could fund and operate
the network (he is a Republican), but some direction and
standard-setting by Uncle Sam would speed up deployment and allow
universal access.

  The first step (or is it step three or four) in this capability is
the proposed National Research and Education Network (NREN), with
funding already under way for several Gigabit Testbed initiatives.
The objective is a coast-to-coast 1-to-5 Gbps network, replacing the
T1 and T2 links of today's Internet, and the T3 links of NSFNET.

  The young lady sitting next to me (from US Sprint) commented, "A
nationwide fiber network?  Gee, we already have one ..."  I'm not sure
the audience was the most receptive he could have had.  He's talking
PACKET to a largely CIRCUIT-switched group.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #827
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27232;
          18 Oct 91 2:15 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09251
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 18 Oct 1991 00:36:07 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16318
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 18 Oct 1991 00:35:56 -0500
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 00:35:56 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #828

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 Oct 91 00:35:48 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 828

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Caller ID and COCOT Questions [John Goggan]
    What a Length of Wire Will Do [Brian Rice]
    Wiring Sequences [[e-mail] (Kral)]
    NYNEX Voice Mail [Michael Schuster]
    Interesting Pac*Bell Response [John Higdon]
    ANI in C&P-Land [Charlie Mingo]
    Incremental Communication [Jaco de Vroed]
    Billing Delays [Bud Couch]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Goggan)
Subject: Caller ID & COCOT Questions
Date: 15 Oct 91 18:34:25 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Goggan)
Organization: Free Software Foundation



Ok, I hope none of these are FAQs ... just a couple things I want to
get cleared up in my head so I understand more of the normal postings.

Caller ID

1. Does anyone have a general list now of what states DO offer Caller
ID services?  (I noticed that a few disagreed with the last state
posting and I was hoping for an update -- I'm especially concerned
with Michigan.)

2. When I called the 800 number posted a few days ago (it was
800-282-0911 and they read back your phone number -- it's an alarm
company promotion or something similar to that) they read back
'517-774-4000' - which is the MAIN controlling number (the operator)
of the PBX at my school -- my number is 517-774-4723.  So, if Caller
ID WAS available, might the PBX create problems (something like it
always reading `517-774-4000' as the calling number since that is the
controlling number or something?)

3. [This one isn't a question -- just a comment] People were
discussing that they heard some companies have hooked caller ID units
into their database to automatically pull the callers file when he/she
calls.  Just wanted to let people know that there is a company which
sells a unit for just that purpose (the post said that the company had
to wire the unit manually into the computer) -- There is a program
available for reading/looking up names on a UNIX system written to
work with that device (the name & address to order it from is listed
in with the program which is available from alt.sources)

4. Just because caller ID is not avilable in an area, does that mean
the information is not sent out also?  I.E.  Let's say Caller ID is
not available in Michigan but is in California -- if I call from
Michigan to California, they still recieve my number even though
actual Caller ID services aren't available where I am, right?

OK - that's it for Caller ID -- now one COCOT question ...

Does anyone have the address of any companies that sells COCOTs?
There is supposed to be one available in an auction (there was a fire
at a nearby restaurant) and if it was cheap enough, I was hoping to
get it just to have to experiment with and as an interesting phone to
have for when the neighbors come over! -- anyways, I don't want to
try to get it if I won't be able to get any documentation on HOW to
use it so I am hoping that a company will sell me some instruction
manuals for their phones (if I can find a company that sells the same
type of phone.)

Thanks for your time!  Sorry again about any FAQs posted here.


John

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

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 01:24:49 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Brian Rice)
Subject: What a Length of Wire Will Do


I have residential Touch Tone POTS from my friends at Southern Bell in
my apartment.  Previous inhabitants of the apartment have graciously
installed two extension jacks in addition to the one mounted
in-wall...one is a four-prong jack, into which I've plugged an RJ-11
adapter, and the other is one of those spiffy RJ-11 jacks where a
spring-loaded plate swings down over the plug and holds it in place.
Both of these jacks look somewhat ad hoc, but they work.  I've got a
cheap random-Korean-maker hand-held phone in one, and the other is
where I plug in my 9600 baud modem when I'm using it -- I power the
modem off when I'm not calling out using it.  I plug in a Panasonic
answering machine/phone combination in the original-equipment jack.
No cordless phones, nothing up my sleeve.

An interesting phenomenon developed several months ago ... a loud
noise on the line, sort of like a particularly satanic electric clock
alarm, at all times, during dial tone, dial, and conversation.  It
varied in loudness, only rarely increasing to a level where it would
disturb the conversation, but I called Southern Bell repair anyway, so
that I could enjoy the pin-drop clarity I get from Sprint :-).  The
service was not particularly successful, since they would keep coming
by my apartment and leaving notes saying they needed to get in, and I
would keep calling them back and saying "Please have someone from
Repair call and explain why they need to get in, so that I can decide
whether I really want to bite the bullet and involve the landlord."
After several days of this, the noise faded back down to a more
tolerable level of its own accord, so I cancelled the service request.

Of late, however, my friends have made known to me a new problem: they
would call my number, get a split second's worth of a ring (or none at
all) then a busy signal!  Whoa!  I was able to reproduce this behavior
nine times out of ten calling from various places (including some
served by local telcos other than Southern Bell), with and without
each of the phones plugged in.  I figured that the modem didn't
matter, since it was always powered off.  So I called Southern Bell,
made a repair request, and of course I haven't heard hide nor hair of
them this time.

But a person like me can't resist the urge to keep testing, and to try
permutations of the problem which don't make any sense.  (Hell, it's
my job.)  So I checked to see what would happen if I unplugged the
cord leading from the jack to the (powered-off) modem.  Voila!  You
could now dial in successfully every time.  I replaced the cord, and
the behavior returned.  What's more, the aforementioned alarm noise is
greatly mitigated when the modem cord is unplugged.

So naturally thoughts like the following leapt into my head: "RF
interference!  Improper grounding!  NSA snoops at work!"  Just kidding
about that last item.  Anyway, I am going to pick up one of those RF
line filters mentioned here recently, but I can't help but think
that's not the whole problem.  There could be any kind at all of
wiring mishap (after all, some heating ducts from the neighboring
apartment lead into mine!), and it will probably be easier for me to
fix those than to try to get the landlord to do them.  But I'm baffled
about grounding, since, in my limited understanding of telecom, that's
the local telco's responsibility.  Ideas?


Brian Rice   [e-mail]   [phone]
DG/UX Software Quality Assurance
Data General Corp., Research Triangle Park, N.C.

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

From: [e-mail] (Kral)
Subject: Wiring Sequences
Organization: Digital Research Inc
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 16:20:28 GMT


Last month I posted an article detailing what I thought to be current
USOC and 258A wiring standards wrt banded wire coloring vs. solid wire
coloring vs. channel ID vs. Modular pin number vs. RS232 pin and
signals.

I received one reply which said it was mistaken in a couple of
respects, namely wrt to the assignment of channel id (Tn,Rn) to wiring
colors.

I need to confirm this, so I'm hoping that someone currently in the
industry can do so, or failing that, I'm hoping to get a pointer to an
authoratative reference.  Basically, what I was told was this:

This is for small numbers of bundled pairs, not 25 pair or more
cables, and for banded coloring:

    1. White/xx is always Tip

    2. xx/White is always Ring

    3. White/xx is always twisted with xx/White.

    4. Color sequence is: Blue = 1, Orange = 2, Green = 3, Brown = 4

The solid coloring seems pretty standard, so I'll leave that out.  If
you have any info or pointers, please send me email.  I'll post a
summary when I finally get this all straightened out.


Very confused,

kral * 408/647-6112 *   ...!uunet!drivax!braun * [e-mail]

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

From: panix![e-mail] (Michael Schuster)
Subject: NYNEX Voice Mail
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 21:04:22 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


NY Telephone has begin advertising a personal voice mail system which
acts as though it were your personal answering machine. Apparently it
will even answer the phone if you're on the line, sparing your caller
the busy signal. A double dial tone greets you when you pick up the
phone with messages waiting.

They say to call 1-800-MESSAGE for information, but I'd rather not
hear it from a NYNEX telemarketer.

Does anyone have more specifics on this? Is this just like voice mail?
Does it feature time/date stamping? Online editing of messages when
caller enters them? Forwarding to beeper? Selective save/delete per
message? Remote activation/deactivation? Cost???


Mike Schuster
NY Public Access UNIX: [e-mail]      | [e-mail]
The Portal (R) System: [e-mail] | -MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 21:26 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Interesting Pac*Bell Response


Today I had a call from a very nice person from Pac*Bell who mentioned
that she was most concerned about my comments concerning the 5ESS. In
particular, she emphatically insisted that the no CW on 3W had been
"fixed" years ago. I have no custom calling on any of my seven 5ESS
lines here at the house and have been relying on statements from
knowledgeable collegues regarding the call waiting limitations.
Concerned that I might have a mess to clean up here on the Digest, I
went to a location that has 5ESS with all the usual features -- a
transmitter site served out of the Junction Ave. CO in San Jose.

Here are the results of the actual hands-on tests:

Directed call to number while another call was in progress; received
CW tone (verifying that CW was enabled on the line).

Placed second call while on first and three-wayed them together. All
parties verified that they could hear one another.

Directed call to number while this three-way converation was in
progress.  No CW tone heard; line appeared busy to calling number.

Dropped second call on three-way. Directed another call. CW tone
heard; ringback received by caller.

Tests were repeated several times in several fashions.

The inescapable conclusion: Call Waiting is NOT possible on the 5ESS
while a Three-Way call is in progress. This is personally verified and
I have witnesses.

A secondary conclusion: one of two situations exist. Either CW does
not work with 3W on a 5ESS at all, or Pac*Bell is running some old or
inferior generic. At this point, I am inclined to believe the former
to be true, since the switch in question is on the SS7 network.

I have decided to escalate this Call Waiting not working with Three
Way. Today I called to report the transmitter site phone (5ESS) out of
order because it cannot receive CW during a three-way converstation.
Shortly after reporting this "problem", I call a call from a Pac*Bell
repair person who dutifully informed me that 3W overrides CW.

"Oh? Not on the phone we are speaking on right at this moment. Want me
to prove it?" She was agreeable, so I demonstrated that while we are
on a three way call, call waiting worked just fine. She told me she
would get back to me. The phone I had just demonstrated is served by a
1ESS.

A short time later, she called back with the explanation that if I had
placed BOTH calls on the three way that it would not work. So I called
her back and then three-wayed to another of her co-workers. Then a
third repair person called me and, you guessed it, CW worked just
fine.

Then she admitted that she had never made these tests, but had simply
relied upon the "feature descriptions" in her employee manuals. She is
now taking it to her second line supervisor.

For the record, let me restate that ALL of the people whose knowledge
and opinions that I trust in this business tell me that UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCES and contrary to other claims in this forum, the 5ESS
does NOT, on an ordinary POTS line, allow Call Waiting on a Three Way
call. For those of you who claim that it does, I would suggest that
you recheck your data, or find out what switch you are REALLY served
by.

Just got the "final" word from a 611 repair supervisor. No, the 5ESS
does not allow CW on 3W, period. No, there are no plans to enable this
feature implementation. Now what was that about the superiority of the
5ESS?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 15 Oct 91 14:01:34
Subject: ANI in C&P-Land


I don't know if this has been mentioned here before, but I recently
read that 811 would give you the caller's number in the Washington, DC
metro area.

    I tried it and, sure enough, it works.  (This also explains what
811 does; I still don't know about 711, 511, 311, 211 and 111.)

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

From: [e-mail] (Jaco de Vroed)
Subject: Incremental Communication
Date: 16 Oct 91 10:30:53 GMT
Organization: Software Engineering Research Centre - Netherlands


Hi there,

I`m currently working on communication between systems that need to
exchange information. In my case, the information that is to be
transmitted from one site to an other is allready partially available
at the receiving end (because the sender wants to up- date information
at the receiving end). Being able to find out what is really to be
transmitted would often result in better performance.

The problem is to find a way to let the sites 'talk' to each other
with the purpose to inform each other about the information available.
This could be called 'incremental communication'.  Finding an
algorithm to solve the problems involved is not easy.


MY QUESTION:

    Does anybody know anything about this problem and how to
    solve it?

    AND/OR

    Does anybody know where I can find information about this
    problem. (I am already busy searching in the field of
    distributed systems, but have not yet found what I need.)


I would appreciate some suggestions.


Thanks,

Please reply by E-mail (if possible).

Jaco de Vroed
Software Engineering Research Centre - CAMERA-project
P.O. Box 424   3500 AK Utrecht   Holland
E-mail: [e-mail]

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: Billing Delays
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 19:28:02 GMT


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

>> So, any card like this available?  Are telcos allowing a two
>> second call (and billing for two seconds).  Does the old two second
>> "billing delay" apply to ISDN or switched 56 calls?

> Two years ago, when I got my last Hughes Aircraft phone bill (they
> actually sent us a monthly summary of the phone charges made against
> our access codes back then), the smallest 'quanta' of time charged was
> a tenth of a minute, or six seconds.  I rather doubt that you would be
> able to get your bill charged by the second, and in any event, even
> six second billing wouldn't be available to you unless you were on
> some kind of bulk calling program with the telco.  (Sprint says they
> don't charge in less than six-second intervals, anyway.)

The billing delay mentioned here is a requirement that the terminating
DCE (modem, ISDN terminal, Switched 56 DSU, what have you) not cut
through (allow the two DTE's to talk) until after the call had been
answered for two seconds.

The reason for this is that the telco billing equipment may not
recognize that the call had been answered if the off-hook doesn't last
at least 1.5 seconds.

Since many "data" calls consist of short burst of data, where "short"
is a relative term (a function of the data rate), many calls could be
completed, data passed, and disconnected before being billed.

For obvious reasons, the operating companies don't like this idea, so
the FCC has required that any registered DCE force the call to be
connected for at least two seconds before allowing throughput.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #828
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01356;
          18 Oct 91 4:09 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14632
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 18 Oct 1991 02:21:55 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09627
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 18 Oct 1991 02:21:41 -0500
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 02:21:41 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #829

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 Oct 91 02:21:09 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 829

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T 10xxx 0+ Unblocking Seminars [Barton F. Bruce]
    New Colored Box? [John Gilbert]
    Companies With ESP [Marshal Perlman]
    Connect Information System [Cliff Helsel]
    Phreaking and Abuse in alt.dcom.telecom [Tom Sarver]
    For Sale: Rolm CBX [Clyde R. Visser]
    No Reachout World For Cellular? [Patrick J. Cox]
    Are There Any MUXes That Can Do Async and Sync Over Same Line? [Ted Manos]
    Pac Bell Has Stopped Billing For Porn [Mathew Zank]
    What is Fidonet? [Christopher Lott]
    NEED: Programming Info For Uniden MP 1100 Cellular Phone [Vance Shipley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T 10xxx 0+ Unblocking Seminars
Date: 17 Oct 91 03:03:33 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


Over the next two months or so, AT&T is running what seems like a
crash program of seminars to deal with the requirements for 10xxx 0+
unblocking.

They point out that most 'aggregator' locations must unblock, and that
as defined by the FCC 'Aggregators include:

 Hotels & Motels, Hospitals, Universities, Airports, Gas Stations, Pay
 Telephone Owners, and others.

The 'must unblock by' date depends on several variables. Some new
installations must be done then, some by March 16, 1992, some by March
16, 1993, and ALL must be done by April 17, 1997.

AT&T is running the seminars with no requirements for being AT&T
users.  They are targeting consultants that will then spread the info,
vendors, and telecom managers. No charge, they provide breakfast and
lunch. Advanced registration IS required, and with only seven regional
seminars they are going to run out of space FAST.

The subject areas are:

 The legislation and associated FCC orders.

 Risk of Fraud and how to prevent it.

 A suggested approach to planning the unblocking.

 AT&T assistance plan.

Once AT&T gets this material all together, maybe one of our AT&T
regulars here can convince them to supply ALL of it in machine
readable form and put some up as c.d.t postings and ALL up in the
archives, and/or make it ALL available for FTP from some AT&T site.

This is an ideal use for the network, and can diseminate this material
very fast to those unable to fly to and stay over night for a seminar.
Perhaps some AT&T specialist in this area can join us here in c.d.t
for a while to answer specific common questions, or at least let his
email address be published.

And perhaps other vendors such as Mitel and NTI folks can supply quick
answers about necessary generics, or 'cute' tricks with older ones to
help this all work.

In the seminar material under the "AT&T assistance plan" section there
will be such things as LEC specific USOC codes and prices for various
suitable blocking and screening services, as well as test scripts.

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

From: [e-mail] (John)
Subject: New Colored Box?
Organization: Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 00:36:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> kentrox![e-mail]
(Bud Couch) writes:

>>> Does the old two second "billing delay" apply to ISDN or switched
>>> 56 calls?

> Sec 68.314, Billing Protection.
> The note also states that this applies to digital services inter-
> connected to the analog telephone network, which certainly describes
> ISDN.

> I also know that my company has implemented this two second billing
> delay in both of our Switched 56 product lines.

I disagree that ISDN is a digital service interconnected to the analog
telephone network.  I interpret this to apply to the use of digital
equipment connected to the analog telephone network by use of a modem.

On switched 56 or ISDN calls I can see no technical reason for the two
second requirement.  The requirement only is useful in the analog
world (of a few years ago).  I suspect that the requirement was
included to prevent the called party modem from answering with a
signal that would have enough energy content at 2600 Hz that the
originating CO would be lead to believe that answer supervision was
not being returned from the far end. The lack of any signal for two
seconds would give the SF receivers time to notice that the 2600 Hz
had gone away and that it was time to start billing the call.  I know
that there are part 68 requirements that prohibit energy at 2600 Hz
without simultanious energy at other frequencies, but I think the "two
second rule" was an attempt to be extra certain that answer
supervision wouldn't be messed up by having modems answer the phone.

This leads to an interesting question.  Is it possible that a new
"box" could have been built that would answer a toll call immediately
with a 2600 Hz tone added to the answering party's voice?  This box
would then prevent the return of answer supervision to an SF/MF
signalled trunk allowing the call to appear as unanswered?  This of
course would not be useful today when carriers block the reverse audio
path prior to the return of supervision.  But it does raise the
possiblity of a whole new "box." Has anybody heard of anybody using
such a "box" back in the days when such things were done?


John Gilbert                                  KA4JMC
Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div      Astro Systems Development
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector     Schaumburg, Illinois
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marshal Perlman)
Subject: COompanies With ESP
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 07:06:50 GMT


HELP! ... I am quote lost as of now ... (read on)

Today I sent a fax to "HELLO DIRECT" telling them to put me on their
mailing list ... I put my name and address ... but yet ... half an hour
later I got a fax back from them saying that their automated computer
can't understand my order form (maybe I faxed it to the wrong
number) ... but my fax DID NOT HAVE MY NUMBER ON IT. Nor did my 'fax
header'. I always leave that blank ...and I DID DOUBLE CHECK it to make
sure my number was not sent in any way!!! BUT YET they sent me a fax
back. (FYI I am in California.)


Marshal Perlman   [e-mail]
Huntington Beach, California U.S.A)


[Moderator's Note: If you fax (or for that matter, voice call) to an
800 number, the recipient does not need your help in detirmining your
phone number. The company most likely gets ANI in real time as part of
their 800 service. They used that number to fax you back in reply. PAT]

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

Subject: Connect Information System
Date: Wed Oct 16 23:52:41 1991
From: [e-mail] (Cliff Helsel)


Has anyone ever worked with the Connect, Inc. dial up system?  This
company is based in Cuperino, CA.  The only (that I know of) method to
access this system is via a Macintosh or IBM PC using a special piece
of software.  I have manually dialed into their system and have
reverse engineered some of the access protocol but has anyone gotten
any further.

My reason for doing this is to build an interface to the Connect
system that does not rely upon their proprietary software.

Any info would be greatly appreciated.


[e-mail]    or [e-mail]

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

From: Tom Sarver <andersen![e-mail]>
Subject: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 18:26:50 CDT


I have a problem with which I believe that you can help.  My wife's
company monitors alarm systems around the country.  As a combination
marketing tool and technology show-off, they have a phone number
which, when called, immediately tells the person who answers, the
phone number of the originator.

You can see that for an alarm system this is A Good Thing.  It helps
their computers locate the correct record more quickly for dispatching
{Fire | Medical | Police}.

In the past month or so (probably longer), her company has been
receiving calls on this line which range from bogus to abusive.
Needless to say, such calls do not lead to business contacts, but they
do cost the company $1.50.

The reason I'm telling you this is, that word on the street has it,
that this number has been made available on alt.dcom.telecom.  Callers
have also told her that it is posted on phreaking bulletin boards (she
gave me the phone numbers and names of said BBSs, but I don't have
them right now).  What I'd like from you is some advice on some
avenues to explore.  The overall goal is to keep the number active for
marketing purposes.  Is there some way to track down who is spreading
it?  What can we do?

BTW, I am very net-conscious.  I don't have problems ftp'ing archives,
accesing BBSs, etc.  But I have know idea how to track this down.
I've done the obvious measures without success of any kind.  1) obtain
comp.dcom.telecom archives on the outside chance it was cross-posted.
2) Calling the BBS #'s.  3) Look at alt.dcom.telecom (all but a few
messages were expired).

I've got no idea.

Thanks for any help you can give.


Tom Sarver     [e-mail], Chicago, IL
The opinions presented here are not necessarily those of my employer.


[Moderator's Note: You are correct that the information began
spreading first from various messages on alt.dcom.telecom. From there,
it has spread to phreak boards everywhere. One problem that has always
existed with unmoderated, unguarded forums for telecom discussion is
the phreaks find out about it and soon have it infested with abusive
stuff. From what I have heard elsewhere, your wife's company has had a
lot of hassles with the messages in alt.dcom.telecom, and it is very
unfortunate. You might try contacting the BBS's which have the number
posted and ask them to remove it. You might also try contacting the
Internet system administrators who accept the alt.dcom.telecom feed at
their sites and remind them that messages of the sort you describe
could very well embroil their institutions in a lawsuit or bring
unwanted, negative publicity for Usenet, as has happened in the past
with other groups where abusive stuff was printed.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 09:04:42 PDT
From: dodeca![e-mail]
Organization: Ameritec Corporation
Reply-To: "Clyde R. Visser" <[e-mail]>
Subject: For Sale: Rolm CBX


I apologize if this is inappropriate but I've already tried posting
this to misc.forsale to no avail and I'd like to get my garage back!-)

                             FOR SALE
                        ROLM CBX, 2 RACKS
                        RACK 1 M/N 8201/B
                        RACK 2 M/N 8202/A

                                             Board Count
Model Number   Description                   Rack 1    Rack 2

8554           8 CHANNEL LINE INT            20        4

8552A          16 CHANNEL DECODER            12        2

8551C          16 CHANNEL CODER              10        1

8550B          EXPANDER CARD                 3         1

8601           CONFERENCE BRIDGE             2         0

8551E          16 CHANNEL CODER              2         1

8560           4 CHANNEL CBX                 2         0

8564           4 CHANNEL DIRECT TRUNK LOGIC  4         0

8607           QUAD DTMF                     2         0

8556           4 CHANNEL KEY TEL INT         1         0

8603           TONE GENERATOR                2         0

8602A          BIAS GENERATOR                1         0

8760           2 CH SER DEVICE INTERFACE     1         0

8508           REAL TIME CLOCK               1         0

8506           TDM NET CONT. 1               1         0

8507A          TDM NET CONTROL 2             1         0

8502           CPU 4                         1         0

8501           CPU 3                         1         0

8503           CPU 2                         1         0

8500           CPU 1                         1         0

8504B          MEMORY CONTROLLER / WDT       1         0

85320B         EXT 48K MEMORY                1         0

PURCHASER ASSUMES FREIGHT CHARGES

System was decommissioned while functional.  No docs.  Assumed good
for spare parts.  Batteries dead.

System goes to best offer received in response to this posting.
Serious inquiries only to [e-mail]


crv

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

From: [e-mail] (PATRICK J. COX 7-6710)
Subject: No Reachout World For Cellular?
Date: 17 Oct 91 11:33:15 -7
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO


I have recently signed a contract with Southwestern Bell Mobile
Systems with ATT as my long distance carrier.  I have to call Japan on
a fairly regular basis from my cellular phone so I called ATT and
learned about their Reachout World program.  The program sounds like
just what I need except for one problem ... it is not offered to
cellular customers.  The ATT cellular billing people tell me that the
only special LD program that I can get is ProWatts.  Why?


[Moderator's Note: Because telco looks at cellular lines as business
service, and the various Reach Out Plans are residential offerings,
while ProWatts is a business offering. You can't subscribe to Reach
Out on your office (landline) phones either.   PAT]

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

Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 17 Oct 1991 12:20:49 CDT
From: Ted Manos <[e-mail]>
Subject: Are There Any MUXes That Can Do Async and Sync Over Same Line?


OK dcom people, here's a question for you: Are there any MUXes (or
anything else!) that will allow transmission of both Async and Sync
over the same leased line???  The situation here is that we need to
place some 3270-type (BSC, not SDLC) remote terminals/controller at a
remote location some 1500 miles away.  This location also needs to
have one or two Async ASCII terminals to access a separate UNIX system
here.  If it is in ANY WAY possible to do this over 1 leased line,
obviously this is what we would prefer, as 56KB lines aren't all that
cheap.

Any help you might be able to provide would be GREATLY appreciated!
Please direct replies directly to me, unless you feel this is of
general interest to the net.

Thanks much, in advance!


Ted Manos   U21880@UICVM or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mathew Zank)
Subject: pac bell has stop billing for porn
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 00:29:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


 From Dow Jones, the news is Pac Bell has stopped billing for
dial-a-porn telephone services. The services now have to use a other
service like credit cards or shut down. Last company that did this was
AT&T; its too bad that Telesphere did this first before it got too late
for them. Telesphere now has been approved by the the bankruptcy court
to sell its assets to the highest bidder.


Matthew Zank - Eau Claire, Wi   Internet: [e-mail]
 -or- [e-mail]    [e-mail]
send flames to [e-mail]  BITNET: zank%netcom.com@CUNYVM

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

Subject: What is Fidonet?
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 12:02:59 -0400
From: [e-mail]


Fidonet sounds interesting; would someone please explain a little more
or point me in the right direction?

Thanks.


Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
[e-mail]   /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg  301 405-2721 <standard disclaimers>


[Moderator's Note: Fidonet is a cooperative network of BBS sysops who
pass mail and messages among themselves, must like Usenet, but
probably on a smaller scale. Check the local BBS directory for your
area and find the BBS's which indicate they are Fido nodes. Sign on as
a user, and you are all set! Probably one or more of our many Fido
sysops who read TELECOM Digest will write you and offer more advice.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: NEED: Programming Info For Uniden MP 1100 Cellular Phone
Organization: Xenitec Consulting Services, Kitchener, ON, CANADA
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 14:02:39 GMT


I just picked up a Uniden car phone.  I would like to get as much info
on it as possible.  Could any one help?  Please E-mail, thank you.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #829
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28321;
          19 Oct 91 1:15 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21014
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 18 Oct 1991 23:29:40 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27345
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 18 Oct 1991 23:29:03 -0500
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 23:29:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #830

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 Oct 91 23:28:45 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 830

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, Oregon [Leonard Erickson via A Klossner]
    Cellular Billing Lawsuit [Ken Jongsma]
    Rockville, MD Cutover to DMS100 Friday! [John Boteler]
    Registration/Test by Phone on Campus [Cristobal Pedregal Martin]
    IXO Beeper Protocol [Tom Limoncelli]
    Feedback on ClassMate 10 Software, Please [Bob Izenberg]
    AT&T Foreign Visitors Packet [Nigel Allen]
    Oh, Canada! [David McKellar]
    Long Distance Bill! [Dave Downin]
    Phones in Hospitals [Dave Niebuhr]
    Line Testing Voltage [Jon Sreekanth]
    Novatel Model 8032 [Jim Langridge]
    Internet<->CompUServe [Amelia-ann L. Carlson]
    CO Software - Asset or Expense? [Brendan Leitch]
    Bellcore Area Code Directory (TACD) [David Leibold]
    Sprint $10 Credit in Lieu of Bill Copies [mission![e-mail]]
    New Phone Book For Cecil County, MD [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, Oregon
Date: 17 Oct 91 00:16:06 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


Here we go again.  US West (formerly Pacific Northwest Bell) is trying
to charge business rates to all households with a modem ...

 From: [e-mail] (Leonard Erickson)
 Newsgroups: or.general,pnw.general,pdx.general,rain.general
 Subject: US West rate change!
 Date: 16 Oct 91 03:46:26 GMT
 Reply-To: [e-mail]
 Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

Two Portland Fidonet systems have been sent *official letters from US
West informing them that since they have modems on some of their phone
lines, *all* of their phones *must* be converted to business lines.

Over the last week, they (and others) have been arguing with the PUC
and US West about this. US West's stand is that *all* "non-voice"
lines fall under the business section of the tariff.

The PUC is going to schedule a hearing. No word on when as yet. In the
meantime local sysops will be getting together to discuss strategy on
Saturday, the 19th at 1 pm. The meeting will be at 7815 N Wabash in
Portland (3 blocks north of Lombard, on Wabash).

We *all* need to get together and get ready for the hearing, as the
decision will affect every modem user, fax user, and TDD user in
Oregon.


Leonard Erickson            [e-mail]
personal:    CIS: [70465,203]     [e-mail]
business:    CIS: [70524,2603]    [e-mail]
(Note:        do not send anything over 45k to compuserve.com!)

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: Cellular Billing Lawsuit
Organization: Consultants Connection
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 00:23:22 GMT


Neal Duchin says in his lawsuit that Ameritech Mobile Communication
has violated the state Consumer Protection Act because it doesn't
inform customers of the billing policy. He asked that it be handled as
a class action lawsuit. Company Sokeswoman Lisa Elian declined
comment.


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

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

Subject: Rockville, MD Cutover to DMS100 Friday!
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 12:36:14 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


FYI, those who have CENTREX or other special services served by the
Rockville, MD (RV) switch may want to take cover.

Friday, October 18, 1991 the switch will cutover to a Northern Telecom
DMS100.

A technician on site has already promised one customer in Rockville
that his FX out of Norbeck "will not be working on Monday"; he sounded
about as pleased with the choice of switch as John Higdon now does
about his own.

A word to the wise.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 16:07:19 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


There were reports here and in comp.risks of systems being implemented
to allow students to register and/or take tests using a touch-tone(TM)
phone. I've sifted through part part of the archives but can't seem to
find anything.  Could people send me pointers and/or old postings,
whatever?  This is about to be implemented on our campus, and we'd
like to be able to give opinions before it's too late.

Thanks!


Cristobal Pedregal Martin        [e-mail] (internet)
Computer Science Dept. - LGRC    UMass / Amherst, MA 01003

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

Subject: IXO Beeper Protocol
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 18:01:29 EDT
From: [e-mail]


Last summer someone posted about the IXO protocol.  This is the
protocol that a beeper console uses to talk to a central system that
sends alpha-numeric messages to beepers.

The FTP location of a MacHypercard script that does the protocol was
posted.  I got the file and attempted to port it to the Sun.  So far
it does everything (dials in, gets the prompt, sends packets, etc.)
but the machine I dial into gives me an error.  "Invalid phone
number".  Thought I am reverse engineering the entire protocol from
just looking at a hypertalk script (and I don't know hypertalk) I
think I can narrow my problem down to the "PG1" part or the checksum.

Anyway.

Has anyone else worked on this?  I'm dialing into Telecommunications
Network, Inc. (my beeper provider).  I would *love* any help that I
could get.  I tried calling the number listed in the hypertalk program
(some company that could send the specs of the protocol) but when I
called it wasn't that company and they didn't know what I was talking
about.

*ANY* help will be appreciated!


Tom Limoncelli -- [e-mail] (work) -- [e-mail] (play)
      [phone] x707 (work)    [phone] (home)

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: Feedback on ClassMate 10 Software, Please
Organization: The Happening World
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 20:37:37 GMT


    I've mailed out about eleven copies of the ClassMate 10 CLID
daemon. The program's author, John Temples, wrote me to ask how well
it was working.  He's interested in reading people's experiences with
the software, so if you've got any comments, please email them to:

    ...!uunet!jwt!john

Bob

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

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 19:27:36 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: AT&T Foreign Visitors Packet
Organization: FidoNet Node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto, Ontario


If you are planning to travel outside North America, you may be
interested in the "foreign visitors packets" that AT&T distributes.
There are separate ones for different areas of the world, such as
Central America and South-East Asia. I haven't seen one yet, but I
presume they describe local customs and laws, with a strong plug for
AT&T's USA Direct service.

U.S. residents can obtain them free of charge by calling 1-800-222-0300,
I presume. The AT&T service rep I spoke with said the computer
couldn't seem to handle a request from a Canadian address, but she
would try to get the South-East Asia packet out to me anyway.

A few years ago, AT&T distributed {Calling on North America}, a
tourism information guide for the U.S. and Canada. The AT&T rep hadn't
heard of it.

If anybody receives any of these foreign visitors packets, you might
want to post a brief review here.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (David McKellar)
Subject: Oh, Canada!
Organization: DMN
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 19:34:52 -0400


There have been ads in newspapers, etc here that go something like:

   Call 1-800-561-1188 with your questions on the future of Canada.

This is no joke.  The federal government is paying for this.  I don't
suppose you can call this number from the US.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Downin)
Subject: Long Distance Bill!
Date: 18 Oct 91 11:17:33 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dave Downin)
Organization: David Taylor Research Center, Bethesda, MD


I have recently been calling from Maryland to New Hampsire usually
three or four times a week (and I would like to call even more).  I
have AT&T as my LD carrier.  I have checked into getting a 1-800
number but that doesn't seem to save me any money (it's costs more
than me direct dialing the other party!), and the Reach Out America
plan doesn't seem to save me much either, maybe $0.01 a minute.  Is
there any way I can get this LD bill down some?


Dave Downin    [e-mail]
David Taylor Research Center - Carderock


[Moderator's Note: Not really. Long distance rates for residential use
are pretty much the same these days. ROA comes very close to the night
rates for Sprint and MCI. If you can save a penny a minute by using
one plan or another during the late late evening and weekend hours,
then use that plan. The difference won't be noticable until your long
distance bill gets to about a hundred dollars a month anyway.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 7:27:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Phones in Hospitals


A few months ago, I posted a note about a local hospital having an AOS
for their telephone service.  Since then, I have had the chance to
visit another hospital (going gaga over my new grandson) and found
that the "powers-that-be" there are hooked into NYTel.

What a pleasure!  Local calls to various adjacent exchanges were no
charge (in the basic rate) while all others were at normal rates.
Just a few extra keystrokes for collect calls and keying in your new
number for third party charges (they didn't seem to want to go the
credit card route).

While local calls were routed via NYTel for the NYC LATA, I can't say
what the hospital does about long distance (AT&T, MCI, Sprint or
other).

I wish I would have gone to that one last summer.


Cheers,

Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail]
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Sreekanth)
Subject: Line Testing Voltage
Organization: The World
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 16:06:30 GMT


Does anyone have specs for the phone company line testing voltage ?

In Hudson, MA, I had a commercial fax switch that would frequently
start ringing at 2 AM or so. My theory is the line testing voltage
looks like a ring.

I already know the fax switch is borderline in detecting ring, because
a parallel connected rotary phone can trip it by dialling digit 3 or
greater (meaning it's looking for three edges.)

I'm looking to avoid such behavior in my own designs (but not take too
long to recognize ring), so I need the line test voltage specs.

Any  help or pointers would be _greatly_ appreciated. Please
send email, and I'll summarize.


Jon Sreekanth

Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc.    |  Fax and PC products
5 Walden St #3, Cambridge, MA 02140  |  [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 13:33:11 edt
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Novatel Model 8032


Can anyone provide the instructions or the access code for the Novatel
#8032 cellular phone?

Why do some manufacturers work so hard to keep this type of info under
lock and key, while others publish it in the owner's manual?

Since there are some instructions in the archives now, it would be
great if more were added.  I own a GE TP5000 (The program instructions
are in the manual).  I'll be glad to to post them if anyone needs them
or would like to see them in the archives.


Jim Langridge    [e-mail]
Synetics Corp.    [phone]
24 Danube Dr.    [phone] (FAX)
King George, VA. 22485-5000


[Moderator's Note: And others may or may not include the programming
instructions, depending on *what dealer/distributor* is selling the
phone. Some cell phone dealers are greedy, and want to force you to do
business with them when you want the phone reprogrammed for whatever
reason. Some cellular carriers play along with the gag; others are
more than happy to deal with customers who do their own programming.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Amelia-ann L Carlson)
Subject: Internet<->CompUServe
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 18 Oct 91 18:24:44 GMT


Hi,

I was told that you of comp.dcom.telecom could assist me.

I need to find out how to send email between the internet (such as my
address, [e-mail]) and Compuserve email addresses (I
don't know yet what they look like).  Any help you could give me would
be appreciated.

Thanks!


Ames   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It is really very simple. Compuserve addresses look
like this to the Internet:  [e-mail], where 7 is
followed by six more digits, a dot, and three or four more digits. The
User ID on Compuserve is the 7xxxxx.yyyy part of the above. For an
example, see an earlier message in this issue.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brendan Leitch)
Subject: CO Software - Asset or Expense?
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 12:29:07 -0400
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brendan Leitch)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.


Does anyone know how telcos generally record in their accounting books
the purchase of central office switching software?  Is it recorded as
a capital expenditure which is depreciated or as a flat out expense?

The software is quite an investment so can be considered an asset, but
given the revenues generated from it and the upgrade intervals (short)
it could also be a 'cost of doing business' (expense).

Any information would be appreciated.


Brendan Leitch   DMS SuperNode Distributed OS
e-mail: [e-mail]   s-mail:  Bell Northern Research
Fax   (613) 763 - 2626   P.O. Box 3511, Station C
Ph.   (613) 763 - 9425   Ottawa, Ontario   K1Y 4H7

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 17:09:29 -0400
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bellcore Area Code Directory (TACD)


I am curious about Bellcore's Area Code Directory publication, as to
what exactly is contained in this book (Bellcore Doc. # TR-EOP-000093).
Will this give little more information than is contained in the front
of phone books, or is this more comprehensive than that?


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


[Moderator's Note: It is much more detailed, listing thousands of
places throughout North America. Your phone book usually just lists a
sampling of area codes. The Bellcore book is a couple hundred pages in
size and also includes a very detailed breakdown of 10xxx and 950-xxxx
assignements.  Literally every town in North America is included.  PAT]

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

From: mission![e-mail]
Subject: Sprint $10 Credit in Lieu of Bill Copies
Date: Wed Oct 16 16:37:02 1991


I called Sprint to request copies of bills from a few months ago, and
the rep said he'd give me a $10 credit instead, if I wanted (I said OK).

Anyone know what's up?


[Moderator's Note: "What's up" is the reps are permitted to write off
a certain amount of uncollectibles with no futher review. It was
easier for the rep to write a journal entry than it was to write up a
request for microfilm copies to be pulled.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 12:13:39 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Phone Book For Cecil County, MD


I have now seen the October, 1991 Northeastern Maryland phone book
(using Cecil County yellow pages -- there is also an edition with
Harford County yellow pages).  It is the first directory I have seen
using area code 410, whose announced effective date is not until
November 1.  A list of towns is provided to help out in the area code
change, and instead of an area code for Columbia and Laurel it uses an
asterisk which refers you to a list of prefixes on the next page.

This situation for Columbia and Laurel results from the use of
pseudo-foreign exchanges which have the same place name but different
calling areas, e.g.:

Laurel (the "default", found on pay phones in Laurel;
  provides local service to DC but not to all of DC metro)

Laurel (Waterloo), providing Baltimore metro service;

Laurel (Berwyn) and Laurel (Bowie-Glenn Dale), providing
  DC metro service; this includes the 621 prefix appearing
  on some pay phones (in a rare use of foreign exchange by
  a pay phone) in BWI airport;

(If push comes to shove, I'd list Laurel in 301 and Columbia in 410,
ignoring the other prefixes.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #830
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22166;
          19 Oct 91 10:33 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30582
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 19 Oct 1991 08:51:07 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02818
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 19 Oct 1991 08:50:57 -0500
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1991 08:50:57 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #831

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 Oct 91 08:50:55 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 831

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions [John Higdon]
    Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions [Phil Wherry]
    Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions [Barton F. Bruce]
    Quirky Phones (Was Phone Listening Crimes) [Sue Welborn]
    Caller ID on Cellular Phones [Mike Parker]
    Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, Oregon [John Higdon]
    Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus [Peter M. Weiss]
    Re: Internet <> Compuserve [Dave Niebuhr]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 23:53 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions


[e-mail] writes:

> Does the system automatically detect which type of phone is hooked
> up, or do you need to program it?

If the KSU does not receive return data from an electronic set, it
assumes a standard telephone is connected and will behave
appropriately. That is, it will use loop supervision and send ring
voltage.

> Can two of the special sets be connected in
> parallel to one port (clearly, two regular ones could be)?

No, the data from the two sets would conflict with each other.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Wherry)
Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Phil Wherry)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 13:08:03 GMT


I have a Panasonic KXT-1232 KSU to which I am trying to connect a
voice mail card.  The card is capable of detecting CPC signals; that
is, the momentary interruption in loop voltage which indicates that a
line has disconnected. The switch, too, is capable of detecting CPC
signals from outside lines. The problem I'm encountering is that the
switch does not seem to pass the CPC signal through to devices "on the
inside".  Does anyone have any ideas on this problem? I would also be
interested in knowing if there is some (simple) way to read the data
stream used by the proprietary keysets to update their displays and
lights; this alone would solve the problem.

Thanks for any/all help!


Phil Wherry

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions
Date: 16 Oct 91 21:35:46 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> Where I work, we have a Pnansonic KXT-123211 mini-PBX.  The manual,

Actually, there are two completely DIFFERENT Panasonic owned similar
product lines that barely acknowledge each other and that are marketed
VERY differently. The 'OTHER' ones are digital, sold only through
trained selected dealers that have committed to $$SIGNIFICANT$$
volume. There will be only a few in each area.

The more common ones are the analog crosspoint ones that come 3x8,
6x16, and like yours 12x32. The latest versions can have door speaker
boxes, door opener controls, support more than one generation of
proprietary phones, and in the large size you have can be optionally
administered from a PC and can use a 12 volt car battery (that the KSU
keeps charged) for battery backup. They all come with a feature rich
default setup. This is what you have.

Not bad considering that with one proprietary phone for programming,
and 31 vanilla 2500 sets for the other extensions, and a little luck
buying wholesale you may very well stay UNDER $3k TOTAL!

> Apparently, either standard telephones or special Panasonic ones can
> be used (so far, all we have hooked up are the latter).  Does the
> system automatically detect which type of phone is hooked up,

Yes. Just plug them in.

> Can two of the special sets be connected in
> parallel to one port (clearly, two regular ones could be)?

No. But yes, two or more 2500 sets can be connected to a port. The
limit is really how many ringers manage to clang.

> Also, we are about to outgrow the beast's 32-extension limit.  Since
> we have all these Panasonic phones, I presume that the most economical
> upgrade is to another Panasonic.

12x32 has been the max size. There has been serious talk of a 92 or
was it 96 port version SOON. It may well be here by now. If no one else
knows, I can go check.

The KSU is peanuts. Your $s are sunk in phones. SO yes, do try to stay
with them. If the bigger model is not out yet, getting another 12x32
KSU (actually your model starts at 6x16 and expands with cards) is
VERY cheap (well less than $1500 in the base 6x16 size wholesale) and
you can add phones you can later use with the bigger system when it is
available.

This only works if you can somehow split your user base into two groups.

Also, the phones for the different size KSUs are only a few $s more
for the larger KSUs, as all you get are more buttons and leds (there
are a few exceptions to this). So get the full blown 'all buttons'
models always unless you KNOW you NEVER will expand.

I havn't tried it, but a station port using the two wires for POTS
phone service should look like a CO line to the other KSU, so
forwarding to that 'extension' would ring in on the other KSU. Crude,
but could handle modest between KSU transfers.

When a bigger KSU is bought, the two then surplused KSUs are readily
reusable even at homes, but save $s and use mostly cheap POTS phones.

Also, as you obviously have already considered, make some sharable
extensions into POTS phone ones with several sets. That might keep you
limping with one KSU until the 9x size KSU is available.

These are WIDELY distributed by Graybar, ANixter, and others. On LI,
try TW Comm Corp, also. Dealers should be very hungry about now and
good deals easy to get, or 'become' an interconnect yourself. Since
you read this news group, you doubtlessly know more than many of them
do :-).

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 11:05:14 cst
From: [e-mail] (Sue Welborn)
Subject: Quirky Phones (Was Phone Listening Crimes)


These stories of the older phones acting like party lines when they
actually were not, reminds me of an incident I had in college a few
years ago.  I was studying in my dorm room at Creighton University
(Omaha, NE) early one evening, when I noticed that the phone in the
room next to mine had been ringing for several minutes.  Not ring a
few times, hang up and start to ring again. I mean a continuous
ringing that had been going on long enough to draw my concentration
away from my studying.  I knew the folks that lived there were out to
dinner, and decided that either someone was being extremely
persistant, or there was a problem with the phone.

When I couldn't stand to hear the phone continue to ring anymore, I
went next door in the hope that the people who lived there had left
their door open. I was simply going to answer the phone, and tell the
calling party that obviously no one was home and would they try back
later.

Well, I picked up the receiver, and there was a conversation going on
between two women. I said hello, and they were quite startled to hear
someone else in their conversation.  I explained that I had picked up
a phone that had been ringing for the better part of a half hour and
wanted to see who was being so persistant in calling.  Well, to my
surprise, both of these women *knew* the gal who lived in this
particular dorm room, but they called each other and not the dorm
room!  When we all recovered from the shock, I thanked them and hung
up the phone.  That phone never did exhibit that continuous ringing
again, and none of my friends believed my story except the person who
lived in that room.  She asked her friends to confirm my story, and
they did.

All the phones in the dorms at that time were the black, heavy duty
rotary desktop models.  Since I'm not really acquainted with the
technical aspects of the phone system, your guess is as good as mine
as to the specific details.  But I know that was a really weird thing
to have happen!


Sue Welborn
InterNet: [e-mail]   FidoNet: 1:285/666.13

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Parker)
Subject: Caller ID on Cellular Phones
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1991 06:08:32 GMT


Just for curiousity, what does Caller ID send for a call originated on
a cellular phone?

Is caller ID supported for cellular phones (i.e. can a car phone pick
up this information?)


M. D. Parker


[Moderator's Note: In Chicago, I used my cell phone to dial my 800
number so I could see what the ANI said (its the next best thing to
Caller ID since we won't have it for a few more months). The ANI
listing gave a different number. When I cross-checked that number, it
was listed as "IBT Company" at an address in Hickory Hills, IL which
turned out to be an IBT central office building. When I dialed that
number the call was intercepted: "The number you have dialed, XXX-YYYY
is not in service for incoming calls."  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 91 01:17 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, Oregon


[e-mail] (Andrew Klossner) quotes an article by leonard@
qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson):

> Two Portland Fidonet systems have been sent *official letters from US
> West informing them that since they have modems on some of their phone
> lines, *all* of their phones *must* be converted to business lines.

There has got to be more here than meets the eye. Of all the folks who
have modems in Oregon, why were only two sent letters? And what do the
tariffs actually say? Are the customers doing some kind of business on
the lines (other than the Fidonet)?

I once got "an official letter" claiming that the my "party line" was
obviously something for business use and that Pacific Bell intended to
regrade the service to business. Pacific Bell was kind enough to send
a copy of the actual tariff and this was my salvation. After reading
the document carefully, it became evident that there was no legitimate
way that Pac*Bell could regrade the service. My party line is free of
charge, does not promote any business of any kind, has no advertising
whatsoever, and no contribution is solicited. I called the name on the
letter and after one run through explaining my position, he said he
agreed and dropped the matter. The service remains, as it should
remain, residential.

(BTW, what had really happened as I later found out, was that some
irate parent had complained that his little darling had, in a very
sexy voice, given out the family phone number on the line and weirdos
were calling at all hours looking for sexual adventure. The
"gentleman" insisted that the phone company do something about this
"outrage", and hassling me was what they had decided to do. The person
at Pac*Bell finally said to me that if the "gentleman" called again,
he would be told to keep a tighter reign on his daughter. We both
agreed that it was not MY problem and certainly had nothing to do with
the residence class of service on the lines.)

For one thing (and this could apply to US West as well) the conditions
which dictate business service do not include specifications
concerning what equipment can be connected to the line. In other
words, that fact that there are modems would not (in California) be at
all relevant in determining the appropriate class of service.

> Over the last week, they (and others) have been arguing with the PUC
> and US West about this. US West's stand is that *all* "non-voice"
> lines fall under the business section of the tariff.

Is this what the tariff REALLY says? Does it really specify what can
be connected to a residence line? If I was willing to pay for it, I
could have my residence service delivered via T1 and terminated on a
Rolm or System 3100. As it is, my service here is ground start. None
of that, in CPUC tariff, has anything to do with determining residence
service.

> We *all* need to get together and get ready for the hearing, as the
> decision will affect every modem user, fax user, and TDD user in
> Oregon.

It needs to be stressed that in 1991, people in their residences have
(for their own personal use) more than simple desk telephones these
days.  People use fax machines, PCs with modems, answering machines,
telephone- actuated remote controls, and all manner of other gadgets.
Any interpretation that these things constitute "business use" is an
affront to people who would like to maximize the usefulness of the
telephone.

My own personal opinion is that any telephone company that pulls these
shenanigans to nickel and dime its customers is deserving of the
utmost contempt. To its credit, Pac*Bell does not seem to do this.
Yes, it does go after people who are obviously running a business out
of a home. If one is using a telephone for business purposes, then he
should pay business rates. But hobby and recreational use of the
telephone is another matter. Otherwise, the whole business/residence
distinction is meaningless. (It may be undesirable and meaningless
anyway, but unless the distinction is abolished, the whole practice
should not just be arbitrary nonsense.)

Things that should NOT be used to determine business/residence class
of service: number of lines; ground start; what is connected to the
line; hunting; type of jack appearance (RJ11, RJ14, or even RJ21X).
Things that Pac*Bell does use for such determination: where the line
is installed (is it an office building?); how the line is listed; how
the line is answered ("good afternoon, XYZ Resume Service"). And even
if you have business service in your home, you may still have
residence service. After all, just because you may be self-employed
and run your business out of your home does not deny you the privlege
of LIVING there as well.


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

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Saturday, 19 Oct 1991 07:44:06 EDT
From: Peter M. Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu says:

> There were reports here and in comp.risks of systems being implemented
> to allow students to register and/or take tests using a touch-tone(TM)
> phone. I've sifted through part part of the archives but can't seem to
> find anything.  ( deleted for brevity ..)

Your BEST bet is to search the Listserv Notebook archives of CUMREC-L
stored on Internet vm1.nodak.edu (Bitnet ndsuvm1).  Note that though
you need not be a subscriber to get/search the archives, you must be
one in order to post to the List.


Peter M. Weiss                     | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN  |  psuvm.psu.edu|psuvm
31 Shields Bldg - PennState Univ.  | not affiliated with psuvm.psu.edu|psuvm
University Park, PA USA 16802-1202

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

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1991 9:04:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Internet <> Compuserve


> I need to find out how to send email between the internet (such as my
> address, [e-mail]) and Compuserve email addresses (I
> don't know yet what they look like).

> [Moderator's Note: It is really very simple. Compuserve addresses look
> like this to the Internet:  [e-mail], where 7 is
> followed by six more digits, a dot, and three or four more digits. The
> User ID on Compuserve is the 7xxxxx.yyyy part of the above. For an
> example, see an earlier message in this issue.   PAT]

Pat:

Although this was specific Internet<>Compuserve, I think he could do
better by using the archives.  I had a need similar to his and I found
exactly what I wanted in the inter.network.mail.guide file.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail]
Brookhaven National Laboratory   Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093


[Moderator's Note: Good point. That file in the Telecom Archives would
answer all his questions.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #831
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06159;
          19 Oct 91 15:45 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09331
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 19 Oct 1991 11:51:17 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12997
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 19 Oct 1991 11:51:07 -0500
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1991 11:51:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #832

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 Oct 91 11:50:56 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 832

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Effect of Calls to D.C. During the Thomas Hearings [Roy Smith]
    Re: Effect of Calls to D.C. During the Thomas Hearings [Robert McMillin]
    Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom [Ehud Gavron]
    Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom [Norman Yarvin]
    Re: Companies With ESP [John Higdon]
    Re: Companies With ESP [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Very Nice Motel Telecom Policy [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Very Nice Motel Telecom Policy [Julian Macassey]
    Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service! [Thomas Lapp]
    Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service! [Bryan Richardson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 13:09:59 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Effect of Calls to D.C. During the Thomas Hearings
Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York)


> C&P Tel said they took a terrific pounding all weekend

    Listening with half an ear to the news on the car radio, I
heard the announcer say something like "AT&T was limiting the volume
of calls into the DC area to prevent overloading the local phone
company", or something to that effect.  How do they do that?  Just
drop some percentage of DC-bound calls at random?


[e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA

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

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 16:41:12 PDT
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Effect of Calls to D.C. During the Thomas Hearings


Fred Brooks <sma2![e-mail]> asks:

> Does anyone have stats on the level of calls and effects on the
> telephone system during the Hearings and vote?

I know I was unable to even get through on Sprint, or MCI; every
attempt on these carriers resulted in an 'all circuits busy'
recording.  I DID get through using AT&T; nearly every time I tried to
do so, I at least got a real busy, and finally got connected with the
Senate's offices (202-244-3121, as I recall).  One more minor coup for
AT&T -- they don't report it in the paper when they do something
right.

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

From: sunquest!alpha![e-mail] (Ehud Gavron 602-885-7700x.2546)
Subject: Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom
Date: 18 Oct 91 16:35:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Associates in Consulting and Educational Services


In article <[e-mail]>, andersen![e-mail]
(Tom Sarver) wrote:

> The reason I'm telling you this is, that word on the street has it,
> that this number has been made available on alt.dcom.telecom.  Callers
> have also told her that it is posted on phreaking bulletin boards (she
> gave me the phone numbers and names of said BBSs, but I don't have
> them right now).

Pat, the TELECOM Moderator who is usually on track replied:

> [Moderator's Note: You are correct that the information began
> spreading first from various messages on alt.dcom.telecom.
> You might also try contacting the
> Internet system administrators who accept the alt.dcom.telecom feed at
> their sites and remind them that messages of the sort you describe
> could very well embroil their institutions in a lawsuit or bring

Sorry Pat but you're way off on this one.  There has never been a
lawsuit involving Internet-carried newsgroups.  Law experts agree that
there are no precedents -- and further that the media carrier is not
responsible for its content.  (See examples with telcos, newspaper
delivery companies, TV infomercials, etc.)


Ehud Gavron        (EG76)
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: There have been criminal cases and other police
actions taken against UUCP sites (eg Jolnet) as a result of traffic
passed through that site between users. There have been stinks raised
by ignorant newspaper writers about things written in Usenet (eg
rec.humor.funny) and the newspaper stories about the ethnic jokes which
have appeared there. System administrators have had to respond to
newspaper articles about 'pornography' stored at their site (eg the
gif things dealing with sex). Is it easier and more pragmatic for a
system administrator to answer to his/her superiors regarding files at
the site which harassed or defrauded some third party (ie. telco) or
to simply remove the files and/or discontinue the feed?   PAT]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom
Date: 18 Oct 91 18:14:17 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, Tom Sarver <andersen!tsarver@
uunet.UU.NET> writes:

> I have a problem with which I believe that you can help.  My wife's
> company monitors alarm systems around the country.  As a combination
> marketing tool and technology show-off, they have a phone number

As much as I dislike most current uses of 900 service, this might well
be what you should use. Provide it at the absolute lowest 900 pricing
available.  There is NO WAY you will ever succeed in stopping
spreading of such an 800 number, and if you try, you may find some
immature fellow may decide to stick it to you. A few days of some PC
autodialing from behind various large institutional PBXs that don't
log 1.800 calls could skyrocket your bill.

Have the 1.900 number's message explicitly apologise and explain why
it has to be that way. If you can get it to cost you 0, make you 0,
that would be good. If you MAKE money, consider publicising that you
give it to some worthy cause. I am assuming you can get the calling #
on 900 as easily as on 800 service. Let them ALL spread your number
and let it be an easy way of getting phone number. At that point you
don't really care, and can still get the commercial message across.
By all means still provide an 800 for serious callers that does not
read back the number.

OTOH, I hardly believe the $1.50 per call. Something MUST be wrong.

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

From: [e-mail] (Norman Yarvin)
Subject: Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 23:51:27 GMT

andersen![e-mail] (Tom Sarver) writes:

> As a combination marketing tool and technology show-off, they have a
> phone number which, when called, immediately tells the person who
> answers, the phone number of the originator.

> You can see that for an alarm system this is A Good Thing.

Funny, I can't see that at all.  Having and using ANI might be a good
thing, but the technology demonstration number is irrelevant to the
actual services the alarm company offers.

> The overall goal is to keep the number active for marketing
> purposes.

You might reconsider this goal.  Why do you need it?  Don't your
customers trust you when you tell them what ANI is?

> Is there some way to track down who is spreading it?

There is not.  Spreading information is done on the Usenet
automatically by net software on thousands of sites around the
country, and BBSes are so unorganized that you will never find the
culprits, who by the way are probably quite numerous.

Just get rid of the number.  We had a case before where some
organization had a number like this.  The number was posted in TELECOM
Digest, everybody called it (including our Moderator), and a week
later it was disconnected.  There is little way to keep people from
finding out such a simple thing as a telephone number.  This would be
so even if our laws did support you in hiding such information, which
thankfully they do not.


[Moderator's Note: But in the earlier example you cite, the number was
intended as a demonstration of their product, and they invited the
calls, although perhaps they did not expect to receive as many as they
did. In the latest case, the number is/was? legitimatly in use by a
security company as part of their service to their customers; and I
assume none of the people reading alt.dcom.telecom are in that
category.  Calling the latter number to 'see how it works' is like
calling 911 for that purpose ... a bad thing to do.    PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 02:30 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Companies With ESP


On Oct 18 at  2:21, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: If you fax (or for that matter, voice call) to an
> 800 number, the recipient does not need your help in detirmining your
> phone number. The company most likely gets ANI in real time as part of
> their 800 service. They used that number to fax you back in reply. PAT]

I should fax a defective order to Hello Direct. The problem with a
company using ANI from a call from me is that it has no way of knowing
that I use different lines for outgoing than for incoming. My incoming
fax line is measured, so when a fax goes out the fax modem grabs (via
the Panasonic) one of the unmeasured UUCP modem lines to make the
call.

It might be amusing to see the company trying to fax something to the
Telebit Trailblazer that answers the call!


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

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 08:58 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Companies With ESP


[e-mail] (Marshal Perlman) writes:

> Today I sent a fax to "HELLO DIRECT" telling them to put me on their
> mailing list ... I put my name and address ... but yet ... half an hour

The Moderator is probably correct in assuming that Hello Direct used ANI
to get back to Marshal.

Another thing to know about Hello Direct is that their fax line is
connected to a computer.  The only thing that should be faxed to this
line is a tear out from their catalog that is then filled in with
neatly printed letters and numbers in boxes.  The computer OCR scans
the fax.

If Marshal sent a plain handwritten or typed fax to Hello Direct, it
would likely be rejected without being read.

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Very Nice Motel Telecom Policy
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 17:51:02 GMT


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

> I stayed at the Harris Ranch Inn, an chomp-and-snooze on Interstate 5,
> midway between LA and SF this weekend.

> The telecom policy was as refreshing as a dip in their lovely pool:

>    Free access to AT&T Long Distance by dialing 9 + 0 + number.
>    Free local calling in the 209-935 (Coalinga) local exchange.

>    15% over AT&T rates (plus tax) for calls billed to the room.

>    No telecom deposit for a customer paying cash on check-in.

> I was impressed.  Only downside was no modem port.

    Actually, I think this "telecom policy" is about the same as
at Motel 6.  In fact, I think Tom Bodet did a Motel 6 ad explaining
this fantastic policy to business travelers (you can set up your lap
top computer on the other bed).  It seems to be the more expensive
motels that have the more outlandish telephone rates.  I don't think
Motel 6 lets you charge calls to your room.  Local calls are free.
Anything else is to be charged to your favorite LD carrier.  Motel 6
is not in the telephone biz.

    As I recall (though I'm not sure), I think the phones have a
modular jack where they plug in the wall.  So, the laptop computer
modem could be easily plugged in.

    When I was last in New York (actually, some motel in New
Jersey, though not a Motel 6, but just a little more expensive ...), I
discovered that I had to make a firmware change in the product I was
installing (make provision for a bank switched RAM disk overlay,
allowing for a larger applications program).  A two hour modem call
from the motel room back to SLO, CA got me all the assembly language
source code (which runs about 600 pages when printed).  The source was
edited, then reassembled.  The reassembly took overnight.  We're using
an old Amstrad laptop (slow, but it works).  Also, we're using a cross
assembler (for the Motorola 6800) that runs under CP/M, so, on the
laptop, the cross assembler was running under a software CP/M
emulator.  Slow, but it gets the job done (while I sleep).  The object
code was sent back to SLO by modem, a new EPROM burned, put on UPS RED
and installed the next day.  Of course, it didn't work, but the second
try did get it running.

    Having modem access to the telco line in the motel room was
quite useful.  Finally, a quote from Tom Bodett, "It's just like those
fancy places when your eyes are closed."


Harold Hallikainen              [e-mail]
Hallikainen & Friends, Inc.     [e-mail]
141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4      phone [phone] fax [phone]
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590  telex 4932775 HFI UI

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Very Nice Motel Telecom Policy
Date: 18 Oct 91 02:17:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


Ed Greenberg recounts his happy experience with a motel in the San
Joaquin Valley. I had a similar experience a couple of months ago in a
Motel Six in Arlington Heights.

    The Motel had a Mitel PBX. All local calls were free. Default
LD carrier was AT&T. You could make collect or credit card LD calls
with no motel surcharge. For modem calls, just unplug the 2500 set and
plug in the modem.

    What a pleasant change from the rip off telco set-ups in
Hiltons and other expensive joints.

    Why do overpriced hotels have to rip you on the phone calls
too?

    When I stay on my dime, I usually try to stay at a Motel Six.
And yes, I turn off the light when I leave.

    If I stay at hotels that rip off the customers -- one Marriott
I stayed at even had slimey COCOTS in the lobby -- I bitch at the desk
staff and send a letter to head office.

    No, I never make calls from my room where they want me to pay
for the privilege of making a credit card call from their instrument.

    I don't drink from the "Mini-bar" either.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 12:37:33 EST
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service!


> About one hour into the program, Rush announced a new number for the
> VIP-RUSH line, because US Sprint had CANCELLED their service in
> mid-show, stating that they were unable to deal with the load to their
> network and were terminating service IMMEDIATELY.  Their other 900

It sounds to me as though the idea of a 900 choke line might be a good
idea for Sprint to install.


Tom

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

From: [e-mail] (Bryan Richardson)
Subject: Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service!
Date: 18 Oct 91 17:10:58 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bryan Richardson)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John M.
O'Shaughnessy) writes:

[discussion about quick disconnection of 900 service]

> (permenently?) due to technical reasons.  One of the neat things I
> remember about my visit to Sprint's command center in Atlanta was that
> any surges in calls could be easily rerouted.  Now, of they blocked
> the calls due to service overload because of some contractual
> agreement, that I might understand.

There is an important difference here, that was hinted at in Mr.
Higdon's message.

"Re-routing" calls is a good thing if the calls are likely to be
completed, and, as a result, generate revenue.  This allows calls to
use idle circuits to other switches to be used in combination to
complete the call.

However, calls to this 900 number are not very likely to actually be
completed.  Thus, if they are "re-routed" to the destination and
occupy circuits that could otherwise be used for other, completable
traffic simply so the caller can hear a busy signal from the far end,
this is poor network management.  Re-routing is not appropriate for
these calls.

What should have been done by Sprint, if this was indeed the problem,
was to choke the calls as they came into the network, allowing only a
small portion to actually attempt to complete to the far end.  This is
a much more elegant solution to avoiding over-loading a network than
it is to disconnect service entirely.  Whether or not Sprint has this
capability, and to what extent, I do not know.

Additionally, I do not know if this overloading was the reason service
was disconnected.  It was simply the implication in the initial
message.


Bryan Richardson     [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University
Disclaimer:  Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #832
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17270;
          19 Oct 91 19:17 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06669
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 19 Oct 1991 17:32:16 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03926
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 19 Oct 1991 17:31:47 -0500
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1991 17:31:47 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #833

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 Oct 91 17:31:45 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 833

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN Card or Switched 56 Card for PC [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KXT-1232? [Mark Terribile]
    Re: Pal Charged For Five-Hour LD Call [John Higdon]
    Re: Laser Pointer Information Wanted [Will Martin]
    Re: What's in Washington? [Doug Harris]
    Re: AT&T Advertising [Andrew Klossner]
    Re: South African 'M' Numbers [Paul Nash]
    Re: Telecom FAQ List [Tim Gorman]
    FAQ List Correction, Updating [David Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems
Date: 16 Oct 91 22:12:24 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> [e-mail] (Nigel Allen) tells us:

>> three-digit number. When an alarm was pulled, a horn at the fire hall
>> would sound out the number twice (5-4-3 would be five hoots, a short pause,

>> I haven't encountered a system like this elsewhere.

> Believe it or not, the National Institutes of Health Fire Department
> in Bethesda, MD still uses this system.  It's been supplanted by

This good old solid stuff is still used ALL over the place. It
certainly is in all the cities and towns around here.

It is a big loop. Rather than simply breaking the line for each code
pulse, each side of the opened wire is momentarily grounded to a local
ground.

If the loop is accidentally broken any one place, or if two boxes get
pulled at once, both sides of the loop are seperately monitored and
the alarms will still get through!

When one sees a box on the side of a school, motel, nursing home, etc,
it generally has a big electromagnet inside that can trip box. This
will be activated by a 12 or 24 volt battery in the fire alarm system
in the building.

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN Card or Switched 56 Card for PC
Date: 16 Oct 91 22:29:47 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, kentrox![e-mail]
(Bud Couch) writes:

> transfers to the off-hook condition". Sec 68.314, Billing Protection.
> The note also states that this applies to digital services inter-
> connected to the analog telephone network, which certainly describes
> ISDN.

> I also know that my company has implemented this two second billing
> delay in both of our Switched 56 product lines.

Switched 56 *is* a digital only service, is it not? How does it tie in
to the analog network?

If you insist on 'being safe', certainly make it easy to disable, as
you doubtlessly will have to.

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 17:50:23 EDT


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

[ Description of RF interference on answering machine and advice from
BOC repair service to buy a supressor ]

> I am more than happy to buy a suppressor, but any suggestions as to
> what I should buy?

The AT&T Phone Center stores cell some kind of RF interference filter
or RF suppressor.  It goes inline (Modular plug on one end, modular
jack on the other) and a couple years ago cost $5-10.

No, this is *NOT* my usual blatent plug for the company.  I had an RFI
problem a few years ago and this did the trick.  Your mileage will
vary.  You might also find something similar in Radio Shack, but I
haven't had to look for one lately.


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, 16 Oct 91 02:05:09 -0400
From: mole-end![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KXT-1232?


> Both conferencing methods require precision hybrids to split the two
> wire line to a four wire domain.

>> Even the 'real' conference bridges are sometimes quirky.  We have a
>> System-85 at work with 'real' conferencing, and sometimes it seems
>> that the conference circuitry is just on the point of oscillation --
>> there is a definite echo in there.

> This is obviously a "mix-minus" that needs adjustment.

Since the 85 is digital, I think it was designed `on the edge'.
There's a *real* conflict between the need for enough gain to hear
anyone and the delays that can cause oscillation.  If the 85 allows
more than five conferees then it should be using echo cancellers.  If
it's important, you might see if AT&T can get you circuit packs with
them for the machine.  Oh, and if outside lines are involved and if
it's a new or upgraded 85 (using some of 75's slick internal software
and hardware architecture) there should be echo-cancelling trunk cards
available for it.  At a price, of course!

A side note: digital lines (ISDN and the pre-ISDN digital format that
Sys 85 and 75 use, AND digital LD lines) make the oscillation problems
much worse because you can have delays of up to a frame inserted
arbitrarily at many points in the line.  The more delay, the easier it
is for oscillation to break out.  (Anyone ever done phase lag/phase
lead compensation on a system to keep it stable?  Keep those poles in
the left half-plane!)  And once you have three or four conferees, even
the digitally-created sidetone become significant in the hairy (and
generally insoluble) equations.  Ugly.  Very ugly.


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

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

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 00:23 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Pal Charged For Five-Hour LD Call


[e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...) writes:

> *  He has auto-debit from his checking account

Why would someone do this? Can the convenience really be worth the
control one gives up of the most powerful weapon against poor service
in the marketplace (the withholding of payment)?

> I advised him to tell the bank that charges are in dispute and
> should not be paid as requested, but the contract you sign with the
> telco appears to waive that right and give the telco unconditional
> control over its auto-debits...

But no one can stop him from withdrawing his own funds and placing
them in another account temporarily, or even just closing that account
down.

> *  LTLD is a subsidiary of the local telco and can, theoretically,
>    shut down his local service if it feels like it.

This would be a real questionable act in light of the MFJ. I could be
suffering from Pac*Bellitis, but I think that the telco would be on
really shaky grounds if it discontinued local exchange service over
the non-payment of LD service, even if it is furnished by a related
company.

> *  The Nebraska PSC has become trained to become industry lapdogs
>    ever since the Nebraska Legislature stripped them of their rate-
>    setting authority.  They've already told him they're unwilling
>    to do anything.

Sounds a lot like the CPUC. But even so, the important thing to do is
to get everything about the issue down in writing. If he can withhold
payment, then he will be in the driver's seat. Once they clean out his
account, he will have to probably sue to get his money back.

> Does anyone have any useful information that could be used in his
> defense?  Is the disconnect time controlled by a tariff of any kind?
> Is the disconnect time controlled by the originating CO or the
> terminating end?  Any pointers would be appreciated.

Disconnect is always controlled by the calling end. However, in modern
times, switches are designed to time out and release the call if the
called end unsupervises (hangs up) for some short period of time,
usually on the order of ten to thirty seconds. Therefore, even if your
friend originated the call, if the called end hung up, it should have
been released.

However, there is almost certainly no tariff spec on this and
consequently it would behoove your friend to not admit that he failed
to hang up. GTE 1EAX analog electronic switches have been known to
"lock up" and turn a ten minute long distance call into a ten hour
long distance call, all the while putting BOTH phones out of service
for that length of time. A friend of mine in Los Gatos used to do that
to people (including me) all the time. After hanging up, both of our
phones were "locked up" (busy to the outside world) for hours. When
this finally happened on a call to Arkansas (with the appropriately
huge bill) he screamed to GTE. Although the odd are that he is not
served by such a horrible switch, come from the possibility that this
could have happened.

I have discovered that squeaky wheels will get greased. In any event,
never settle for a front line answer. You may need to walk the
organization and go as high as possible. Front line people will never
help you. They have no authority to do so and most will feel that it
looks bad if you leak past them to a supervisor.

There is one other trick used in the radio biz. It is called the
threat of "free advertising". I cannot even begin to count the times
that some utility or another has seemed immovable on some matter and
simply the mention that "the listeners" would be most interested in
the case usually brought complete satisfaction. This has been
particularly effective with Pacific Bell, who seems most sensitive to
public opinion (except for mine, of course).


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

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

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 9:08:27 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Laser Pointer Information Wanted


Adam Levin sent me a note reminding me about Edmund Scientific, and I
appreciate his doing so. For some reason, when I looked at catalogs to
post my earlier response on sources for laser pointers, I never even
thought of Edmund. As I look at their catalog, I see eight different
laser pointers there! The prices range from $140, which seems to be
the same model I cited from the other sources, to $369; the variations
are due to battery type and probably quality of construction. (There
isn't any direct correlation between output power and price; some of
the more expensive are lower-power -- I think power is limited by
regulation and/or safety rules in any case. You probably don't want to
burn holes in your screen when pointing, anyway ... [Or in your
audience, for that matter] :-)

Call or write Edmund for a catalog. They do not appear to have an 800
number.

Edmund Scientific Co.
101 E. Gloucester Pike
Barrington, NJ 08007-1380

609-573-6250  Orders
609-547-3488  Orders  (Interesting that they have one number on a different
                prefix; do you think this is to avoid being cut off from
                the world if their 573 CO goes down? Or is it a number
                in the local calling area of another part of the state?)
609-573-6295  FAX
609-573-6259  Tech assist
609-573-6260  Customer Service


Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 10:43:36 EDT
From: groucho![e-mail] (Doug Harris)
Subject: Re: What's in Washington?


csense![e-mail] (John Boteler) said:

> One stop to make in Washington for telecom-interested readers is the
> Smithsonian Museum of History and Technology.

> History and Technology is on the mall in a rectangular, rather modern
> looking building, and is well worth the visit for the other exhibits
> on display there.

All is true except for the fact that since the early 80s it has been
called the Museum of American History.  This is good to know when
trying to find it. :-)


dougharrisfusionsystemsgroup225broadway24thfl.ny,[e-mail]
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
[check address when replying... groucho![e-mail] will NOT work]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertising
Date: 17 Oct 91 00:10:51 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


> ... these ads make me wonder if anyone with even a small particle of
> brain works in AT&T marketing.

Indeed.  Jerry Pournelle once wrote that AT&T couldn't market Eternal
Life.


Andrew Klossner  ([e-mail])
     (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Nash)
Subject: Re: South African 'M' Numbers
Organization: Free Range Computer Systems CC
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 06:49:15 GMT


Thus spake [e-mail] (Dave Leibold):

> South Africa seems to have something called M-numbers; this could be a
> toll-free service as it was listed without reference to a charge rate.
> The code listed was 043 362 which presumably got an operator who would
> complete the call from there. This was to have been changed to the
> 0401 area code, which would be an automated service at that point.

The South African Post Office use 'M' as the code for their manual
exchanges.  The above is correct _except_ that manual exchange calls
cost you, the same way that automatic exchange calls cost you (if the
operator is awake :-)).  Sapo now have a new set of billing charges
for long-distance (and short-distance) calls, depending on how far
apart the exchanges are, phase of the moon, etc, which is probably why
they left out the costs.


Paul Nash                Free Range Computer Systems cc
[e-mail]    ...!uunet!{m2xenix,ddsw1}!frcs!paul

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

Date: 18 Oct 91 12:59:55 EDT
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom FAQ List


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joshua
E.  Muskovitz) writes:

> I'm sure I'm just one of many who will point out the last few errors
> in the list, and I still applaud the effort, but here goes:

> With regard to the default long distance carrier at coin phones, I
> have encountered a number of RBOC coin phones (in MA and NY) that do
> not use AT&T as their default carrier.  Specifically, I encountered
> one in the lobby of the Marriot in Saratoga Springs, NY (a NYTel
> phone) which had MCI listed as the default carrier.  And yes, I did
> use it and confirm that.

Based on a ruling issued by Judge Greene back in 1989 (I believe with
an effective date of 4-90), coin stations are now treated as regular
equal access stations, at least for 0-/0+ service. Any carrier wishing
to provide 0-/0+ coin service at the time of equal access conversion
can sell the service and (as I remember) they are allocated a
percentage of the coin stations (including the RBOC stations) based on
their percentage presence in the office.

For now all true coin stations (not COCOT's) presently have two
carriers.  One for 0-/0+ and one for 1+ calling. Since AT&T is the
only carrier offering 1+ coin service that I know of, they get all of
that traffic. This actually works out nice since it makes routing easy
(no vendor offers the ability to have multiple PIC's per line). Judge
Greene has been reviewing whether or not to require other carriers to
offer 1+ coin service for over a year. Who knows how this will come
down. I know the alternate operator service providers have just been
having a hissy fit over the possibility of having to provide 1+ coin
signaling capability.


Tim Gorman [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 17:11:27 -0400
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: FAQ List Correction, Updating


Thanks to those who are supplying more questions and details and
corrections to the FAQ list. A revised list should be ready by the end
of the year, depending on schedule and activity constraints.

In the meantime, one error that should be mentioned is with respect to
Bellcore's telephone numbers. The Customer Service line should be in
area code 908 and not 201 ie. [phone] and the corresponding fax
number is [phone]. The (201) numbers were taken from last
year's catalogue, when (201) was still in effect in that region of New
Jersey.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #833
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18808;
          20 Oct 91 5:41 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16669
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 20 Oct 1991 03:59:18 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19592
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 20 Oct 1991 03:59:06 -0500
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 03:59:06 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #834

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 Oct 91 03:59:04 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 834

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom [John Higdon]
    Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom [Michael P. Deignan]
    Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom [Graham Toal]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Jack Decker]
    Re: Unix ClassMate 10 Caller ID Monitor Daemon Source [Jack Decker]
    Re: No Reachout World For Cellular? [David E. Martin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 91 11:55 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom


On Oct 19 at 11:51, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> Is it easier and more pragmatic for a
> system administrator to answer to his/her superiors regarding files at
> the site which harassed or defrauded some third party (ie. telco) or
> to simply remove the files and/or discontinue the feed?   PAT]

But this requires a judgment call on the part of the system
administrator, does it not? Most of the system administrators that I
know are too busy administering the system to worry about this file or
that feed, except perhaps as it relates to traffic volume or disk
space consumed.

Just recently, the EFF went to bat for someone who lost his account on
a system when the SA found copies of Phrack in the user's home
directory. Will we ever get to the point where those in charge will
stop dreaming of practicing mind control? I am so sick of those who
are paranoid that someone somewhere may actually express an
uncontrolled thought or idea to someone else.

Ah, the advantages of owning one's own UUCP site ...


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom
Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1991 17:33:37 GMT


andersen![e-mail] (Tom Sarver) writes:

[writes about problem with a phone number]

Our esteemed Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: You are correct that the information began
> spreading first from various messages on alt.dcom.telecom. From there,
> it has spread to phreak boards everywhere. One problem that has always
> existed with unmoderated, unguarded forums for telecom discussion is
> the phreaks find out about it and soon have it infested with abusive
> stuff.

I disagree that the problem has anything to do with "unmoderated,
unguarded forums for telecom discussion". The problem has everything
to do with electronic thugs who have no sense of morals.

Although the information may have originated on alt.dcom.telecom, if
it hadn't originated there, it would have originated elsewhere, and
would have spread just as fast. Your cry of "security through
obscurity" -- in the sense that had the original posting mail to you,
it would have never been propagated -- is irrelevant, since had you
rejected the posting, the author would have posted it somewhere else
anyway.


Michael P. Deignan
Domain: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd
Telebit: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom
Date: 18 Oct 91 22:55:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]> undr![e-mail].
Unisys.COM (Sean Petty) writes:

> If it is any concelation, I went up to my parents yesterday,
> and called the number, and they answered and said they didnt
> know my number, because the equipment in the area didn't have
> the capability.  It is a very rural area, however.

> Hope this helps.  Anyone who needs more info on Emer24 can
> contact me via email.

Please do NOT call this number, if you have noted it.  These calls are
causing the company a lot of headaches, and they're just ordinary Joes
trying to make a living.  Worse, because you have broadcast their
number to the world, they are receiving abusive phone calls.

Please read the article in comp.dcom.telecom from a representative of
the company, and if anyone has passed this number on to any BBs,
please contact them and ask them to remove it.

Remember, they have *your* number too.

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

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 09:20:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Jack Decker)
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card


In a message dated 10 Oct 91 04:51:00 GMT, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> If you are going to bash AT&T, please do so with some intelligence.
> Have you forgotten that the '10XXX' was the mandated way to handle
> carrier access from the beginning of the MFJ?

Well, in the first place, my recollection is that 950 access was
instituted at the same time that 10XXX access was.  It might be
interesting to recall that NONE of these three access methods were
universally available right after they were instituted.  In
particular, the following limitations existed:

10XXX - Not available from non-equal-access exchanges, nor from some
independent telcos that weren't required to provide equal access.

950- Not available from many smaller towns, from areas served by
crossbar switches (my experience in Michigan Bell territory was that
950 numbers were routinely blocked from crossbar exchanges, even in
some caes in major cities (e.g. Grand Rapids), or from many
independent telcos.  Surprisingly, 950- numbers WOULD work from many
step-by-step exchanges (even those served by independent telcos) if
you knew enough to prepend a "1" or "0" to the 950- number.

800- The most universally accessible, but in some cases even the 800
access numbers were not available in some areas.  This generally had
more to do with whether a carrier had facilities within the LATA than
anything else.  Once the 800 number started working anywhere in a
LATA, it would generally be available from all phones served by the
same intraLATA long distance carrier.  That may sound confusing, but
consider that in many areas of Michigan, GTE North is the intraLATA LD
carrier while Michigan Bell serves the remainder of the state.  I
believe that in all parts of the Lower Peninsula, an independent telco
could obtain intraLATA long distance service from either one.  In any
event, the 800 numbers started working on phones served by Michigan
Bell first, and on phones served by GTE North at some later date.

I could still take you to phones not too far from where I live where
ONLY the 800 numbers will work (to reach anything other than AT&T).
You can talk all you want about "the mandated way to handle carrier
access", but I'm telling you how things have developed out here in the
real world.  Maybe the FCC should have stepped in and mandated that
10XXX access be made universally available (and I for one wish they
would have), but they didn't.

> Who was at fault here, AT&T or the PBXes, COCOTs, hotels and motels
> that did not comply with these standards?

Well, since in the "real world" no standard was apparently in effect,
I certainly cannot blame the others for not complying with these
standards.  Look, suppose a big hotel chain decides to buy new PBX's
for the entire chain.  Do you think they're going to try to figure out
the current status of "equal access" in each location, especially
considering that a) the status could change before the PBX is
delivered, and b) there's a good chace that even the telephone company
business office for each area can't/won't give them accurate
information about what's really available? No, in most cases they're
going to try and shoot for the "lowest common demoninator", which in
this case would be 800 access first, and 950 access second.

> Do you really believe that AT&T "couldn't figure out how to put in
> an 800 or 950 access number"?

I called AT&T once to ask why they didn't have an 800 or 950 access
number, and was told by the AT&T rep that it would be impossible to
add such access to their network because it wasn't configured to
accept such access.  I was somewhat incredulous, and remarked that a
major company like AT&T ought to have folks bright enough to figure
out how to add such access, at which point the rep restated that it
just couldn't be done.  Now, who am I to believe?  You, or the AT&T
rep?  :-)

> Please explain why it was AT&T's responsibilty to provide a
> workaround for non-compliant "oddball phones".

For the convenience of their calling card customers, perhaps?

> Yes, the FCC is changing the rules in mid-game and ordering AT&T to
> provide extra access to its network. The OCCs have not provided 800
> and 950 access for the convenience of their customers, either.  They
> used it to, among other things, try to grab a respectable share of the
> market.  These were stop-gap arrangements to be used until FGD became
> widespread. AT&T did not need these things, since it already had in
> place what FGD would provide the Johnny-Come-Latelies. Now it appears
> that the "workarounds" have become standard and the FCC is changing
> its usually befuddled mind.

I would think this would make YOU of all people happy, because once
the new rules take effect, you'll be able to use your prized AT&T
calling card from anywhere. Actually, if you're looking to find fault
here, I think the fault is primarily with the FCC for never mandating
that 10XXX access be made universally available by a certain date, no
exceptions permitted.  But they didn't do that and now it appears you
want to blame the PBX and COCOT makers for coping with the situation
as best they could under the circumstances.

> A very unusual disclaimer: I do not work for AT&T, have no stock in
> AT&T, get no commissions on AT&T long distance or products, and have
> no personal friends who work for the company. But in my experience, it
> is the only company that really delivers in the long haul. I would use
> it even if it cost more than it does now. AT&T's service is worth
> paying for.

Well, here we disagree.  In my experience, both MCI and Sprint offer
circuit clarity that is just as good, and in some cases better than
AT&T.  Now, I will admit that I don't make international calls, so
your mileage may vary there, but on domestic modem calls I've found
several instances where I got a lot less "line noise" from MCI or
Sprint than from AT&T (for the last six months or so it's pretty much
a toss-up, they ALL seem to have near-zero line noise).

But what bothers me more than anything are AT&T's generally IRRITATING
television commercials, which in my opinion play fast and loose with
the facts.  I go out of my way to AVOID patronizing companies that
have irritating TV commercials (there are some fast-food places I tend
to avoid for this same reason) and AT&T is very near the top of my
irritation list ... not only because their commercials are on so
frequently, but also because they tend to make statements and set up
situations that IN MY OPINION are of questionable validity.  For
example, I'd like to know how many times that commercial segment with
the guy standing at the phone booth who, when the operator says
"You're not using AT&T!" replies "Well, I am NOW!" has been
re-recorded.  First he was trying to call Phoenix and got Fiji (which
you'd have to be stone drunk or something to do), then they've
re-recorded that spot about three times since, all with different
circumstances leading up to his exchange with the operator.

And here's the important point ... does AT&T have any proof at all
that another long distance company's operator has ever said "You're
not using AT&T!" to a customer in that tone of voice?  I doubt it, yet
this is how they characterize their competition.  It's really dirty
advertising, and a company as big as AT&T should be above that sort of
thing.

Not only that, but I for one haven't forgotten that when AT&T was the
ONLY long distance phone company, they screwed us royally for long
distance calls.  Now all of a sudden they are FORCED by competition
(which they worked VERY hard to try to keep illegal) to lower their
prices and suddenly we're supposed to love them?  Not I, sir.  You
certainly have the right to play the role of AT&T booster if you want
to, but it falls on deaf ears here.  I would even pay SLIGHTLY more to
AVOID AT&T if I had to, just to keep them from getting another
monopoly in the long distance business (which would ultimately hurt
ALL of us).


Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 05:29:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Jack Decker)
Subject: Re: Unix ClassMate 10 Caller ID Monitor Daemon Source


In a message dated 13 Oct 91 04:24:48 GMT, [e-mail]
(Bob Izenberg) writes:

> John Temples just posted his source for a Unix daemon that reads the
> Caller ID from a ClassMate 10, looks up the number in a database and
> displays the name of the caller.  If you don't get alt.sources but
> want the program, drop me a line and I'll get you a copy.

No offense intended, but this is EXACTLY the sort of program that
should not be given out freely to anyone, since it perpetuates the
myth that calling number = individual caller.

Callers do not always use the same phones to call a given place ...
they could call from home, office, friend's home, public phone, car
phone, phone at recreational facility ... you name it, they call from
there.  Similarly, you can't guarantee that just because you once
received a call from a given number and spoke to Mr. X, that any time
you receive a call from that number Mr. X will be on the other end.

This is one of the reasons I tend to dislike the whole concept of
caller ID.  Too many unthinking companies will associate a name with a
number and never give it any further thought.  If I call a mail-order
firm from the office (on my lunch break, of course) I'd hate to have
the company decline my order because one of my co-workers placed a
call from the same line a few months ago to the same company and their
check bounced ... or maybe even have the company refuse to answer my
call because they owe money to my company and the last call they got
from this number was from a bill collector (that, by the way, has to
be one of the few positive things about Caller ID ... it can stop a
lot of the nuisance calls from telemarketers, bill collectors and
similar ilk ... I should add here that since I usually pay my bills I
don't tend to have a lot of contact with bill collectors, but I had
one run in over the phone with a thick-headed numbskull who insisted
on trying to collect a debt from me that wasn't even mine, but that's
another long story).

In any case, I truly wish folks who know better would not perpetuate
the myth that the phone number from which a call originates is
necessarily linked to any specific person.

By the way, with all the discussion of call blocking and the like, I
wonder what would happen if you dialed a call using a carrier access
code 10XXX+number ... this WILL work for local calls in many areas
(even though you don't dial a "1" or "0" after the number) but the
carrier will usually bill you for their shortest distance intrastate
call.  What I would wonder is, if that works from a given exchange,
would it block delivery of the caller ID number?


Via D'Bridge 1:1/211  10/17 13:39
Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

From: [e-mail] (David E. Martin)
Subject: Re: No Reachout World For Cellular?
Date: 18 Oct 91 17:44:39 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Batavia, IL


> [Moderator's Note: Because telco looks at cellular lines as business
> service, and the various Reach Out Plans are residential offerings,
> while ProWatts is a business offering. You can't subscribe to Reach
> Out on your office (landline) phones either.   PAT]

The reason I was given for not being able to get ROA on my cellualar
phone was that the billing is done directly by AT&T and their billing
computers aren't programmed for ROA.  The rep I talked to said that
they have no plans to do so right now.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #834
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21432;
          20 Oct 91 6:30 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03362
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 20 Oct 1991 04:49:07 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03617
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 20 Oct 1991 04:48:56 -0500
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 04:48:56 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #835

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 Oct 91 04:48:40 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 835

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service! [Steve Forrette]
    Re: ANI in C&P-Land [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: ANI in C&P-Land [Carl Moore]
    Re: New Colored Box? [Maxime Taksar]
    Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, Oregon [Jeff Beadles]
    Re: Even More 5ESS Woes [Jefferson George]
    Re: FCC Commissioner Qualifications: Proposed Legislation [H. Hallikainen]
    Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Jon Biavati]
    Re: Oh, Canada! [Stan Brown]
    Public Cordless Phones [Vance Shipley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions
Date: 19 Oct 91 19:04:11 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil
Wherry) writes:

> I would also be interested in knowing if there is some (simple) way to
> read the data stream used by the proprietary keysets to update their
> displays and lights; this alone would solve the problem.

I don't know of a simple way.  The second pair of the phone carries
power and superimposed digital pulses.  The switch sends a start pulse
to the phone and the phone responds with 19 pulses of data.  The
switch then reponds to the phone with 47 pulses of data and the phone
acks with a pulse.  I haven't decoded the meaning of any of the bits,
but I wouldn't expect it to be too difficult.  Let me know if anyone
does anything with this -- I really would like my voice mail to be
able to turn the message waiting light on.


Craig R. Watkins    Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.        Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]        UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 91 19:06:12 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service!
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> About one hour into the program, Rush announced a new number for the
> VIP-RUSH line, because US Sprint had CANCELLED their service in
> mid-show, stating that they were unable to deal with the load to their
> network and were terminating service IMMEDIATELY.  Their other 900

It should be noted that Sprint provides not only the 900 carrier
services, but also operates a 900 Service Bureau from a division
called "Sprint Gateways."  I'd be willing to bet that Rush doesn't
have his own CPE for the 900 number, and that he uses the service
bureau.  I'm sure the network can effectively deal with high load
(even if "dealing with it" just means returning an "all circuits busy"
message), but that the voice processing equipment at the service
bureau may not.  If all the ports are constantly busy, ALL of Sprint's
900 service bureau customers may have a busy condition.  The Sprint
Gateways people are probably quite sensative to this, as I'd imagine
that other 900 customers would have a legitimate complaint that their
lines were unreachable, and might provide motivation to switch to
another carrier.  If Sprint had its act together, it would have in
place something within the network which would limit the number of
concurrent calls to any particular 900 number, so that a flood of
calls would not cause blockage at the service bureau.  That's a big
"if" in the case of Sprint, though ...


Steve Forrette    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 12:52:45 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI in C&P-Land


[e-mail] (Charlie Mingo) writes:

> I tried it [811] and, sure enough, it works.  (This
> also explains what 811 does; I still don't know about 711, 511, 311,
> 211 and 111.)

About a year ago, I accidently dialed 711 from my test set autodialer
here in Auburn, and was connected the E911 operator.  I was surprised
when the operator answered, and told her it was a mistake.  She
suggested I call again.  I did and the same thing happened.  I checked
the DTMF output latter, and the tones were of the right frequency with
minimal twist, so the fowarding had to be in the switch (5ESS).

BTW, I didn't program the N11 number in my test set, I'm not that
lazy.

Disclaimer: I have no connection to AU ETV/Telecommunications.


Patton Turner   [e-mail]    KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 12:21:16 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI in C&P-Land


Well, 111 would probably just be "eaten" and interpreted as only
one "1".  Is/was 211 in use in NYC for refunds?  And back around
1976, I recall hearing of 511 being used in Philadelphia for
Bicentennial information.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 13:58:16 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Maxime Taksar)
Subject: Re: New Colored Box?


The proper color name for a box which attempts to fool the supervision
mechanism, is, if I remember correctly, a 'black box'.  Of course, a
traditional black box only worked on crossbar switches, as it played
nasty games with voltage to keep the line from supervising.  I am
unsure wether there was a black box which operated using the (2600Hz)
blue box tone.  Perhaps you could call your invention a black and blue
box?

(Please correct me if any of my facts are wrong; it's been a while
since I've 'studied' electronic toll-fraud devices.)


Maxime Taksar  KC6ZPS
PO Box 14322 Berkeley, CA 94701  [e-mail]

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

From: ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail] (Jeff Carroll)
Subject: Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones?
Date: 18 Oct 91 17:57:29 GMT
Reply-To: ssc-vax![e-mail] (Jeff Carroll)
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> I don't really believe this either, but my question is: Are there any
> cordless phones which use digital transmission between the handset and
> base.  I might actually believe claims of perfect sound quality for
> such a phone, but I have never seen any advertisements which
> explicitly mention digital sound.

    There has been some recent interesting discussion on the ISDN
mailing list to which I am subscribed about a device/standard called
DECT (Digital European Cordless Telephone). I am left with the
impression that this gizmo is in the demonstration phase at this point
in time.

    I think that for anything like that to be made available in
the USA, though, the FCC would have to approve the concept, allocate
bandwidth, and publish regulations governing the device, which I
haven't heard about.

    My gut feeling, based on observing cordless phones in high-RFI
installations, is that digital transmission would not be the panacea
one might expect without *very* robust coding. The analog interference
you hear now would simply be replaced by the audio effects of digital
interference.


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Beadles)
Subject: Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, Oregon
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1991 16:19:13 GMT


[e-mail] (Andrew Klossner) writes:

> Here we go again.  US West (formerly Pacific Northwest Bell) is trying
> to charge business rates to all households with a modem ...

This is not true.  USWest has sent letters to two BBS's that were
caught with residential lines that charged fees for access.

Here's some of the information from the tariffs:

 [ Scanned in by Alan Batie [e-mail] ]


   P.U.C. OR.  NO. 5
                                          RULE AND  REGULATION  12
                                  BUSINESS AND  RESIDENCE  SERVICE
                                              2nd Revised Sheet  1
                                     Cancels 1st Revised  Sheet  1

   A.  GENERAL

       The applicability of business and residence rates is governed by
       the actual or obvious use made of the service.  The use which is to
       be made of the service will be ascertained from the applicant at
       the time of application for service.

       1.  Business rates apply at the following locations:

           a.  In offices, stores, factories and all other places of a
               strictly business nature.

           b.  In boarding houses and rooming houses with more then live
               rooms available for rent (except as noted under 2.),
               colleges, clubs, lodges, schools, libraries, churches,
               lobbies and halls of hotels, apartment buildings,
               hospitals. and private and public institutions.

           C.  At any location when the listing of "office" is provided or
               when any title indicating a trade, occupation or profession
               is listed (except as modified under the directory listing
               schedule) and at any location classified under 2.,
               regardless of the form of listing, when extension service
               is provided to a place not a part of a domestic
               establishment.

           d.  At residence locations when the customer has no regular
               business telephone service and the use of the servlce by
               himself, members of his household, or his guests is for the
               purpose of conducting a business, trade, or profession, or
               whose use of the service is obviously not confined to
               domestic use.

           e. In general, at any place where the substantial use of the
               servlce is occupational rather than domestic.

       2. Residence rates apply in locations where customers reside and
           whose substantial use of the servlce is domestic and not for
           purposes of conducting business.

       3.  If it is found that a customer is using residence service for
           business purposes, the Company will require the customer to
           take business service, except in cases where the customer use
           of the service is primarily for social or domestic purposes.
           Customers moved from residential to business servlce will be
           notified by the Company of their right of appeal with the
           Public Utility Commission of Oregon.


   Advice No. 1120
   Issued:  June 17  1987                               E

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

From: [e-mail] (Jefferson George)
Subject: Re: Even More 5ESS Woes
Organization: AG Communication Systems
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 18:07:39 GMT


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

> level on Three Way, no Call Waiting while on Three-Way, slow dial
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Question to John:

Which party is suppose to get the CW tone?  The controller (originator
of the TWC) or the non-control parties (the other two guys in the
call).  Which scenario are you talking about?


Jefferson George
AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
Inet: gtephx![e-mail]
UUCP: {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!hrc | att}!gtephx!georgej


[Moderator's Note: He was talking about the originator of the three
way call. The two parties on either end are not making a three way
call; they are simply one party to such a call. Their call waiting
works okay.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: FCC Commissioner Qualifications: Proposed Legislation
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 17:35:46 GMT


    I believe this (proposal to require at least one FCC
Commissioner be an engineer) was first proposed by the Society of
Broadcast Engineers.  I've seen some articles written by Dane Ericksen
of Hammett & Edison (broadcast consulting engineers in San Francisco)
in support of this.  I've known Dane for a little over 15 years.  I
first met him when he showed up to inspect (for the FCC SF office) one
of the stations I worked for.

    By the way, the original posting mentioned that the proposed
legislation was posted to FidoNet by Bill Sepmeier.  Bill is president
of National Supervisory Network, a company that provides transmitter
operating services to broadcast stations all over the US using a VSAT
link to each station for control, telemetry, email, digital audio
program distribution, etc.


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Biavati)
Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County
Organization: Cubic Toll Systems
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 22:31:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.
fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes:

> In Truro, Nova Scotia in the early 1970's (and probably for much earlier),
> the fire department had a network of red fire alarm boxes, each with a
> three-digit number. When an alarm was pulled, a horn at the fire hall
> would sound out the number twice (5-4-3 would be five hoots, a short pause,

> I think the fire horn has probably been replaced by a pager system by
> now.

> I haven't encountered a system like this elsewhere.

My home town (Nyack, NY) still uses this system.  When the alarm
sounds all activity stops while everyone counts the hoots.  Then
everyone consults each other in an attempt to remember what the code
means (The Fire Department distributes calendars with the codes each
year for a small donation.)

While the system is fine for informing the general population, the
Fire Department (volunteer) does not yet use pagers; they do use
scanners to monitor the dispatch frequency.


Jon Biavati        uunet!kepler1!acsm!cubtosys!jon
Cubic Toll Systems   150 Broad Hollow Rd.

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

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 91 15:10:31 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: Oh, Canada!
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)


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

> There have been ads in newspapers, etc here that go something like:

>   Call 1-800-561-1188 with your questions on the future of Canada.

> This is no joke.  The federal government is paying for this.  I don't
> suppose you can call this number from the US.

 From Cleveland, Ohio, right on the border, I tried it and got
"Your call cannot be completed as dialed.  216 2T".


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Public Cordless Phones
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 07:15:32 GMT


I was in an airport in Maine a month or so ago and in the bar I found
a "Public Cordless Phone".  Since I needed to call home anyway I tried
it out.

The terminal was a standard residential (General Electric) cordless
telephone.  There was a sticker on the side of the handset stating my
right to my choice of carriers, it went on to say that I may access
any carrier using their instructions or I could dial "0" for an
operator.  I tried AT&T (with 10288 + 0 + NPA + NXX + XXXX) and was
greeted with a badly digitized voice that stated that the number I was
dialing was "invalid".  So I dialed "0" and got a local (NET, I
believe) operator.  I told her I was having trouble reaching AT&T and
she connected me with an AT&T operator.  I told her my situation and
she said she would report the number as a non-compliant COCOT (her
idea) and connect me at direct dialed rates.  I relayed my destination
number and calling card number and she connected me.

A few hours later I was in Boston's Logan airport and found another
cordless payphone.  This phone also denied direct access to AT&T so I
dialed "0" and asked for AT&T.  I told them I was unable to dial
direct and he asked for the number I wanted and connected me.  Several
minutes into the conversation with the party I was calling I realized
that the AT&T operator had not asked for my calling card number!

POSTSCRIPT: I was in Boston's Logan airport several days ago.  The
same phone had an "Out of Order" sign on it.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #835
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24169;
          20 Oct 91 7:32 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08335
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 20 Oct 1991 05:45:21 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29081
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 20 Oct 1991 05:45:11 -0500
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 05:45:11 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #836

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 Oct 91 05:45:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 836

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    US West Test Northern Telecom's "Caller ID on Call Waiting" [Jack Decker]
    Modems and Business [John Higdon]
    Personal PBX Voice Mail [Brad Houser]
    Directory/*Dialer* Cards? [Laird P. Broadfield]
    Calling DC and Maryland From Manassas [Rick Rodman]
    Color Codes on Cable Pairs [R. Patrick MacKinnon]
    Civil Liberties and Electronic Nets [Dave Leibold]
    Roll Over Box Wanted [Robert Oliver]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 23:38:05 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: US West Test Northern Telecom's "Caller ID on Call Waiting"


The following message was found in the Fidonet MDF echomail conference:

 Original From: Dan J. Rudiak
            To: All
       Subject: US West Test Northern Telecom's "Caller ID on Call Waiting"

US West Tests Northern Telecom's "Caller ID on Call Waiting"

Grand Forks, ND/ September 18 -- U S WEST Communications and Northern
Telecom today announced the successful completion of two days of tests
of a new Northern Telecom residential calling feature that allows U S
WEST's Caller ID to work with Call Waiting.

Currently the popular Call Waiting and Caller ID features can't work
together, though most customers in U S WEST's Caller ID trial in
Boise, Idaho, indicate they want the two features teamed in residen-
tial service offerings.

Subscribers to the Custom Calling feature Call Waiting are familiar
with the short beep that alerts them to another incoming call.  The
new Northern Telecom feature, "Caller ID on Call Waiting", combines
the advantage of Call Waiting the ability to interrupt a call to talk
to a third, incoming party with the advantage of Caller ID
identification of the incoming caller.  The name and/or number
associated with the incoming call is displayed on a special telephone
equipped with a screen.

"We're pleased with the results of the test.  This data will be
helpful in determining how to best offer Caller ID and Call Waiting in
a complementary fashion to our customers," said Terry Ford, U S WEST
Communications project manager.  U S WEST tested the features
September 16 and 17 (Monday and Tuesday) with two lines within the
Grand Forks central office.  No customers were involved in these
tests.  Since a special telephone set is required with Northern
Telecom's Caller ID on Call Waiting feature, a prototype telephone set
provided by Northern Telecom was used in the test.

This is the first time "Caller ID on Call Waiting" has been tested in
a live central office with telephone sets specifically designed for
the feature.  U S WEST started searching for a solution to the Caller
ID/Call Waiting incompatibility problem about a year ago by leading
the formation of a nationwide forum.  Forum members include Bellcore,
major switch vendors, customer premise equipment vendors and chip
manufacturers.

The industry forum is looking to determine technical requirements and
standards for offering an off-hook signaling capability that will
allow Call Waiting and Caller ID to work separately and together.  The
forum next meets October 10, 1991 in New Jersey.  Both the forum and
the meeting are open to interested members of the industry.

"Compatibility with Caller ID really adds value to the Call Waiting
feature," said Ford.  "Now our customers can not only know someone is
trying to reach them with Call Waiting, but by looking at the Caller
ID information displayed, they can make an informed decision about
interrupting their current call."

Delivery of the identifying information for the incoming call
represents a technological achievement in the telecommunications
industry, according to Northern Telecom's Susan Briner, Senior Product
Manager Residential Services.  "Identifying information for existing
services such as Caller ID can be sent to the phone while it is
"on-hook" or when the handset is in the cradle.  On the other hand,
Caller ID on Call Waiting requires the identifying information for the
incoming call to be sent during a conversation while the phone is
'off-hook.'  The trick is to send data and voice signals during the
call using existing network facilities," said Briner.

The service tested is based on a Northern Telecom DMS-100 central
office switch and uses standard, DMS-100 central office hardware and
in-band signaling to deliver the name and/or number.

Caller ID on Call Waiting will be generally available in Northern
Telecom's DMS-100 switches in the second quarter of 1992.

Northern Telecom is the leading global supplier of fully digital
telecommunications switching systems, providing products and services
to telephone operating companies, corporations, governments,
universities and other institutions worldwide.  Northern Telecom had
1990 revenues of U S $6.8 billion.  In addition, in the first quarter
of 1991 the company acquired ST PLC, a leading United Kingdom
telecommunications firm with 1990 telecommunications revenues of
approximately $1.6 billion.

U S WEST Communications, the largest subsidiary of U S WEST, Inc.,
serves the communications needs of 25 million customers in 14 western
states.  Its parent company, U S WEST, Inc., is a $28 billion
diversified communications company.  U S WEST, Inc., also owns
companies involved in regional, national and international markets.
Its domestic businesses include directory publishing, cellular mobile
communications and paging, business communications systems sales and
service, communications software and financial services.  The company
is also involved in a number of international ventures, including
cable television, cellular communications and personal communications
systems.  U S WEST is headquartered in Englewood, Colo.


BWave/Max v2.00 [NR]
* Origin: Gorre & Daphetid [phone] SDS GSDS (1:134/14.0)


Well, that's the info, thought you might find it interesting!


Jack Decker    : [e-mail]     : FidoNet 1:154/8


[Moderator's Note: In an issue of the Digest Sunday evening, a lengthy
message from Vance Shipley will discuss the DMS-100 in great detail,
including the many and various 'custom calling' features available to
subscribers, provided telco enables all of them.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 91 17:35 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Modems and Business


There is, of course, a more sinister motive for regrading BBSes to
business than a small amount of extra revenue. With the recent
decisions to allow telcos to provide information services themselves,
they have been eyeing the popularity of BBSes. What corporate mind has
not wondered how much money might be made if one could charge for all
of that activity?

Only the telcos are in a position to make that a reality. Simply
setting up pay-for-play BBSes will not make it because of the fact the
currently available free BBS offerings fill any and all such needs
very well. It is very hard to compete with "free". Enter the telco,
who now has the power to force the free BBSes out of business. SWBT
and US West can do something even the mightiest of corporations could
not previously do: get rid of that nasty "free" competition.

That is the real reason for all this business service business. The
telcos are not going to want to invest major money in modem on-line
services when the people have all of that stuff available now at no
charge. So for all of you who hooted when I claimed that the telcos
would take unfair advantage of the competition kindly explain how it
will be better when the telcos start charging for what we pay nothing
now. What was that about telcos had some kind of inherent effeciency?
Or were more qualified to provide these things?

This is just the beginning, folks. You are going to see telco dirty
tricks that will make political machines look like Shirley Temple.
Telcos always play to win. And with great decisions such as that
allowing the telcos to enter the information business, win they will.


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

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

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 16:14:55 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Brad Houser/SC9-43/765-0494)
Subject: Personal PBX Voice Mail


I received the Heartland America Catalog last month, and they list a
product that intrigues me.  It says you can add the power of a PBX and
Voice mail to your existing phone system.  It's features include:


Add up to five inside extensions (on their own loops) to the outside line;
Works with standard one or two line phones, faxes, modems;
Needs an answering machine to simulate "voice mail";
Routes calls (caller enters a number from 1-5);
Works as an intercom;
Adds "hold" to any phone.

Heartland Customer service couldn't help me with my questions, but
they gave me the name of the manufacturer: Areanex Technology Inc
(408-257-5880).  They have the system (Model ACR105) on that line.

If you don't have teenage kids, you probably don't need one of these,
but if you do ...

Areanex calls it the "Phone Director" as the answering machine OGM
plays the message: "Thank you for calling, press 1 for Joe, 2 for
Chris, ... or stay on the line to leave a message".  If the call is
not redirected by the caller (or they don't have DTMF) the phone is
answered by Line 0, which is the answering machine line.  Otherwise,
one of the other lines can be individually rung. (You can still use it
without the answering machine and telemarketers won't know how to
reach you, but then neither will your friends for a while.)

Hold is obtained by hitting #, (## if you made the call) and then an
extension can be dialed.  It answers after 1 ring, and then the caller
hears a much different ring.

I was intrigued.  For $250, I can give my kids their "own" phones
without adding extra lines, not get woken up by their friends who call
after the curfew hour of 9:30, (I guess we are old fashioned, but I
don't like being woken up at 10:30, if I get up at 5:00), and I can
call the kids in their rooms on the second floor (radios blasting) and
have some assurance they will answer without having to yell up the
stairs.  On the down side, I will have to do some more inside wiring
to bring all the lines to a common point, and $250 buys quite a few
local calls, and monthly charges.

I have only been reading the TELECOM Digest for about a month, (and
only recently got FTP access to the archive site), but I know of no
other product (short of a real PBX in a much higher price range) that
comes close to this.  Is there anything like this out there?  Are
there any plans that show me how to build one and still be FCC-legal?
Anyone have expereince with this product?

I have ordered the product with a 30-day money back guarantee, but I
will have to wait about another week or so.

I don't work for either company, but so I don't get asked to send the
address, here it is:

    Heartland America
    6978 Shady Oak Rd.
    Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3453
    1-800-229-2901   Fax: [phone]

I will post a followup with my impressions after using the device.


Brad Houser  | Deus Ex     | Intel California Technology Development, SC9-43|
408-765-0494 | Machina!    | 2250 Mission College Blvd.                     |
[e-mail]      | Santa Clara, CA 95052                          |

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Directory/*Dialer* Cards?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 00:35:16 GMT


There are any number of those little electronic-phone-book gadgets
available out there, from the Sharp Wizard (?) things down to the
credit-card-size (and credit-card-thickness) gadgets in the airport
shops.  What I haven't found yet is one that actually generates the
tones itself.

Surely someone has created one -- I would think the only significant
technical challenge would be battery power.  I would envision using it
not only as a phone directory, but as a credit-card-rememberer,
voice-mail-programmer, and so forth.  Anybody know of such a critter?


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

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

From: virtech![e-mail] (Rick Rodman)
Subject: Calling DC and Maryland from Manassas
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 23:17:58 EDT


Since moving to Manassas, I have had problems getting the answers to
this question.

Calling Maryland or DC from here costs roughly 23 cents a minute if
dialed one-plus.

Using MCI (950 access), it costs 11 cents a minute.

Attempts to dial Maryland or DC using 10333-1-number (Sprint) are
blocked by Contel (now GTE).

Attempts to dial Maryland or DC using 10333-0-number (Sprint) are
routed to an AT&T operator.

Note that while these calls might be intraLATA, they are Inter-state.
What justification can Contel/GTE possibly have for (a) gouging their
customers and (b) not honoring my presubscription -- and expressed
intent via 10333 -- to make the call via Sprint?

How do I make a complaint about this?  And to whom?

I tried calling Contel two or three times.  I found incredible
incompetence.  Even the supervisors in the business office know
absolutely nothing about long distance.  I was telling THEM what 10xxx
prefixes and 950 codes meant.  One of them cheerfully stated, "We're
Contel-AT&T!"

I have a present workaround because Cable & Wireless supports
cut-through.

Related question: If AT&T is so hot on 10xxx, why don't THEY support
cut-through?  Why doesn't Sprint?  What are they, lazy or something?


Rick Rodman      uunet!virtech!rickr    Manassas, VA

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

From: [e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
Subject: Color Codes on Cable Pairs
Date: 19 Oct 91 01:08:33 GMT
Organization: University of Western Ontario


A 25 pair cable is colour coded in a five groups of five fashion.  The
five colour groups are White, Red, Black, Yellow, Violet.  Each of
these have five pairs in them with the secondary colours of Blue,
Orange, Green, Brown, Slate.

For example, the first pair in a 25 pair sequence is White-Blue,
the 25th pair would be Violet-Slate.  The White-xx is tip, and the
xx-White is ring.  ( At British Telecom, the groups are the same, but
each pair is reversed, ie Blue-White, Orange-White, etc... )
(Incidentally, they do not have tip and ring, they have A and B.)

Easy code to remember...

We Rape Beautiful Young Virgins, But Only Girls Beyond Sixteen.  (And
to all the radicals out there ... NO, I am not promoting violence
toward women ...)  You can't be too careful these days ...  Hope this
helps you to remember, it worked for me.


[e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
The Western Business School BBS  --  London, Ontario


[Moderator's Note: He's right, of course ... as awful as the code is,
given our present sensibilities, that is the way it was taught to new
installers for many, many years.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 91 00:23:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Civil Liberties and Electronic Nets


The September/October 1991 issue of {The Humanist} has a cover story
regarding Cyberspace, rights and freedoms of nets such as Usenet, and
makes reference to Craig Neidorf, Jolnet, Prodigy and other matters.

I am not connected with nor do I speak for the American Humanist
Association which puts out this periodical ... this particular work is
an interesting look into some of the prevalent legal questions
regarding electronic nets and the cyberspace.

INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Oliver)
Subject: Roll Over Box Wanted
Organization: Houston Public Access UNIX
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 17:03:05 GMT


Does anyone know where to get a simple roll over box for two to four
lines?  If I had the drawing to build one or the basic layout I could
do it that way to.  Would also like to know the price on such a thing?
Any help would be very helpful!


Thanks,

Robert Oliver    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #836
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25704;
          21 Oct 91 16:34 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12044
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 20 Oct 1991 22:37:14 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09455
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 20 Oct 1991 22:37:03 -0500
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 22:37:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #837

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 Oct 91 22:37:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 837

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New DMS-100 Features [Vance Shipley]
    AT&T Reunion Rates This Week [Jeff Wasilko]
    Ohio PUC Proposes New System of Regulation [Cincinnati Post via L. Jones]
    Downloading Software (Another Tax) [Newsday via Dave Niebuhr]
    Why The Two-Second Delay [John R. Levine]
    Re: New Colored Box (Billing Delay) [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: ANI in C&P-Land [Tim Gorman]
    Re: ANI in C&P-Land [Robert J. Woodhead]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: New DMS-100 Features
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 08:40:58 GMT


I recently received a copy of "Feature Planning Guide: 32" for the
Northern Telecom DMS-100 central office.  It is sub-titled "Software
Development: A Two-Year View".  I got it by calling a 1-800 number
listed on the back of the document, I saw someone else's and called to
get one for myself.  They asked no questions at all and sent it
courier right away.  You have to like a company like that!

This book is full of interesting things, and I may post more later,
but here is some of what it has to say about new features for RES
(Residential Enhanced Services):

Software Availability Information (BCS #):   VO = Verification Office
                                             LT = Limited Introduction
                                             GA = General Availability


Feature Title                    VO  LT  GA


Single Line Variety Package            31  31  32


This package offers three seperate services to the residential
or small business subscriber who has a single line (and single
directory number) with multiple extensions:

    Single Party Intercom - allows the subsciber to initiate
                            internal conference calls.

    Distinctive Ringing - provides distinctive ringing patterns
                          to direct incoming calls to the
                              appropriate extension.

    Call Hold - allows incoming calls to be placed on hold
                    and picked up from the same or another extension.


MDC/RES Warm Line                31  31  32

When a line with the Warm LIne option goes off-hook and no
dialing occurs within a defined period, a call is automatically
dialed to a predesignated phone number.


Residential Call Hold                31  31  32

Allows the subscriber to place a call on hold and then continue
the conversation either from the same set or another extension.
The feature is activated by flashing the hookswitch and dialing
a two-digit access code, and then hanging up.  The call is resumed
when the handset is picked up.


Call Forwarding on Call Waiting Calls        31  31  32


This feature allows a call that is enqueued against a busy
station for a set period of time to overflow to a predetermined
destination.


Remote Call Forward Without Unique PIN        32  --  34

Allows subscibers to change their PINs at the base telephone
with a feature access code.  Currently authorization codes are
used which are chosen by the telephone company.


Subscriber Activated Call Blocking        33  --  34

Allows the subscriber to control originating access to specific
call types from his or her telephone by means of an access code
and PIN number.  Subscriber can activate and deactivate the
feature as well as overide it with a PIN.


Secondary Directory Numbers with Options    33  33  34

This is an enhancement to Teen Service which allows seperate
simultaneous call forwarding of the primary and secondary
directory numbers.


Wake-Up Sevice                    33  33  34

Using access codes subscribers may program a time at which
they wish to be rung back with a wake-up call announcement.


Calling Name Blocking for Lines            33  33  34

Allows the subscriber to block the display of his or her
name on the CPE of the called party.


RES/MDC Line Expansion                35  --  36

Expands the number of MDC/RES lines supported by DMS-100.


Universal Access to CLASS Features        35  35  36

This feature allows the operating company to make one or more
CLASS features universally available to all RES and MDC lines.
This allows subscribers to activate one or more CLASS features
from their telephones, and will also allow operating companies
to charge for CLASS features thus activated an a usage basis.


Coin on RES Enhancements            34  34  35

This feature makes it possible to assign RES/CLASS features
to coin lines.


Residential Message Waiting Reminder - RES    33  33  34

With this feature, a Voice Messaging Service provider notifies
its subscribers that messages are waiting by a stuuter dial
tone and by a single ring that occurs when a message is queued.


Telemetry Access                P   P   P

The idle line telemetry access feature provides a "no-ring"
connection that allows electric, water and other utilities
to read metres remotely at night.

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

In another post I will list some new CLASS features including:
CLASS+ Call Waiting Indication (Including Name).


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko)
Subject: AT&T Reunion Rates This Week
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 91 14:06:09 EDT
Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY


I just saw an ad on TV for AT&T's Reunion Week.

They're offering rates of 11 cents/minute from 5 PM to 11 PM on direct
dialed interstate calls all this week (Monday-Friday).

As a point of comaprison, from here (716-647) to San Jose (408-241)
the normal rates for 5-11 pm are 14 cents for the first minute and 15
cents additional minutes.


Jeff

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Jones)
Subject: Ohio PUC Proposes New System of Regulation
Date: 20 Oct 91 18:45:24 GMT
Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati


The following news item by Robert White appeared in the October 18
{Cincinnati Post}:

Cincinnati Bell and other telephone companies in Ohio could face an
entirely new system of state regulation under a plan unveiled Thursday
by the chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

The plan would convert state regulators from passive overseers to
pro-active partners in a telephone company's operations, said PUCO
chairman Craig Glazer.  And it would give phone companies incentives
to improve their operations and take risks aimed at providing more and
better services to customers.

"This is a departure from traditional, rate-based rate of return
regulation," Glazer said, during an appearance before a special Senate
telecommunications committee headed by Sen. Richard Finan,
R-Cincinnati.

Under the optional incentive plan, he said, a telephone company would
meet with the PUCO staff and any other interested parties to hash out
a set of specific performance goals.  The company would be given
financial incentives for meeting those goals.

Every three years the PUCO would assess whether the compnay had met
its goals, and would reopen the process of establishing new ones.

Such a system, Glazer said, would allow regulators to encourage a
company to modernize its system or offer educational services to
schools, while giving it a chance to make and keep more money than it
can now.

But Cincinnati Bell and some members of Finan's committee reacted
warily to the plan, as did Ohio Consumers' Counsel William Spratley.

[description of traditional regulatory process deleted ]

Finan and others have long complained that the arrangement neither
rewards good management nor discourages bad, since companies are in
effect guaranteed a minimum -- and maximum -- level of profit.

Glazer said the PUCO, under authority granted in a 1989 state law,
will open formal deliberations in November that by mid-1992 will
likely lead to a new incentive-based ratemaking process.

His plan, which hasn't yet been adopted by the full commission, would
allow telephone companies to choose whether they want to be regulated
under the incentive plan or the traditional system.


Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
Domain: [e-mail]  Path: uunet!sdrc!scjones  IBM: USSDR7DR at IBMMAIL

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 11:00:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Downloading Software (Another Tax)


There was an article in today's {Newsday} (10/20/91) about new ways of
taxing people and one that caught my attention was something that
slipped by the residents of New York.  It concerns a new 8.25% tax on
software.

That portion of the article reads:

"Desperation and stealth will play a part.  Just this September, the
New York State Legislature enacted a bill that would put an 8.25% tax
on the downloading of computer software.  The implications, not yet
fully explored by computer nerds, are that every time you transfer
data by modem or hook into an electronic bulletin board, you cough up
a tithe to the state on the total time consumed."

I intend to contact my Assemblyman and State Senator and gripe about
this.

This looks very similar to the "Modem Tax" thread that's going around
these days.

The word "nerds" was the author's, not mine.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail]
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

Subject: Why The Two-Second Delay
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 91 10:39:09 EDT
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


In regard to the recent speculation about the two-second billing
delay, there is a simple traditional reason given for it.  It has
nothing to do with slow billing on ancient SxS exhanges or anything
like that.  Rather, it accounts for the time between when you take the
reciever away from your ear and when you place it on the switchhook.
If the called party happens to answer during that window, you're not
charged.  Modems delay presenting carrier for two seconds to avoid
deliberate or accidental toll fraud on very short data calls.

Since the computers that participate in switched 56k bps have neither
ears nor handsets, it is hard to see any reason for the two-second
delay other than slavish adherence to no longer relevant tradition.

ISDN lines present more of a challenge, since some calls are voice
calls for which a two-second delay would be appropriate, while others
are data, fax, etc., for which it wouldn't.


Regards,

John Levine, comp.compilers moderator
[e-mail] or {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: New Colored Box? (Billing Delay)
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1991 21:54:05 GMT


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

> On switched 56 or ISDN calls I can see no technical reason for the two
> second requirement.  The requirement only is useful in the analog
> world (of a few years ago).  I suspect that the requirement was
> included to prevent the called party modem from answering with a
> signal that would have enough energy content at 2600 Hz that the
> originating CO would be lead to believe that answer supervision was
> not being returned from the far end. The lack of any signal for two
> seconds would give the SF receivers time to notice that the 2600 Hz
> had gone away and that it was time to start billing the call.  I know
> that there are part 68 requirements that prohibit energy at 2600 Hz
> without simultanious energy at other frequencies, but I think the "two
> second rule" was an attempt to be extra certain that answer
> supervision wouldn't be messed up by having modems answer the phone.

> This leads to an interesting question.  Is it possible that a new
> "box" could have been built that would answer a toll call immediately
> with a 2600 Hz tone added to the answering party's voice?  This box
> would then prevent the return of answer supervision to an SF/MF
> signalled trunk allowing the call to appear as unanswered?  This of
> course would not be useful today when carriers block the reverse audio
> path prior to the return of supervision.  But it does raise the
> possiblity of a whole new "box." Has anybody heard of anybody using
> such a "box" back in the days when such things were done?

    I'd always heard that the "two second rule" was there to
prevent billing for a call that was answered just as the caller was
giving up and putting the handset back on hook.  I imagine we could
look back in the Federal Register for when this rule was first
introduced and the reasoning behind it.  If this is the case, then it
would appear that ISDN calls would also be subject to the two second
delay unless a method were included to determine whether the call was
voice or digital data.  An ISDN phone could still suffer from the
"call answered just as caller gave up" problem.  The telco could get
complaints of billing for "uncompleted calls".  With voice, giving
away a two second call does not do the consumer a whole lot of good,
so it is not likely to be taken advantage of.  With data, however, we
can get a lot done in two seconds, so the billing delay seems to be
necessary (again, whether the call is ISDN or modem).  An alternative
to this would be to bill for the call in seconds.  A "call answered
just as caller hung up" call would show up on the bill as a 1 or two
second call, which (I hope) would cost little.  Does anyone have any
statistics on how many calls come in under two seconds?  Is this a
major problem with consumers?  Am I correct in my "rumor reasoning"
for the billing delay?

    As to the "box" question, years and years ago, I heard that
just placing an NE-2 neon lamp across a line would take a phone off
hook during ringing just long enough to stop ringing, but not long
enough to allow billing.  You'd think that the system would just
consider it a rather short call and drop the voice circuit, but
apparently in these old systems (I think it was a step centrex) it
would leave the circuit up, allowing communications with an AC coupled
voice circuit (no loop current).

    My interest in the two second billing delay is that I'd like
to once an hour or so pass a little data.  That data would fit in a
second of ISDN time, so, why should I pay for a full minute, or a
tenth of a minute, or delay two seconds before sending my one second
of data?  As shorter calls become useful, perhaps telcos can charge
one rate for the first second (recovering call setup costs) and a
second rate for additional circuits (recovering circuit costs).


Harold

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

Date: 20 Oct 91 11:56:19 EDT
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI in C&P-Land


Patton M. Turner <[e-mail] writes:

> About a year ago, I accidently dialed 711 from my test set autodialer
> here in Auburn, and was connected the E911 operator.

I suspect what you will find is that the LEC has now or at some time
in the past used 711 as a "hokey" code for testing the 911 service. I
know that is what we do as an LEC. That "hokey" code is supposed to be
removed from translations at cutover, however.


Tim Gorman SWBT    *any opinions expressed are only my own*

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: ANI in C&P-Land
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 02:30:30 GMT


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

> [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo) writes:

>> I tried it [811] and, sure enough, it works.  (This
>> also explains what 811 does; I still don't know about 711, 511, 311,
>> 211 and 111.)

> About a year ago, I accidently dialed 711 from my test set autodialer
> here in Auburn, and was connected the E911 operator.

It actually makes a fair amount of sense.  If the other X11 numbers
have no assignment, equate them to 911 to allow for panic dialing
errors.  I would imagine that anyone in dire distress (and perhaps on
the verge of passing out!) would be most grateful for such a feature;
if it is widespread, I don't doubt it has saved more than one life.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #837
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16650;
          21 Oct 91 23:20 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29198
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 21 Oct 1991 21:36:03 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10981
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 21 Oct 1991 21:35:40 -0500
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 21:35:40 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #838

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 21 Oct 91 21:35:39 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 838

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom [John Goggan]
    Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Caller-ID on Cellular Phones [Tim Gorman]
    Re: 950/800 and AT&T [Tim Gorman]
    Re: Calling DC and Maryland From Manassas [John Higdon]
    Re: UFGATE: "How Does It KNOW?" [Jack Decker]
    Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs? [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Laser Pointer Information Wanted [Will Martin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Goggan)
Subject: Re: Phreaking and Abuse on alt.dcom.telecom
Date: 21 Oct 91 03:55:08 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Goggan)
Organization: Free Software Foundation


In article <[e-mail]> andersen!tsarver@uunet.
UU.NET (Tom Sarver) writes:

> they have a phone number
> which, when called, immediately tells the person who answers, the
> phone number of the originator.

> [Moderator's Note:
> it has spread to phreak boards everywhere. One problem that has always

In case anyone is wondering why this number is so important to the
phreaks and hacks, I'll explain ...

COCOTs are one of the "in things" with many ph/h/crackers lately.  The
phreakers because they can be used for phreaking, of course -- and the
hackers because they provide a challenge -- breaking in  ... many (most)
COCOTs answer when called and generally require a passcode to be
entered.  The problem for them is getting the phone number of the
COCOT after they've discovered one.  Until recently, there was an 800
number that played a recorded sales pitch for ANI and in the middle of
the message it would "tell" the number that called it.  This solved
their problem of trying to discover the COCOts number -- they simply
dialed the 800 number from the COCOT.

The "ANI Demo" phone number was passed all over the ph/h/cracking
world -- until it was shut down (it justs rings -- never answers)
about a month ago.  Since then, many ph/h/crackers have been waiting
for another such number -- which they now have so they will probably
be abusing it to the maximum (which means disconnection may eventually
be the only possible solution).

  I'll try to spread the word not use that number on the BBSes that I
am on, but most of the "12-year-old-COCOT-lovers" probably won't even
read my entire post before skipping to the next ...


John Goggan ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: On the same topic, I assume you saw the stuff which
was left in alt.dcom.telecom today: a whole series of messages telling
how to break into several voicemail systems; how to break into the
Milnet; a program designed to discover passwords; and other obnoxious
files. All of them were left by the same anonymous user at the same
non-existent site. Siemens Medical Systems (one of the victims in the
theft-of-voicemail-services tutorial in alt.dcom.telecom today) has
been notified that their 800 number link to voicemail is now under
attack, and given the box number involved. Like cockroaches, you can
stomp on those people all you like; they seem to survive. One person
has said in the event of WW-3, the only species to survive will be the
cockroaches and the hackerphreaks.  Good Socially Responsible
Computing, that's what it is!   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 04:40:19 GMT


        Although not a serious abuse, I've heard of students who have
a high registration priority (typically close to graduation or being
near the top of the random registration priority system) helping
friends by registering for classes they didn't need.  When the
friend's priority comes up, they both call into the system.  The
student that actually wants to take the class finds it is full.  The
student who didn't want the class, but has it, now drops the class.
The student who wants the class now finds a space and adds it.

        The use of DTMF/voice to handle class registration seems a bit
inefficient to me.  A school is going to have to buy lots of new
equipment and pay for lots of DTMF/voice phone lines.  It seems to me
that it'd be better handled through the existing computer systems.
Cal Poly has a hundred or so modems that students can call in on for
various purposes (I'm on one now).  They also have terminals all over
campus and in the library (the various catalogs are on line).  All
this in place equipment could also handle student registration.  It
could also put the catalog and class schedule on line.  A student
would list the classes she/he wants, see a display of when each one is
available and choose the appropriate section.  Class conflicts would
show up immediately.  The student's class schedule could show up in a
"calendar" format with the class times boxed in.  If the student
selects a conflicting class section, she/he would have the opportunity
to modify the previously selected class or the currently selected one
to resolve the conflict.

        Even without fancy software, the use of existing equipment
seems to be much better than adding more hardware (DTMF/voice).


Harold

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

Date: 19 Oct 91 15:48:11 EDT
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID on Cellular Phones


In telecom.v11.831.5, [e-mail] (Mike Parker) asks:

> Just for curiousity, what does Caller ID send for a call originated on
> a cellular phone?

Depends on what type of service a cellular carrier orders for
interface into the LEC network. The most common type designated TYPE 1,
provides a "trunk-with-line-treatment" interface. A billing telephone
number is associated with this trunk group in the LEC central office.
It is this billing telephone number which is sent forward for CNID. If
an equal access interface is ordered (no type assigned but most like a
TYPE 2 interface) the cellular carrier can pass forward the originating
number of the cellular phone on interLATA calls. A TYPE 2 interface is
basically an intertoll type connection and as far as I know, no ANI is
provided by the cellular carrier to the LEC, so no CNID is possible.

I suspect the industry is going to have to define an SS7 interface to
the cellular carriers in the tariffs sooner or later. This should
allow CNID on all calls.


Tim Gorman - Southwestern Bell Tel Co
*all opinions are my own :)

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

Date: 20 Oct 91 11:56:11 EDT
From: Tim Gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 950/800 and AT&T


> I called AT&T once to ask why they didn't have an 800 or 950 access
> number, and was told by the AT&T rep that it would be impossible to
> add such access to their network because it wasn't configured to
> accept such access.  I was somewhat incredulous, and remarked that a
> major company like AT&T ought to have folks bright enough to figure
> out how to add such access, at which point the rep restated that it
> just couldn't be done.  Now, who am I to believe?  You, or the AT&T
> rep?  :-)

It has been my understanding from the start of the MFJ that AT&T was
not allowed by the MFJ to install 950 access. I know that has come up
before in my company and that was the legal and tariff experts
opinion.  As far as 800 access to operator services is concerned, it
has always been AT&T's position (as far as I know) to always provide
"full service" capability. This cannot be via done via 800 access
(i.e. no operator hold, no flash recall, dubious sequence calling
capability, no coin station paid calling, etc.).

> Please explain why it was AT&T's responsibilty to provide a
> workaround for non-compliant "oddball phones".

Pardon a bit of flaming here, but it has never been AT&T's
responsibility to provide for non-compliant "oddball phones".
Reference the OSP ruling concerning the capabilty for 10XXX access
from any phone. The main reason for this whole situation was some
peoples willingness to rake off profits without regard to network
standards or quality customer service. Also reference the OSP's
reluctance to provide the investment for handling 1+ coin station paid
calling.

At least in our area this is primarily used by "poor" callers without
credit cards making necessary calls. In many cases these people do not
even have their own telephone (e.g. homeless). God forbid that in
order to play a requirement for social responsibility (including
necessary investment) would have to be met. Instead, just leave it to
good old AT&T (or the LEC's in the case of an intraLATA call).

I should also note that at least for the RBOC's, over 80% of their
customers have 10XXX. That is either a big percentage of the phones in
the nation or the arguments about the RBOC's having a stranglehold on
the local market are wrong. This was actually accomplished by 1989
when the COCOT and associated market really began to take off. This
should be a big enough market to justify providing full service by all
carriers.

This is not meant to take anyone to task for past provisioning
methods.  Just to take them to task for fighting so hard to not move
ahead now that the network and market exists.


Tim Gorman SWBT
*any opinions expressed are only my own*

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 91 10:08 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Calling DC and Maryland from Manassas


virtech![e-mail] (Rick Rodman) writes:

> Calling Maryland or DC from here costs roughly 23 cents a minute if
> dialed one-plus.

> Using MCI (950 access), it costs 11 cents a minute.

Welcome to the wonderful world of bypass. The reason that your telco
charges so much more for a short-distance call is that it still has
the monopoly and "is using the revenue from these calls to continue to
subsidize residence local exchange service" (or words to that effect).

This is a hot issue right now before the California PUC. Since many
large customers of Pac*Bell avoid those ultra high intraLATA rates via
bypass, PB has proposed a solution: lower the intraLATA rates and
raise the residence local exchange rates. That way it will still get
its money, since the urge to bypass will be relieved.

> What justification can Contel/GTE possibly have for (a) gouging their
> customers and (b) not honoring my presubscription -- and expressed
> intent via 10333 -- to make the call via Sprint?

> How do I make a complaint about this?  And to whom?

It is probably called "tariff" and you would complain to your state
regulators (if you really want the solution that they will end up
proposing).

> Related question: If AT&T is so hot on 10xxx, why don't THEY support
> cut-through?  Why doesn't Sprint?  What are they, lazy or something?

No, they have no choice. The local telco controls what happens when
you dial 10XXX, not the IEC. And your local telco is probably well
within tariff to behave in this manner.


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


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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 91 00:25:12 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UFGATE: "How Does It KNOW?"


In a message dated 15 Oct 91 02:34:56 GMT, Jack.Winslade@ivgate.
omahug.org (Jack Winslade) writes:

> Another trend that has come up recently is that systems that use
> Fidonet technology are getting set up in domains other than
> fidonet.org.  To the outside world, these may appear as such things as
> MX'ed sites within an Internet domain or mapped or unmapped UUCP
> sites.  Believe it or not, there is a lot of Usenet news flying around
> out there in FTS-0001 packets.

This is true.  Fidonet is and always has been a very politicized
network, that tends to rotate people who can only be described as
"control freaks" into positions of authority.  Because of that, there
are some very definite rules that must be followed to be a recognized
gateway in fidonet.org.  But, there are many other Fidonet nodes that
receive newsgroups and convert them to Fidonet echomail.  I receive
this newsgroup as echomail, but I can assure you that it's never
passed through any of the "official" Fidonet hierarchy.

As a side note, one place in which "official" Fidonet and the
Internet are clearly incompatible is that Fidonet believes in
restricting feeds based on geography.  For example, if you operated a
Fidonet node in Duluth, Minnesota, and a node in Superior, Wisconsin
(a local call just across the state line) had a Fidonet echomail
conference that you wanted to carry, you couldn't get it from him
(unless you got "special dispensation" from about four different!
coordinators) because you and he are in different Fidonet Regions.

In my opinion, restricting feeds based on geography is THE most
assinine thing about Fidonet (and something I've campaigned long and
hard against, to no avail).  It's also a small bonanza for the phone
companies because such policies often force sysops to make more costly
telephone calls (such as long distance intrastate) than they would
otherwise have to).  Anyway, because this kind of "outside control" is
imposed on Fidonet nodes by those in "official" capacities, many
sysops will bypass "official" channels if given a choice ... it's just
FAR less hassle.

However, I don't think that the current practice of Fidonet<->Internet
gateways to convert newsgroups to echomail at the gateways is the best
way to go about it, because a lot of useful information from the
message headers are lost.  My thought is that newsgroups should be
transmitted within Fidonet in the standard RFC-822 format (or
something close to it) and only converted to an FTS-0001 message (if
necessary) at the end node.  I've been writing a newsgroup processor
that would work very much like a Fidonet echomail processor except
that it would pass newsgroups, not echomail, but it's still in the
alpha test/development stage right now.

If/when I figure it's in good enough shape to release, you may see
even more Fidonet-technology nodes passing newsgroups around!


Jack Decker    : [e-mail]    : FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Hinckley)
Subject: Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs?
Date: 21 Oct 91 13:03:48 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: I try not to


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob
Izenberg) writes:

> Their cost for fax transmissions was four dollars (US) per page, plus
> the cost of any non-local call.  This seems a high price for sending a
> fax, but maybe

The going rate locally is $1.00-$2.00 to recieve and $0.50-$2.00 to
send.


Scott Hinckley   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 7:49:18 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Laser Pointer Information Wanted


Yet one more source for a laser pointer; I think I'll stop with this one.

This is a lower-powered model which uses more-readily-available
batteries (2 AAA or 3 N cells) listed in a recent catalog from:

Damark
7101 Winnetka Ave. N.
PO Box 29900
Minneapolis, MN 55429-0900

800-729-9000 (orders)
800-733-9070 or 800-788-7001 (Customer Service)
800-729-4744 (Product Info)

Apologies to the international readership, but the only non-800
numbers in two different catalogs are the FAX numbers 612-531-0281 or
612-531-0380.

This laser pointer is a "Laserex" with .95mW output, seven inches long
by 5/8ths inch square cross-section. Five hours operation on one set
of batteries.  Stock number B-377-188630, price is $129.99 with an
overly-high shipping charge of $6.00 for a pen-sized item.

(Damark is one of those mail-order "closeout" dealers like COMB, which
always tack on an excessive shipping charge in fine print to hike the
price blared out in big print. They also offer a "free gift" with
orders; your choice of some PC software, a calorie-counter
calculator-like device, or a golf video.)


Regards,

Will

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #838
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19222;
          22 Oct 91 0:17 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20798
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 21 Oct 1991 22:32:51 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08139
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 21 Oct 1991 22:32:40 -0500
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 22:32:40 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #839

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 21 Oct 91 22:32:33 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 839

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Caller ID on Cellular Phones [John Gilbert]
    Re: Unix ClassMate 10 Caller ID Monitor Daemon Source [David G. Lewis]
    Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems [Jim Haynes]
    Re: Bellcore Area Code Directory [Eric Austin Litman]
    Re: Why The Two-Second Delay [Graham Toal]
    Re: ANI in C&P-Land [Graham Toal]
    Re: Even More 5ESS Woes [Steven G. Warner]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John)
Subject: Re: Caller ID on Cellular Phones
Organization: Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 14:55:40 GMT


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

> Is caller ID supported for cellular phones (i.e. can a car phone pick
> up this information?)

The Motorola NAMPS standard reportedly includes a provision for the
caller ID feature.  The new Microtac Lite portable cellular phone is
NAMPS compatible.


John Gilbert                                  KA4JMC
Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div      Astro Systems Development
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector     Schaumburg, Illinois
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Unix ClassMate 10 Caller ID Monitor Daemon Source
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 15:17:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.
fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes:

> By the way, with all the discussion of call blocking and the like, I
> wonder what would happen if you dialed a call using a carrier access
> code 10XXX+number ... this WILL work for local calls in many areas
> (even though you don't dial a "1" or "0" after the number) but the
> carrier will usually bill you for their shortest distance intrastate
> call.  What I would wonder is, if that works from a given exchange,
> would it block delivery of the caller ID number?

I think this is becoming a FAQ.

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: Caller*ID, as it's known here in Bell Atlantic Land, or
Calling Party Number Delivery, to use a generic term, operates via the
Signaling System 7 (SS7) network.  Signaling System 7 is a
packet-switched network used by telephone companies (both local and
long distance) to send signaling information between switches.  When a
caller places a call which is destined for a switch other than the one
the caller is homed on, the caller's switch sends a message via SS7 to
the called party's switch.  This message contains a field called
"Calling Party Number"; the field is populated by the originating
switch with the dialable number of the calling party.  Also populated
is a "Presentation Indicator", which can be set to "presentation
allowed" or "presentation restricted".  This indicator is used to send
"blocking" information.  (I try to avoid the word "blocking" because
it has other meanings in telecom.)

The terminating switch receives this message and, if the called party
subscribes to Calling Party Number Delivery and the presentation
indicator is not set to "presentation restricted", sends the
information down the subscriber line between the first and second
rings.

If the call signaling information is *not* carried via SS7 at any
point between the originating and terminating switch, the calling
party number information is lost.

This implies there are two ways to prevent the calling party number
from being delivered to the called party: (1), get the presentation
indicator set to "presentation restricted", (2), force the call off
the SS7 network at some point.

The presentation indicator is set by the originating switch based on
line information and, optionally, dialed digits.  This is how
"per-line blocking" and "per-call blocking" work, where they're
offered.  "Per-line blocking" sets the presentation indicator to
"restricted" on every call from a given line; "per-call blocking" sets
the presentation indicator to "restricted" for the first call
following a given service code entered by the calling party.  Since
the presentation indicator is set by the switch software that handles
the SS7 protocol, there is no way to "force" it to a particular value
from outside the switch -- if per-line or per-call restriction isn't
offered, all calls leaving the switch will leave with the presentation
indicator set to "presentation allowed".

The various methods that have been described in c.d.t. and other
forums to prevent calling party number delivery work by forcing the
call off the SS7 network at some point.  I can think of two offhand:
place the call via an interexchange carrier (as described above), and
place the call via operator assistance.

"But", I hear you say, "didn't you just say way back up at the top of
this message that all the telcos, including interexchange carriers,
use SS7?"  Yes, I did.  But interexchange carrier SS7 doesn't
currently talk to local exchange carrier SS7.  It will in the future --
"SS7 Network Interconnect" will enable the local exchange carriers to
send calls to interexchange carriers via SS7, passing all sorts of
useful information including calling party number.  Currently, I
believe Network Interconnect has been tariffed by the BellSouth
operating companies, and I know that testing is going on among various
companies, including BellSouth, Southwestern Bell Telephone, USSprint,
New York Tel, Rochester Tel, United Tel, MCI, and AT&T (there may be
others of which I'm unaware).

Deployment is "a while" in the future. I don't know personally where
various players stand.  In addition, there are business and policy
issues surrounding inter-company delivery of calling party number.
For example, if I'm AT&T and you're BellSouth and you send me calling
party number, do I pay you for that information?  If I'm AT&T and
you're Southwestern Bell Tel and I send you calling party number and
the presentation indicator set to "presentation restricted" and for
some reason (presumably error, for we all know that telcos would never
intentionally disregard a caller's instructions) you deliver the
number to the called party, am I liable?  Is BellSouth liable?

"But wait," I hear you say again.  "How is AT&T delivering ANI to
customers, then?"

What is commonly referred to as "ANI delivery" (dreadful term.  ANI =
Automatic Number Identification, which is a process, not a number.
ANI, the process, is used to Automatically Identify the Number which
should be billed for a call.  You don't deliver a process, you deliver
a number -- specifically, you deliver a Billing Number.  The Billing
Number is a number which may or may not be dialable and corresponds,
logically, to the number which is billed for a given line.  But I
digress ...) is actually the delivery to the called party of the
billing number received by the interexchange carrier.

A little background.  When you place a call via an interexchange
carrier, the interexchange carrier must receive from the local
exchange carrier the billing number of the calling party, to enable
the interexchange carrier to properly bill the call.  This information
is sent in real time at call setup via MF trunk signaling.  As soon as
the originating switch recognizes the call as an interLATA call or
other call destined for an interexchange carrier (via either 10XXX,
950-0/1XXX, or three digit translation) it seizes a trunk to the
appropriate interexchange carrier, outpulses the billing number via MF
signaling, and outpulses the dialed digits, then cuts through the
voice path.  (So, no, you can't spoof the IXC switch with a "box" to
send a phony billing number ...)

The interexchange carrier now has the billing number for the call.
For calls from residential customers, the billing number is the same
as the calling party number in the majority of cases.  (I don't have
statistics, but I'd guess it matches for 90%+ of customers.  C.D.T.,
being a somewhat atypical collection of residential customers, may
likely have a lower proportion of readers whose billing number is the
same as their calling party number.)

If the call is delivered to the called party via a local exchange
carrier, the billing number is not sent.  The terminating LEC doesn't
need it to do billing.

If, however, the call is delivered to the called party directly from
the interexchange carrier (AT&T calls it Direct Connect, logically
enough; I would guess other IXCs have similar terms), the IXC can
define a protocol to deliver the billing number directly to the called
party.  AT&T uses ISDN Primary Rate Interface for its INFO-1 and
INFO-2 services.  I am aware that other IXCs are (also) offering BN
delivery via in-band signaling; I don't know the protocol.

For some customers, delivery of billing number is useful because it
generally corresponds to calling party number for residential
customers.  However, it is not strictly the calling party number.

Sending a call via operator assist also "defeats" calling party number
delivery, because the trunks from the originating switch to the
operator position switch are MF signaled trunks, similar to but not
exactly the same as equal access interconnection trunks.

[Writer's Note: All of this information is available in a variety of
publicly-available sources, including Bellcore TAs and TRs, AT&T PUBs,
and ANSI standards.  None of this information is proprietary to AT&T,
either as an equipment provider or long distance carrier.  If it at
any way seems "slanted" towards AT&T, that is solely because my
experience is mostly with AT&T networks and equipment.]

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems
Date: 21 Oct 91 06:02:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Barton F. Bruce) writes:

> It is a big loop. Rather than simply breaking the line for each code
> pulse, each side of the opened wire is momentarily grounded to a local
> ground.

> If the loop is accidentally broken any one place, or if two boxes get
> pulled at once, both sides of the loop are seperately monitored and
> the alarms will still get through!

I don't know which came first, but the same technology was used by
Western Union for a messenger call service.  Subscribers to this
service had call boxes that were oval-shaped blue and white enamelled
with a crank sticking out.  Turning the crank wound a spring which
drove a code wheel to send a pattern of dots and dashes.  These were
received at the telegraph office on a paper tape recorder, and
resulted in a messenger boy being dispatched to the subscriber's
office.  Toward the end the call box used the same mechanism but was a
bright yellow plastic rectangular box with black lettering.  This
service was discontinued about 1950 or so.  It's a mystery to me why
it lasted that long, since you could call Western Union on the phone
and give them a telegram or ask for a messenger to be sent.


[e-mail] [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Austin Litman)
Subject: Re: Bellcore Area Code Directory
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Eric Austin Litman)
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 20:54:43 GMT


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

> I am curious about Bellcore's Area Code Directory publication, as to
> what exactly is contained in this book (Bellcore Document Number
> TR-EOP-000093).  Will this give little more information than is
> contained in the front of phone books, or is this more comprehensive
> than that?

[Moderator noted the Bellcore publication is much more comprehensive.]

Where might one be able to obtain such a document?

Thanks in advance.

[e-mail]  301-314-1923
[e-mail] (Eric A. Litman)


[Moderaotor's Note: Try the AT&T Customer Information Center in
Indianapolis, IN. They also have a much smaller (but still very
comprehensive) area code directory for $2. The larger Bellcore
directory is much more expensive.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Why The Two-Second Delay
Date: 21 Oct 91 21:30:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


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

> In regard to the recent speculation about the two-second billing
> delay, there is a simple traditional reason given for it.  It has
> nothing to do with slow billing on ancient SxS exhanges or anything
> like that.  Rather, it accounts for the time between when you take the
> reciever away from your ear and when you place it on the switchhook.
> If the called party happens to answer during that window, you're not
> charged.  Modems delay presenting carrier for two seconds to avoid

I'm amazed the US telcos are that generous; I was told by a friend in
Boston that they were charged when ringing Britain just for getting a
ring-tone; ie even if the call wasn't picked up.  (I was rather
illegally suggesting that she signalled me by ringing on each of my
two lines alternately so that I would know to call her back at my
expense ...)

Is this true or was my friend mistaken?


[Moderator's Note: If it wasn't true, it should be. That sort of toll
fraud, (sending coded ringing signals to pass a message) is rather
petty, but as you point out, still quite illegal.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: ANI in C&P-Land
Date: 21 Oct 91 21:36:15 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


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

> Patton M. Turner <[e-mail] writes:

>> About a year ago, I accidently dialed 711 from my test set autodialer
>> here in Auburn, and was connected the E911 operator.

> I suspect what you will find is that the LEC has now or at some time
> in the past used 711 as a "hokey" code for testing the 911 service. I
> know that is what we do as an LEC. That "hokey" code is supposed to be
> removed from translations at cutover, however.

I found in Scotland around 1975/76 that 199 called the emergency
services too.  (In Britain it is usually 999).  [I was being a
schoolboy at the time and trying all the 1?? numbers to see what they
did :-) -- 171 was the ringback; none of the others did anything
obvious]


Graham

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

From: boy![e-mail] (Steven G. Warner)
Subject: Re: Even More 5ESS Woes
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 9:11:28 PDT


On the subject of 5ESS problems, recently I made a move to Sunnyvale,
CA, an area reputed to be connected to a 5ESS.

Almost immediately I noticed a drop in audio volume.  Three things
were apparent.  1: I was unable to access my answering machine(s)
using tones from the office. (the unit couldnt 'hear' the tones.)
2: My Merlin's call forwarding (much like automatic call conference)
was so quiet, it was difficult to hear a call thru a conference link.
3: all the speakerphone volumes had to be set at maximum.

The dudes at 6-1-1 (Pac*B*ll) claimed that the lines were fine, and
even sent someone out to check the lines at my demark.  He didn't seem
too bright, and barely knew how to work the line analysis equipment.
He did know enough though to blame my equipment, and claim the
Pac*B*ll lines were fine.

Since I do not expect PacB*ll to do anything about this - I would like
to hear from anyone who knows of any equipmemnt that >>I<< can
purchase and install that will boost the audio from the lines.

I have never heard of such a thing, but I would like to give it a try,
as this is all I can think of.


Steven Warner
[e-mail]
sunnyvale, ca, usa


[Moderator's Note: Most headsets have amplifier circuits in them, as
do 'hearing-impaired' handsets which can in fact be used by anyone.
You just turn the little wheel on the underside of the handset up or
down as desired.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #839
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20685;
          22 Oct 91 0:56 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00211
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 21 Oct 1991 23:08:58 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14171
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 21 Oct 1991 23:08:42 -0500
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 23:08:42 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #840

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 21 Oct 91 23:08:33 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 840

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Directory/*Dialer* Cards? [Phillip J. Birmingham]
    Re: Directory/*Dialer* Cards? [Nick Reid]
    Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? [Rolf Meier]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [John Higdon]
    Re: New Colored Box? [Jack Decker]
    Old X-Bar Switch to Give Away [Jeffrey Mattox]
    Parts Information Wanted [Rich Greenberg]
    Call Screening Device Wanted [Kevin P. Kleinfelter]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phillip J. Birmingham)
Subject: Re: Directory/*Dialer* Cards?
Date: 22 Oct 91 04:04:12 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Laird
P. Broadfield) writes:

> There are any number of those little electronic-phone-book gadgets
> available out there, from the Sharp Wizard (?) things down to the
> credit-card-size (and credit-card-thickness) gadgets in the airport
> shops.  What I haven't found yet is one that actually generates the
> tones itself.

    I used to have a dialer that would generate tones. I used it
to connect with Sprint back in '88, before the lab went to touch-tone
in the dorms.

    It was about the size of a pocket calculator, maybe a little
thinner, and cost about 50 bucks. I can't remember who made it (I
don't have it anymore; it was eaten by a dog, I kid you not!) but I
think it was Sharp or Casio. I haven't seen one in a loooong time,
though. I'm not sure they are made anymore, but I *do* know they
existed.


Phillip J. Birmingham    [e-mail]
Vanderbilt University    [e-mail]
Disclaimer: MY OPINIONS! MINE! MINE!!!

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Reid)
Subject: Re: Directory/*Dialer* Cards?
Organization: Oregon State University, CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 06:28:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Laird
P. Broadfield) writes:

> There are any number of those little electronic-phone-book gadgets
> available out there, from the Sharp Wizard (?) things down to the
> credit-card-size (and credit-card-thickness) gadgets in the airport
> shops.  What I haven't found yet is one that actually generates the
> tones itself.

There are many, from about $10 up.  The Atari Portfolio is the closest
thing to a Sharp Wizard that will do it.  I use a calc-sized Sharp
(EL-6250) and a Casio wrist watch (555 DBA-80).  Around $50 each.
Except for the watch and the Portfolio I have not yet seen any of
these devices incorporating a timer, although most incorporate a
calculator.  As though the last thing one might want to do with a
phone call is time it.

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

From: mitel!Software![e-mail] (Rolf Meier)
Subject: Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones?
Date: 21 Oct 91 16:53:32 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> ssc-vax!carroll@cs.
washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes:

> There has been some recent interesting discussion on the ISDN
> mailing list to which I am subscribed about a device/standard called
> DECT (Digital European Cordless Telephone). I am left with the
> impression that this gizmo is in the demonstration phase at this point
> in time.

The DECT standard is almost ready and goes into effect in Europe in a
few months.  Equipment is already being designed.  It is a matter of
speculation when it will displace the existing digital cordless
technology, CT2.

>    I think that for anything like that to be made available in
> the USA, though, the FCC would have to approve the concept, allocate
> bandwidth, and publish regulations governing the device, which I
> haven't heard about.

Then check out the FCC's NOI Gen. Docket No. 90-314.

Digital cordless is very hot now among equipment manufacturers and
service providers in Canada and the U.S.  The difference is that in
the U.S. there are many more interest groups competing for the
available spectrum, such as the military and the wireline carriers.
The FCC is willing to allow the market forces to determine a dominant
standard.  In many people's opinions this will not work because there
is a shared resource (spectrum) involved, and a regulating body must
make a decision to speed up the process.  This has happened in the
rest of the world, with the consequence that digital cordless will be
long in coming in the U.S.

>    My gut feeling, based on observing cordless phones in high-RFI
> installations, is that digital transmission would not be the panacea
> one might expect without *very* robust coding. The analog interference

The reliability of the radio link is clearly the area that requires
the most research.  Advances are being made by a number of
manufacturers.  Techniques such as antenna diversity and handoff are
used to dynamically counter the effects of multipath and fading.  The
protocol section of the DECT standard addresses this.


Rolf Meier/Mitel Corporation

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 91 10:42 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card


[e-mail] (Jack Decker) writes:

> Well, in the first place, my recollection is that 950 access was
> instituted at the same time that 10XXX access was.

Your recollection and rememberances are interesting but not germain.
You might check the actual documents from Bellcore concerning the
planned phasing in of Feature Group B (950 access) and Feature Group D
(10XXX; pre-subscription).

> 800- The most universally accessible, but in some cases even the 800
> access numbers were not available in some areas.

You might be interested to know that Sprint's 800 number access
REQUIRES that FGD be available in the serving office. That's right: if
an office can give you FONCARD dialtone, it can provide 10XXX. That is
the technical reality.

> Once the 800 number started working anywhere in a LATA, it would
> generally be available from all phones served by the same intraLATA
> long distance carrier.

Now you know why.

> I could still take you to phones not too far from where I live where
> ONLY the 800 numbers will work (to reach anything other than AT&T).
> You can talk all you want about "the mandated way to handle carrier
> access", but I'm telling you how things have developed out here in the
> real world.

To you, the real world may be no larger than Michigan, but again, I
would suggest that you acquaint yourself with the many pounds of
documents that were generated after the MFJ. These are all available
from Bellcore and describe in detail the technical specifications for
IEC service, the time tables involved and the scope of the
implementations.

> Maybe the FCC should have stepped in and mandated that
> 10XXX access be made universally available (and I for one wish they
> would have), but they didn't.

Well, it may not be Michigan, but here in California, Sprint and some
other OCCs went clamoring to the PUC and demanded that Pac*Bell and
GTE accelerate the upgrading of their networks to become FGD-capable.
For Pac*Bell, this meant gluing CONTAC to the legion of crossbar
switches that it had installed throughout the state. As a result of
this action, Pac*Bell probably became first telco in the nation to
have an inordinately high percentage of FGD compliance.

A side note: did this mean that Sprint and others got off their
collective butts and extended service to the out-of-the-way places
that Pac*Bell had upgraded? No, of course not. All Sprint wanted was
higher FGD penetration in the metro areas; you know the ones where all
the easy money is made.

> Now, who am I to believe?  You, or the AT&T rep?  :-)

If you have to ask, you haven't been reading the Digest long enough  :-)

> But what bothers me more than anything are AT&T's generally IRRITATING
> television commercials, which in my opinion play fast and loose with
> the facts.  I go out of my way to AVOID patronizing companies that
> have irritating TV commercials (there are some fast-food places I tend
> to avoid for this same reason) and AT&T is very near the top of my
> irritation list

Well, since you obviously select your long distance carrier using
primarily emotional considerations, I will not attempt to sway you.
But I do want to make clear that over the past fifteen years or so I
have repeatedly gone to the OCCs to have them fill my communications
needs. In every case, each has fallen flat on its face. Whether it be
a question of reliablity, quality of connections, billing accuracy, or
in the case of Sprint's recent inability to handle a new service
application, I have always ended up going back to AT&T. BTW,
televisions commercials are at the bottom of the list of factors that
influence my decision on any product.

> And here's the important point ... does AT&T have any proof at all
> that another long distance company's operator has ever said "You're
> not using AT&T!" to a customer in that tone of voice?

This is the important point? Who cares?

> Not only that, but I for one haven't forgotten that when AT&T was the
> ONLY long distance phone company, they screwed us royally for long
> distance calls.

This was all permitted, nay -- mandated under the regulations of the
day.  The theory was that long distance service subsidized local
service. You should be aware of this -- the local telcos are pushing
this even today with their pricing of short-distance calls.

It is well within your right to make product decisions based on
emotion and grudges, but please, at least get your technical facts and
regulatory histories straight. But then if you did that, you might
come to different conclusions.


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

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 91 21:49:22 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Colored Box?


> On switched 56 or ISDN calls I can see no technical reason for the two
> second requirement.  The requirement only is useful in the analog
> world (of a few years ago).  I suspect that the requirement was
> included to prevent the called party modem from answering with a
> signal that would have enough energy content at 2600 Hz that the
> originating CO would be lead to believe that answer supervision was
> not being returned from the far end ...

I think the two second delay before start of billing predated
computers and modems by many years and the actual number of seconds
varied from state to state and telco to telco.  My guess is that the
original purpose of the delay was to prevent the situation where you'd
place a call, let it ring a few times, and then just as you went to
replace the receiver, the called party would pick up (but you wouldn't
hear it because the receiver was already away from your ear).  If
billing began immediately, you'd get charged for a one minute call,
and of course many people would call the telephone company business
office to complain about being billed for a call that was never
answered.

Since you can't convey much intelligent information in two seconds
anyway, I think the phone companies decided it was far cheaper to NOT
bill for the first couple of seconds (and actually, I think that the
standard was FIVE seconds, at least for many years) even though a very
small amout of fraud could conceivably take place.  Those losses were
still probably less costly than having to have business office
personnel pull up a customer records and issue a credits for one or
two second connections that, as far as the customer was concerned,
never occurred.

Since customers would still complain about being billed for unanswered
calls if exceptionally short calls were billed, the justification for
a delay in start of billing reamins, and therefore, the requirement
that modems continue to delay two seconds is also valid.  I'd hate to
think how many person-hours the telcos and long distance carriers
would have to spend just issuing credits if the delay were discontinued.


Jack Decker           : [e-mail]              : FidoNet 1:154/8

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 12:58:11 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Mattox)
Subject: Old X-Bar Switch to Give Away


I have a 1960s-vintage crossbar switch that I want to give away.  It
has 12 rows and 48 columns, and weights about 50 pounds.  It has been
stored in a Wisconsin garage for many years, so I doubt that it would
be functional, but it would make a good museum piece.  You pick up the
packing and shipping charges.  E-mail me via [e-mail] or
afternoon telco at 608-831-5500.


Jeff

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

From: Rich Greenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Parts Information Needed
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 22:55:10 GMT


I am hoping that the collective wisdom on c.d.t can assist me.  I am
not a telephone professional as most of you are, just an electronic
experimenter with some interest in telephones who enjoys reading
c.d.t.

One thing I do is to visit yard/garage sales, and buy any telephones I
see, usually for a dollar or two.  I clean them up, check them out,
and then peddle them at a local flea market for about a 500-1000%
markup.  Some need minor repairs which I do, any needing a major
repair go into my parts bin.

There is one part which is frequently missing which I would like to
replace if I could find a source.  This is the cover plate that covers
the slip of cardboard with the phone number on it, usually clear
plastic, and the similar but colored piece that covers the screws
holding the shell onto the body on the base portion of a trimline
style phone.  It is aproximately two inches long, 1/16 thich, and 3/8
wide, with a jog on each end that snaps into the phone.

Right now I could use about four of the clear ones, and one yellow and
one beige one to take care of my current stock.  If possible, I would
like to get then locally (Los Angeles), but phone order to anywhere is
acceptable.  Suggestions??

Please reply by email as I don't think the topic is of general enough
interest to consume lots of net.bandwidth, and Pat has enough to take
care of without it.


Disclaimer: The above writings are the ramblings of one human being
        and have nothing what-so-ever to do with Locus Computing Corp.
   ---> Rich Greenberg,  [e-mail]    TinsleTown, USA  213-337-5904
Located in Inglewood, Ca, a small city completely contained within Los Angeles

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

From: msa3b![e-mail] (Kevin P. Kleinfelter)
Subject: Call Screening Device Needed
Date: 21 Oct 91 13:57:22 GMT
Organization: Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA


I'm looking for a 'call screening' machine. I believe I've seen them
mentioned here.  The machine should answer the phone with a message
such as "If you are an authorized caller, enter your code. Otherwise
leave a message at the beep."  If a valid code is entered, the machine
should THEN ring the telephone.  I'd like to install the machine in
the access point (whatever it's called -- where the phone company wire
ends and my wire begins) so that all phones would ring when the device
rings through.

I've checked Hello Direct, but I don't see what I'm looking for.  I'd
accept a plug-in card for a PC, but I'd prefer a stand-alone device,
since it is going in the garage.  I'd also prefer a device with a
digitized voice recording, instead of a moving tape (my garage is
really too dusty for a moving tape).


Kevin Kleinfelter @ DBS, Inc [phone]   ...gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin
Dun&Bradstreet Software, 3445 Peachtree Rd, NE, Atlanta GA 30326-1276
WARNING: I have been advised that email to [e-mail] may bounce.
It looks like email will have to go via 'gatech' because that is well-known.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #840
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27932;
          22 Oct 91 3:30 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25134
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 22 Oct 1991 01:41:12 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31151
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 22 Oct 1991 01:40:55 -0500
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 01:40:55 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #842

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Oct 91 01:40:50 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 842

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Oakland Fire [John Higdon]
    Pac*Bell Free Offer to Fire Victims [John Higdon]
    Attractive Nuisances [John Higdon]
    Video Network/Compression [Walter Mathews]
    How Are 900 Calls Delivered? [Jack Decker]
    Phone Auto-Switch: Voice or Data With Only One Line [Kevin Kadow]
    5ESS Three-Way With Call Waiting [Nancy J. Airey]
    Credit Card Verification -- Need Protocol [Carol Farlow Lerche]
    Information Wanted on Digital Cellular and Qualcomm [Barry Robbins]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 19:19 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: The Oakland Fire


It was interesting to note that the San Francisco media has still not
grasped the fact that the East Bay is now in a new area code. While TV
seemed to be able to prepend 510 to the various message and emergency
numbers, radio kept giving the numbers sans area code. Fortunately, we
are still in the permissive period and people could still get through.

As of this time the stats are as follows:

People killed:        14
People injured        148
Structures destroyed:    1000+
Acres involved:        1500+
Estimated loss:        $1.5 billion

Pacific Bell set up a free message center for people to be able to
communicate with those who were displaced from their homes. (800
427-7715 ext.345).

Other than outside plant destruction in the area of the fire, Pac*Bell
apparently suffered no damage or disruptions.


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


[Moderator's Note: The pictures on television today were pretty hard
to believe. They're saying some 4000-5000 people are homeless as a
result of the blaze. Is that correct? Apparently the Berkeley campus
is almost at ground zero; the television news on Sunday said much of
the campus was being evacuated as a precaution. I know the computer
links were down because I could not reach agate.berkeley.edu all day
and I assume the site was closed with the machines powered down.

One person I'd like to hear from at this point is Linc, if he is out
there and reading this. Can you report from your view of the action?
As of Monday evening, the television news said the fire was still
going, but at long last it was finally under control. Fact or fiction?
The report said further this was apparently the worst fire in
California history since the big earthquake around the turn of the
century, and one of the worst in US history, following the great fire
in Chicago and a couple other ones.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 19:51 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Pac*Bell Free Offer to Fire Victims


Pac*Bell has offered free Call Forwarding and Message Center to those
who lost their homes in the Oakland fire. Since the customer obviously
no longer has a phone but still has a phone account, s/he can get
Pac*Bell to institute what amounts to "Remote Call Forwarding" on the
now-defunct residence service. The same applies to The Message Center.
And again, these services will be free.

Even now, Pac*Bell is restricting the flow of incoming calls to the
area so that enough circuits will be available for outgoing calls.
This is similar to the action taken during the 1989 earthquake, which
ironically happened almost exactly two years ago.


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


[Moderator's Note: Calls from Chicago to the Bay Area were iffy at
best over the weekend, but Monday afternoon they were going through
okay; at least I had no trouble from my office calling John H.
Perhaps Linc will be able to write us with further news.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 00:51 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Attractive Nuisances


All this talk about numbers that are used for demos remind me of an
amusing thing that happened when I used to answer my 800 number with
an answering machine. But first, let me say that anyone who sets up a
demo (such as the ANI demonstration) and then gets all upset about the
number of calls is really naive. Yes, we can moralize 'till the cows
come home (pardon the expression) but the fact is that if you have
something interesting that happens on a line when it is called, people
will discover it, tell their friends about it, and call the living
daylights out of it -- particularly if it is a FREE call.

It is for this very reason that when I set up a demo for some
prospective customers, I protect the system with a passcode that I
freely give out. When the demo is over, the passcode is deactivated.
Only those for whom the demo is intended ever get past the "please
enter your access code". It is very stupid to set up something as
interesting as an ANI demo and then whine that many people call it,
especially on an 800 number.

Now, that having been said, let me tell you what I did to stop calls
to my answering machine on my 800 number. I was using a Panasonic
two-line model with the same OGM on both the regular number and the
800 line. I used the 800 side to call in for message retrival.
Occasionally, I got some giggly girls or some such leaving junk
messages which used up tape and ran up my 800 bill (the machine
identifies which line left each message). This was my solution:

The machine allowed for recording a separate OGM for each line. On the
800 side I put the following announcement:

"Thank you for calling the M & H Dairy Equipment Company. We are
unable to take your call right now, but if you leave your name and
telephone number at the tone, we will have a SALESMAN call you back
immediately."

That was the end of the junk calls.


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


[Moderator's Note: That may have ended the junk calls, but you still
had to pay for a bunch of one-minute hangup-without-speaking calls
when they called in, didn't you?    PAT]

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

Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Monday, 21 Oct 1991 19:08:21 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Video Network/Compression


I am teaching an undergraduate class on Cable Communications.  One
student has become excited about designing future cable and broadband
delivery systems.

He read an article by Negroponte in the September issue of {Scientific
American} where compressed video is mentioned.  One hour of video is
sent in five seconds.  He is now busy trying to find technology to:

 1) store the video (either in the set or at the headend)
 2) retreive the video easily
 3) find out about the compression

We would appreciate any help or suggestions.


Walter Mathews [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 91 21:48:10 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Are 900 Calls Delivered?


In a message dated 16 Oct 91 16:53:35 GMT, [e-mail] (Robert Virzi)
writes (in discussing {USA Today's} 800/900 555-5555 numbers):

> For either scenario, the reason for the "billed at 95 cents per
> minute" message may simply be that they have only got one system, and
> no matter how you call that system, the opening message warns you
> about the charge.  Don't forget, the message is not provided by the
> network, it is delivered by CPE ({USA Today's}, in this case).  If there
> were a regular old telephone number to call, I bet it would also warn
> you about the 95 cent charge.

This brings up an interesting question ... how ARE 900 number calls
delivered to the information provider?  We know that many 800 number
calls actually terminate on standard POTS lines going into a business,
particularly where small companies (that can't afford a dedicated
circuit) are involved.  Now it would seem that if 900 service
providers used this same type of access (that is, the carrier
translates the call to terminate on a standard phone line) then
presumably anyone who had the regular number of that service could
access it for just the price of a standard toll call.

I can see it now ... a black market list of regular phone numbers
cross referenced to the advertised 900 numbers!  I realize this
probably wouldn't be the case for the big companies, that probably
either have dedicated T1 links to the LD carrier or perhaps even
co-locate their equipment at the carrier's POP, but do any of the
smaller 900 service providers ever have their service terminated on
standard phone lines?


Jack Decker           : [e-mail]              : FidoNet 1:154/8


[Moderator's Note: Indeed they do. For example, 900-410-TIME (the
Naval Observatory Talking Clock) rings down on 202-653-1800.  Did you
ever notice the various 900 services, especially the sex-oriented chat
lines, which say in their ad 'try our free line, ACC-xxx-yyyy'?  Many
of those just dump into regular old POTS lines.  Apparently the reason
for the free line is to insure there will always be someone for the
paid callers to chat with, since I have yet to find a free 'demo' line
that wasn't BY whenever I tried it, even at 5 AM with the IBT operator
verifying the BY ("conversation is on the line").

Quite a few of the Chicago-based services of this nature have their
demo line in the 312-606 exchange, and a cross check with CNA
(312-796-9600) shows them time and again located at 20 N. Wacker Drive
in the Civic Opera Building on (I think) the 9th floor. A random scan
of 312-606 brought some lonely ladies, telephone fortune tellers,
Tarot practioners and others to the phone. Apparently the lines go
there and get forwarded (or FX'ed) out to the individual POTS lines
of the people involved. Telesphere also has their POP (point of
presence) in the Opera Building. When I asked Telesphere about a 900
number a couple years ago they said it would terminate on Wacker Drive
and IBT would bring it to me on an FX line from there.   PAT]

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

From: Kevin Kadow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Auto Switch: Voice or Data With Only One Line
Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 91 01:52:01 GMT


I'm considering starting a BBS, with the main drawback being that I'd
like to be able to receive VOICE calls on the same line, to save the
additional expense of adding yet another line for < ten voice calls
per day.

Does Illinois Bell offer "distinctive ringing"? At what charge?

Does anybody know of (or have plans for) a switch that will respond to
the "distinctive ringing" service? (where the phone company arranges
so that a slightly different phone number causes your phone to ring:

743-xxx0 would go:  Ring.......Ring....  Like normal.
743-xxx1 would go   Ring.Ring..Ring.Ring...  (pairs)

Instead of a switch, an option would be for the computer program to:

First, turn AUTO ANSWER off with ATS0=0

When the modem sends RING start counting.  If the next ring is more
than 1/2 second from the first, set ATS0=1 so it answers on ring
three, then execute +++ (go to command mode) ATS0=0 so the next call
is processed correctly.

If the next ring was right after the first, do nothing and let a human
or an answering machine handle the call.


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


[Moderator's Note: Yes they do; I have it. $4.95 for the first number,
and $3.95 for the second number.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 11:18:28 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Nancy J Airey)
Subject: 5ESS Three-Way With Call Waiting
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


The following is from the AT&T document for the 5ESS Switch which
defines features and feature interaction.  The document number is
235-190-101; the date is May 1991.  This section is discussing feature
interactions with Multiway calling (which includes John's Three Way
calling feature).  Page is 13-185.  The Software Release is at least
the 5E6 level -- possibly 5E7.  The section is completely marked with
"dif" marks -- so there have been significant changes from the
previous document.

I'm rekeying this info.  There will probably be typos -- all of which
are mine!  Quote starts:

13.4.15.5.7 Call Waiting

Any party of a three-way call which has the Call Waiting feature
active may answer a call waiting request to their terminal.  The
parties in the following states may receive call waiting treatment:

    o The controlling party, if the added party has answered and no
leg is on hold.

    o The controlling party has the Call Hold feature (that is,
/MWCH1) and a Call Transfer/Conference feature (for example, /MWCTIA1
or /MW3WC) assigned.

    o The controlling party has Call Waiting Terminating (CWT)
feature assigned.

    o The calling party uses a DCW/CWO feature.

    o The noncontrolling parties of the three-way call can receive
call waiting tones while either in the talking or held states.

The controller of a three-way call that receives the call waiting tone
must flash the switchhook to receive dial tone and must dial the call
hold code to answer the call waiting call and/or transfer the call
waiting call.  The flash puts the conference connection on hold.  The
held parties on the converence connection can continue to converse.
Subsequent flashes by the controller of a three-way call returns dial
tone.

The controller must dial the call hold code to alternate between the
conference conncetion and the call waiting party.  The noncontrolling
parties that receive the call wiating tone can flash the switchhook to
answer the waiting call.  This places the conference connection on
hold and allows conversation between the call waited party and the
calling party.  The held parties on the conference connection can
continue to converse.  Subsequent flashes by the noncontrolling
parties of the three-way call can alternate between the three-way call
and the call waiting party.

    Note: For ISDN station sets, the same functions may be
performed by presing call appearances instead of flashing the
switchhook.

End of quote.


att!hrcca!jean


[Moderator's Note: So in other words, it seems it will only work if
you have "Starline", aka "SmartCall" service ... and when I had
"Starline" service here, IBT told me it would not be compatible with
the new CLASS features being offered.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Carol Farlow Lerche)
Subject: Credit Card Verification -- Need Protocol
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 22 Oct 91 02:57:57 GMT


A client of an associate of mine wishes to imbed credit card
verification in a larger system.  Is there a standard or other
document that describes the protocol between point-of-sale credit card
verifiers and the credit card companies?


Please respond by email -- I will summarize.

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

From: telesoft![e-mail] (Barry Robbins @lone)
Subject: Information Wanted on Digital Cellular and Qualcomm
Reply-To: telesoft![e-mail] (Barry Robbins @lone)
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 01:05:48 GMT


I'm interested in reading up on the emerging standards proposals for
digital cellular telephony.  How will it (if at all) tie in to ISDN or
other existing digital networks?  What are the encoding/transmission
methods that Qualcomm proposes?  Along what lines are the industry/
government/manufacturer alliances shaping up?

Any pointers to magazine/newspaper articles, reports, etc. which
address these issues would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks a lot,

Barry Robbins    ( [e-mail] )
Phone [phone] x822

Disclaimer: Nothing in this posting has anything whatsoever to do with
        Telesoft.  I am interested in this on a purely individual
        basis.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #842
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23822;
          22 Oct 91 22:20 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08030
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 22 Oct 1991 19:32:37 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07888
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 22 Oct 1991 19:32:23 -0500
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 19:32:23 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #841

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Oct 91 19:32:06 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 841

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Issues 841 and 842 Reversed [TELECOM Moderator]
    X11 And Other Prefixes [John Goggan]
    Error on Novatel Phone [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Corrupted File in Archives; Can Anyone Replace it? [S.E. Williams]
    Reach Out on Business Lines [David Dodell]
    Source Wanted For AT&T Specs, RJ, etc [Paul Ebersman]
    Call Screening Device Needed [Steven G. Warner]
    Re: New Colored Box? [John Higdon]
    Re: ANI in C&P-Land [Phil Wherry]
    Re: ANI in C&P-land [John Boteler]
    Re: Phone Auto Switch: Voice or Data With Only One Line [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus [Mickey Ferguson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 18:39:58 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Administrivia: Issues 841 and 842 Reversed


The subject line says it all. 842 got out last night with 841 overlooked
somehow. Here it is now.


Patrick Townson

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

From: [e-mail] (John Goggan)
Subject: X11 and Other Prefixes
Date: 21 Oct 91 05:54:48 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Goggan)
Organization: Free Software Foundation


There has been quite a bit of discussion lately about various prefixes
(such as 511,611,811, and others) doing some "not-too-well-known-things,"
so I thought I'd share what I've noticed about my local area that
seems a bit interesting ...

First some general information: I live in a small town (Cadillac) in
Michigan.  It has only two prefixes for the city (775 & 779) and has
under 10,000 people.

- None of these were publicly known -- I just found them while looking
  around.

- We do not have "911" or "411" services (supposedly within three
  years.)

- The operators I spoke to all told me none of these prefixes existed.

Since this is the most interesting to me, I'll start with it ...

511-XXXX was the same as 775-XXXX except that numbers that were
disconnected when called with the normal (775) prefix were fast busy
(reorder?) when dialed with 511.

380-xxxx were all pager numbers (by "Ameritech") which allowed the
leaving of a message or enter a number (via Touch Tones) to be
displayed on the pager.

680-xxxx has some pagers like 380 and some normal voice mail boxes
owned by a company called the "RAM Message connection".  680-0000 was
a VMB that said "This is a type 2 test number - testing 12345".

480-xxxx were non-message display pagers (they simple answered and
said to enter the number to display on the pager.)

1-580-xxx answered with messages such as "The Cellular One customer
you have called is out of range or does not have their telephone
activated" and "The Cellular One number you have called is not in
service" ...

That's about it -- just wanted to share some fairly "interesting"
information while we were all tlaking about prefixes and the like.


John Goggan [[e-mail]]

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

Date: 22-OCT-1991 01:39:07.38
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Error on Novatel phone


I just left my $19 Novatel bag phone on for a few hours.

When I got back, the screen was blank. When I entered the program
mode, I noticed that my ESN was totally messed up, something like
80000000.

After I got it back to the startup screen, it said "Radio Error 3". It
can't seem to get a signal, and all you hear is static , even if you
don't press SeND.

Anyone have an idea of what is wrong? Does this need to be sent back
to Novatel? Is there any way to force a "reset" (if that is the
problem)?

Thanks for any advice,


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

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

From: [e-mail] (S.E. Williams )
Subject: Corrupted File in Archives; Can Anyone Replace it?
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 13:54:30 EDT


Pat,

The docket.87-215 file seems to have been corrupted towards the end.
I have ftp'd it twice from lcs.mit.edu and have not received any
better results the second time around.

I hope that the file can be replaced, as it is of interest to me
(being a telecom student and all!)


Sean


[Moderator's Note: Would someone please send Sean a copy of this file
and send a new copy to me also, please? I can't find another copy
around here anywhere. I'll replace it in the archives if someone can
send it along.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 22:26:14 mst
From: [e-mail] (David Dodell)
Subject: Reach Out on Business Lines


> [Moderator's Note: Because telco looks at cellular lines as business
> service, and the various Reach Out Plans are residential offerings,
> while ProWatts is a business offering. You can't subscribe to Reach
> Out on your office (landline) phones either.   PAT]

Actually Pat you are incorrect.  We have Reach Out America on our
business line for the hospital computer bulletin board system ...
we've had it for years ...


David

        uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
      Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15
    Internet: [e-mail]       FAX: [phone]
               Amateur Packet ax25: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: That is surprising. The AT&T service rep told me it
was not available for business phones. Now who am I to believe, a
service rep at AT&T or someone who writes to TELECOM Digest?  :) Gee,
where did we hear that before? Was it in yesterday's issue??   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Ebersman)
Subject: Source Wanted For AT&T Specs, RJ, etc.
Organization: UUNET Communications Services
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 15:23:49 GMT


Does anyone have a source for various telco specs, AT&T and otherwise?
I am looking for things like specs for various RJ connectors, T1
signal specs, etc.

Please respond via email and I will post a summary.

Thanks.


Paul A. Ebersman @ UUNET Communications
uunet!ebersman or [e-mail]

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

From: boy![e-mail] (Steven G. Warner)
Subject: Call Screening Device Needed
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 91 9:49:49 PDT


About six or seven years ago, AT&T sold a device called a Tel*Star
1000.

You would plug it into a modular jack, and then all the phones in the
house into it.  When in CALL SCREENING mode, the phones would not ring
at all, rather the TelStar would answer and prompt the caller for
their phone number.

If the number entered matched any of 50 or so numbers in a list you
provided, the phones in your house would ring, as the caller was asked
to wait.  If you picked up a phone, the TelStar would start talking to
you, and tell you the number the person entered, and "... to answer
press A".

If you press A, you would be connected to the caller, if not, the
caller was assured that their number was recorded and diconnected.

The unit served in a similar fashion as an answering machine, with its
only ability to take phone numbers and time stamp them.

It sold for about $150 and didn't remain on the market long.  I have
one of them and think it is great.  From time to time they show up at
flea markets etc.  It's about the size of a white shoe box.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 23:31 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: New Colored Box?


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes:

> I think the two second delay before start of billing predated
> computers and modems by many years and the actual number of seconds
> varied from state to state and telco to telco.  My guess is that the
> original purpose of the delay was to prevent the situation where you'd
> place a call, let it ring a few times, and then just as you went to
> replace the receiver, the called party would pick up (but you wouldn't
> hear it because the receiver was already away from your ear).

I hate to be the one to explode another bit of folklore (since heaven
knows I sure took a lot of flak the last time when we had it out over
the purpose of the '1' for long distance), but the infamous two-second
delay was a purely techincal manifestation and was NOT, repeat NOT a
matter of policy. It actually took the mechanical offices of the day
about one to two seconds to recognize supervision from the called end.
That is all there is to it.

In another life in a galaxy far, far away, this time-to-supervision-
recognition was a matter of serious concern. When one operated a box
of color, the idea was to "blow off" the dialed (usually 800 number)
call. A short burst of 2600 Hz did the trick. What followed was a
supervision "wink" from the distant tandem. As long as we had SXS and
crossbar, everything was cool. That wink would be ignored by the
originating office.

But the dawn of ESS was a real threat. Why? Because the ESS equipment
was capable of recognizing far end supervision in a small fraction of
a second -- fast enough to interpret that wink as an answer followed
by a hang up. This was a real pain since you would then lose the line
about fifteen seconds later unless you had managed to get a supervised
call up within that time. Yes, indeed, modern electronic switches do
NOT take two seconds to recognize supervision and consequently you
WILL be billed for a call even if you hang up immediately after
someone answers.

I know not why modems wait for two seconds after answering before
sending carrier (I did not write the FCC specs), but I can tell you
for a certainty that the delay in detecting supervision that USED to
be commonplace was a result of technical, NOT policy, considerations
AND that it no longer exists, except in the remaining mechanical
offices.

> If billing began immediately, you'd get charged for a one minute call,
> and of course many people would call the telephone company business
> office to complain about being billed for a call that was never
> answered.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but this is now generally the
case. If you do not believe me, I suggest you give it a try.

> Since you can't convey much intelligent information in two seconds
> anyway, I think the phone companies decided it was far cheaper to NOT
> bill for the first couple of seconds (and actually, I think that the
> standard was FIVE seconds, at least for many years) even though a very
> small amout of fraud could conceivably take place.

This is all so logical and sensible, but has absolutely no basis in
fact. There has never been any intentional "supervision delay"
standard. As far as telcos are concerned, when the telephone is
answered billing begins as soon as the equipment can detect it. In
this day of SS7 and electronic end offices, that delay is essentially
zero.

> I'd hate to think how many person-hours the telcos and long distance
> carriers would have to spend just issuing credits if the delay were
> discontinued.

Since there is no delay now, generally speaking, I think we know the
answer to that question.

Disclaimer: Sometimes when I am reading Bellcore publications, my eyes
tend to glaze over. Maybe I missed this "supervision delay" somehow. If
so, I invite someone to point me to it. But then, please explain why
calls are billed on an immediate basis now. And believe me, they are.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Wherry)
Subject: Re: ANI in C&P-Land
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Phil Wherry)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 20:24:22 GMT


811 does not work in all of C&P-land. My home phone number,
703-280-xxxx, is within the DC metro area and does not return ANI on
811. I have been told by two separate installers that C&P does not
have ANI readback equipment on their lines; they prefer instead to
have the tech call the operator, give a password, and ask for a line
ID. This password changes every couple of months, says the tech.


Phil

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

Subject: Re: ANI in C&P-land
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 14:23:33 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Charlie Mingo doesn't mention where in C&P land he is located, but I
can assure you that test codes vary from office to office around the
Washington D.C. area.

To get voice ANI from the Georgia Avenue switch, dial 511.  Neither
that nor 811 do anything useful in Silver Spring.  It's the next CO
north, but it's also over the District line so it's C&P of Maryland,
not DC.

Virginia? I'll test some of them later today.


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

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Auto Switch: Voice or Data With Only One Line
Date: 22 Oct 91 10:33:18 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Kevin Kadow) writes:

> Does anybody know of (or have plans for) a switch that will respond to
> the "distinctive ringing" service?

Lynx Automation, Inc. (2100 196th St SW #144, Lynnwood WA 98036) sells
the "RingDirector/2" (two numbers) for $89, and the "RingDirector/4"
(four numbers( for $149.  Several of my industry contacts use these
boxes and are completely satisfied.  There are a number of other
companies that have distinctive ringing boxes.

> Instead of a switch, an option would be for the computer program to:
> First, turn AUTO ANSWER off with ATS0=0
> When the modem sends RING start counting.  If the next ring is more
> than 1/2 second from the first, set ATS0=1 so it answers on ring
> three, then execute +++ (go to command mode) ATS0=0 so the next call
> is processed correctly.
> If the next ring was right after the first, do nothing and let a human
> or an answering machine handle the call.

This wouldn't actually work, as you describe it.  Most modems require
a certain minimum amount of time between rings for the subsequent ring
to be recognized as being a separate ring.  Most distinctive ringing
patterns have a very short silent interval between the parts of a
single pattern, insufficient to trigger the modem to recognize the end
of the ring.  The result is that, for most modems, the entire ring
pattern will result in only one RING message being delivered to the
PC.

However, most modems pass the actual ring voltage status directly
through to the PC on the "Ring Indicator" circuit (EIA-232 pin 22).
If you could set up your software to watch the cadence of signals on
this pin, you would answer on the first or second ring, before the
answering machine.  You'd probably have to wait for the second cycle,
in case the first was incomplete.

Also, note that it is not necessary to change to S0=1 to answer;
simply issue the "ATA" command to answer instantly without waiting for
the next ring.  Then it is also not necessary to switch back to S0=0.
Most BBSes set S0=0 and use ATA for answering, so that the modem
doesn't answer if the BBS is down, being maintained, or recycling
between calls.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet       [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 91 09:34:48 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Mickey Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus
Organization: Rolm Systems


In  Harold Hallikainen writes:

> Although not a serious abuse, I've heard of students who have
> a high registration priority (typically close to graduation or being
> near the top of the random registration priority system) helping
> friends by registering for classes they didn't need.  When the
> friend's priority comes up, they both call into the system.  The
> student that actually wants to take the class finds it is full.  The
> student who didn't want the class, but has it, now drops the class.
> The student who wants the class now finds a space and adds it.

One fairly obvious solution to the above problem is to add queueing to
the process.  If one wants to register for a class but it is full, add
that name to the list.  When one of the currently registered students
drops the class, an outcall (where the voice mail system places a
call) is made to the next student on the wait list.  Allow the person
some time (say, an hour? a day? whatever) to call back.  After that,
go to the next person in line, placing the person who didn't respond
back at the head of the queue (or maybe even later down the queue as a
sort of penalty?).  It shouldn't be too complicated to implement, I
would think.


Mickey Ferguson      Rolm Systems      [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #841
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02118;
          23 Oct 91 0:59 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24079
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 22 Oct 1991 22:55:14 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03170
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 22 Oct 1991 22:54:57 -0500
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 22:54:57 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #843

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Oct 91 22:53:58 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 843

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Oakland Fire [Ethan Miller]
    Re: The Oakland Fire [Arthur Rubin]
    Re: Attractive Nuisances [John Higdon]
    Re: 5ESS Three-Way With Call Waiting [Nancy J. Airey]
    Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions [Bob Clements]
    Re: Modems and Business [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Directory/*Dialer* Cards? [David E. Martin]
    Re: Unix ClassMate 10 Caller ID Monitor Daemon Source [John Temples]
    Cellular Phone Synopsis Wanted [Mack Goodman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (ethan miller)
Subject: Re: The Oakland Fire
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 21:02:22 GMT


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

> It was interesting to note that the San Francisco media has still not
> grasped the fact that the East Bay is now in a new area code. While TV
> seemed to be able to prepend 510 to the various message and emergency
> numbers, radio kept giving the numbers sans area code.

At one point during the coverage, the TV announcer said that incoming
calls to the 415 area code were being restricted.  This would have
done little good, as the fire was entirely within 510, on the other
side of the Bay from 415.

> Other than outside plant destruction in the area of the fire, Pac*Bell
> apparently suffered no damage or disruptions.

My phone is in Berkeley (548).  I had trouble calling into exchanges
in the fire zone.  In particular, calls to 654 (North Oakland) got a
fast busy.  I had no trouble connecting to Berkeley prefixes
(642,643,841,843).  The outside plant in the fire area was almost a
total loss.  Wires melted and telephone poles burned down.

> [Moderator's Note:[...]  Apparently the Berkeley campus is almost at
> ground zero; the television news on Sunday said much of the campus was
> being evacuated as a precaution. I know the computer links were down
> because I could not reach agate.berkeley.edu all day and I assume the
> site was closed with the machines powered down.

The campus was a few miles from the center of the fire.  Some dorms
and fraternities on the southeast side of campus were evacuated, but
the fire never got too close.  Most computers were shut down for two
reasons.  First, we were having intermittent momentary power failures.
Second, PG&E asked everyone to conserve electricity because power
lines over the hill were downed, reducing the ability to bring power
into Oakland and Berkeley.  As of Sunday night, only one modem bank
(of the 5 I tried) responded, and I was only able to reach one system.
The rest were still down.

> [...]but at long last it was finally under control. Fact or fiction?
> The report said further this was apparently the worst fire in
> California history since the big earthquake around the turn of the
> century, and one of the worst in US history.

That's correct.  The fire is pretty much out at this point.  5,000
people are still homeless.  It is the most destructive brush fire in
CA history, and has done over $1 billion in damage.


ethan miller--cs grad student  [e-mail]
#include <std/disclaimer.h>

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 91 08:06:28 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The Oakland Fire


In comp.dcom.telecom, the Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: As of Monday evening, the television news said the
> fire was still going, but at long last it was finally under control.

The report here (Southern California) on the evening news said the
fire was _contained_, not _controlled_.


[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] (personal)
[e-mail] (work)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 91 02:01 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisances


On Oct 22 at  1:40, TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: That may have ended the junk calls, but you still
> had to pay for a bunch of one-minute hangup-without-speaking calls
> when they called in, didn't you?    PAT]

Wrong numbers are inevitable. If you have a number that CAN be called
by anyone on the PTSN, sooner or later it WILL be called. One expects
these. As a matter of fact, my 800 number is billed in six-second
increments and there is no minimum, so legitimate wrong-number hangups
are insignificant, cost-wise.

What is truly debilitating is to have someone who is somehow
entertained by your answering machine, voice mail, or other device to
the point that the person calls back over and over again. There is
nothing like checking for messages and having the machine report that
you have thirty-six messages and then having to listen to the same
bunch of giggly girls (not trying to be sexist here, but somehow it
ALWAYS seems to be giggly girls) leaving "clever" messages expressing
their unique brand of humor. Now I know some people that might be
entertained themselves by this, but I am not one of them.

So the goal then becomes "make the system as BORING as possible". A
couple of hangups (even a couple A DAY) are never a problem. But
someone targeting your machine for harassment can be a living hell.


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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 91 08:58:40 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Nancy J Airey)
Subject: Re: 5ESS Three-Way With Call Waiting
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


After posting the quote from the AT&T features interaction book, our
Moderator commented that this would seem to imply that you would need
what IBT referred to as "Smartcall" (if my memory serve me correctly).
That could be true as IBT packages the features, it is not true as the
features can be assigned to the lines on the Switch.  What it seems
the Switch requires is that a method be used to allow the controller
of the call to use something other than flashhook to request a return
to the conferenced call.  As I understand it, this is because the
signal "flashhook" while talking has been defined for that customer as
meaning "I want to put up a conference call."

You are only allowed to use flashhook to signal one feature, whence
the provision for a different entry point.  However, as the book
defined it, the features assignable are part of the Modular Features
group.  This means that they are part of the customer (business or
residence) group that can be "bundled" by the switch owner into a
group or cluster called by some catchy marketable name "Smartcall" and
assigned with a single designation to all lines requesting the
service.  I could take the features required for "call waiting signal
on a conference call", bundle them, assign them a cluster definition
(/johnh), and market it as the new "Don't Miss It" feature.

There is nothing in those particular features that is affected by
CLASS.  There could very well be with whatever else IBT has put with
the their "Smartcall" cluster.  If our Moderator has a complete list
of what that cluster includes, I could check the individual features
out for interaction.  (Only going by the book -- which anyone could
get if they really wanted it.)  Bottom line for many -- if not all of
these things -- is that the 5ESS Switch can do *almost* anything you
(as a customer) would want.  But it is up to the switch owner to
decide just what and how and *if* that will be done.  AS a note to the
original discussion, I would *guess* that there is not much demand for
this particular combination of features or it would have been provided
as a "separate" feature long before this.


att!hrcca!jean

[Moderator's Note: 'Starline' includes intercom service between CO
lines in your 'Starline group', just like centrex. It allows transfer
of incoming or outgoing calls to other extensions or outside your
premises entirely if desired, i.e. three-way calling but the party
placing the call can then abandon it leaving the other parties
connected. It also includes 'call pickup' which allows you to answer
any ringing line in your group from any other phone by dialing *9. To
put a call on hold you have to flash and dial *8, unlike regular call
waiting where you simply flash back and forth between calls.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 91 13:24:35 EDT
From: [e-mail]


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

> I have a Panasonic KXT-1232 KSU [...]  The problem I'm encountering
> is that the switch does not seem to pass the CPC signal through to
> devices "on the inside".

I can tell you about the smaller brother of this PBX, the KX-T-61610.
This may or may not be relevant, as the construction is very different.
The 1232 has plug-in cards while the 616 has just two big cards and is
not expandable.

But if the line circuitry is the same, then you can't do it.  I've
studied the schematic in the service manual, hoping to accomplish the
same thing, and it can't be done.  The line circuit is always supplied
from either the DC battery or a DC-biased ringing supply.  There's no
way to momentarily open the circuit to supply a CPC pulse, no matter
what the microprocessor does.


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Modems and Business
Date: 22 Oct 91 17:47:10 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


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

> There is, of course, a more sinister motive for regrading BBSes to
> business than a small amount of extra revenue. With the recent
> decisions to allow telcos to provide information services themselves,
> they have been eyeing the popularity of BBSes. What corporate mind has
> not wondered how much money might be made if one could charge for all
> of that activity?

First off, I am willing to introduce myself as the person who did the
most debunking of the alleged "modem tax" of 1988, all over the net.
So when I read the original posting about USWest, I was skeptical,
especially due to the "modem tax" title, EXCEPT for a 5-4-3 fire alarm
that went off in my head!

Yesterday, one of my co-workers, a visiting Frenchman accustomed to
Minitels, came back from Telecom '91 with the "good news" that US West
has just made a deal with France Telecom to introduce Minitel service
right here in Gringonia.  I explained to my friend that this is "bad
news", since the RBOCs don't really understand that business, but
would probably try to defend it by discriminatory tariffs against
potential competitors -- anybody else with a computer!

It's only Tuesday and I'm reading four-day-old editions of the Digest.
This is scary!  Even though the specifics of this case may be a false
alarm (are they charging anything for the BBS?), I think vigilance is
called for here.  US West may try to follow in SWBell's footsteps, or
go even farther, in order to stomp out competition to their new French
Tease Network.


Fred R. Goldstein              Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA
[e-mail]   voice: [phone]
Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?


[Moderator's Note: I have just now received a VERY IMPORTANT message
from William Degnan, following comments made by William Bailey of
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company to a BBS sysop. Apparently SWBT
does mean business this time around: Bailey's comments and the new
tariff provisions will be the lead article in the next issue of the
Digest. If I had room left, I would have put it in this issue.  From
reading the message, things look pretty grim in Missouri.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David E. Martin)
Subject: Re: Directory/*Dialer* Cards?
Date: 22 Oct 91 19:17:16 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Batavia, IL


Radio Shack and Service Merchandise both carry phone dialers, some
with displays and all with memory.  They seem a bit overpriced,
though.  I bought dialer, with a built-in alarm clock and calculator,
from a cut-rate electronics store in downtown San Francisco.  The guy
I bought it from had no idea what it was.


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

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

From: jwt![e-mail] (John Temples)
Subject: Re: Unix ClassMate 10 Caller ID Monitor Daemon Source
Organization: The Museum of Barnyard Oddities
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 02:00:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.
fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes:

> No offense intended, but this is EXACTLY the sort of program that
> should not be given out freely to anyone, since it perpetuates the
> myth that calling number = individual caller.

As the author of the software, I don't take offense, though I don't
agree with your conclusions.  And I especially dislike the phrase
"should not be given out freely to anyone" as this smacks of
censorship.  I don't agree with the idea that only those in the
"telecom intelligentsia" know best what to do with Caller*ID
information.

> Callers do not always use the same phones to call a given place ...
> they could call from home, office, friend's home, public phone, car
> phone, phone at recreational facility

I can't imagine anyone having Caller*ID not realizing that.  My
software allows the user to attach a description to a phone number --
whether that be the name of a company, person, family, address of a
payphone, whatever.  Any association of phone number to individual is
at the discretion of the person receiving the call.  For example, my
personal phone number database includes the phone numbers of all of
the lines at my office.  When a call comes in, I see the company name.
I have no way of knowing if it's my boss wanting me to come in on
Saturday, or a co-worker wanting to go to a movie.  But I *do* know
it's the office, and act accordingly.  :)

> In any case, I truly wish folks who know better would not perpetuate
> the myth that the phone number from which a call originates is
> necessarily linked to any specific person.

I haven't seen anyone perpetuating that myth.  I think most folks
would have the common sense to know, on a number-by-number basis, how
likely it is that they know who's on the other end of a call.  There's
no way you can prevent some people from misusing Caller*ID any more
than you can prevent them from misusing other data.  Withholding that
data from them is not the answer.

> what would happen if you dialed a call using a carrier access
> code 10XXX+number ... would it block delivery of the caller ID number?

I just tried that here, and it registered as an "outside call".
Interesting.


John W. Temples -- [e-mail] (uunet!jwt!john)

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 15:57:19 EDT
From: Mack Goodman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Synopsis Wanted


Can I get a synopsis of the info to date on cellular phones pricing of
varios vendors - calling plans, etc.

I suppose it's in the archive but can you tell me where?


Thanks,

Mack


[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly at the present time there is no index
or keyword-search function for the Telecom Archives. But rumor has it
that before long, we will be able to use a WAIS (Wide Area Information
Server) specifically for the archives. It is being worked on now by a
very dedicated reader who agreed to help make the Archives a little
more manageable. I'll let him announce it once it is ready, which
hopefully will be soon, when the system administrator at lcs.mit.edu
and our reader get everything coordinated and running.  Wish us luck
with this fabulous new service!    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #843
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07143;
          23 Oct 91 2:57 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16177
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 23 Oct 1991 00:29:42 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15857
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 23 Oct 1991 00:29:16 -0500
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 00:29:16 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #844

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 Oct 91 00:29:09 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 844

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [William Degnan]
    Wanted: Princess Telephone [Dale Miller]
    Is There Any Plan For a REAL Emergency? [Ken Sprouse]
    Re: New Source for EIA/TIA Standards [Toby Nixon]
    Re: The Oakland Fire [Eric Brunner]
    Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus [Dave Newman]
    Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus [Dale Miller]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (William Degnan)
Date: 21 Oct 91  23:53:35
Subject: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real!


I received the following this evening from a concerned sysop in
Missouri. It seems that Southwestern Bell, unaware or forgetful of
their adventures with Texas sysops have decided that modems are fair
game.

I would appreciate your comments directly and I'd be glad to summarize
and post as well as pass along to the resistance.

                               --------

  From:   Bill Hirt of 1:280/[e-mail]
  To:     William Degnan of 1:382/39
  Subj:   It's here
  Attr:   privileged recvd

  netmail
  GKCSAMsg # 704 of 704          Date: Mon 10-21-91,  3:32 pm

  To All
  Subject SW Bell means business...literally

For everyone's information:

I called Mr. William Bailey, District Manager - Ratemaking for
Southwestern Bell, today regarding setting up a meeting between
sysops and users in the Kansas City area and Southwestern Bell
Telephone.

Mr. Bailey and an associate will be coming to Kansas City from St.
Louis next month to speak about Southwestern Bell's view of the BBS
community. He told me they hope they can get some input from the
sysops here in Kansas City. He said Southwestern Bell's plans (which
follow) will not probably be popular, but they will meet with us. I
have some tentative dates and am waiting on confirmation on a meeting
hall. I'm trying for Curry Auditorium at Baptist Medical Center. If
anyone has any other ideas for halls which hold at least 100 people,
and cost little or nothing, I'd appreciate netmail. Once the forum is
set, I will post the date, time, and location.

Mr. Bailey also told me the following:

1. Southwestern Bell Telephone has filed a tariff amendment before the
Missouri Public Service Commission that will allow data communications
to occur over normal business grade phone lines without incurring
extra charge as is now the case. He said Southwestern Bell felt is
wasn't fair to implement both the business rate and the data grade
rate to the BBS community.

The tariff filed October 7, 1991, will, if approved by the Public
Service Commission, become effective November 15, 1991. I have
obtained a copy.

The tariff filing states:

"Southwestern Bell Telephone Company proposes to revise the Missouri
Local Exchage Tariff, P.S.C. Mo.-No. 24 and P.S.C. Mo.-No. 35, General
Exchnage Tariff, Section 17, Rules and Regulations Applying to all
Customers' Contracts.

This revision would change Information Terminal Service to an optional
service offering. We believe changing this service to an optional
offering will result in greater equity to the customer.

The tariff defines Information Terminal Service as the communications
link between cusotmer-provided data transmitting and receiving
equipment that processes data and/or performs calculations and the
Telephone Company's central office.

While the tariff requires the application of Information Terminal
Service when data transmitting and receiving equipment is processing
data and/or performing calculations, in many cases succesful data
transmission is possible using a voice grade communications offering
such as a single-line business.

The business office depends on the customer's description of how
service will be used when quoting the approriate rates for service. If
the customer informs us the service will be used for data
transmission, he/she would be required to pay the applicable
Information Terminal Service rate. However, if the customer does not
disclose their intentions to transmit data, they may order a
lower-priced service which provides completely satisfactory data
transmission.

This revision would allow customers not needing Information Terminal
Service to subscribe to a flat rate business offering. Message or
measured rate service may not be used with the equipment described
above.

Currently, a local measured service business line is precluded from
use with data transmitting and receiving equipment that processes data
and/or performs calculations. The reason for this restriction is local
measured service was designed as a lower-priced service option for
customers with low outgoing usage. It was not designed to accomidate
cusotmers with high volume incoming calls as is the case when service
is used with data transmitting and receiving equipment. This same
restriction has been added to message rate one-party business service
since the same "intent of the service" logic would apply.

In addition, we propose to provide langauge in the General Exchange
Tariff which allows the mixing of flat and message or measured rate
service in those cases where a business customer subscribes to a flat
rate business offering for use with data transmitting and receiving
equipment and message or measured rate service is the customer's
primary service."

End of quote.

Essentially the way I read it is you have a modem hooked up the line
(like a BBS) and take incoming data calls, you must pay flat rate
business rates on each line. This is even if you make little or no
outgoing calls. If anyone else reads it differently, please correct
me.

2. Mr. Bailey told me once this tariff becomes effective, Southwestern
Bell current plans are to convert all BBS's on the Missouri side to
business rates.

That's all I know at the moment.

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

Forwarded to TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom by:

William Degnan,  Communications Network Solutions
-Independent Consultants in Telecommunications-
P.O. Drawer 9530       | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530  | ![e-mail]  | Voice [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Thank you very much for getting this in to us on
such a timely basis. I'll open the floor to reply messages at this
time, but please, there is no need for the frequently harsh responses
which accompany announcements of this kind. We all agree that modems,
per se, should be treated no differently than voice communication, ie,
residence lines for residence users, and business lines for business
users. If a BBS 'conducts business', ie charges a fee for usage,
advertises itself as a community service, carries commercial messages,
etc. then *maybe* the business classification would apply, as (I had
thought) the compromise worked out earlier specified. Anticipating a
large number of replies, I will *carefully prune* a few for here. I am
not up to putting out a dozen extra issues next weekend! :)   PAT]

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

From: Dale Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Princess Telephone
Date: 22 Oct 91 23:25:48 -0500
Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock


I'm trying to find (and purchase) a pink Princess(tm?) telephone.  Of
course, I would prefer new, would accept used and working, and would
even look hard at used and non-working (if the case is in reasionable
condition).

Any pointers (or offers to sell me one) would be appreciated.


Dale    [e-mail], [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: They'll almost assuredly have to be used and/or
reconditioned, since that model hasn't been made for years to the best
of my knowledge. I even saw a real rarity the other day: A *two line*
Princess phone with a turn button and lighted dial.   PAT]

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

Subject: Is There Any Plan For a REAL Emergency?
Date: 22 Oct 91 20:04:46 EDT (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (Ken Sprouse)


In article 4893 the Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: The telecom manager for the Senate reported to the
> AP that 505,000 calls were received on Friday alone. That is to say,
 .... much deleted ....
> White House also reported their system was considerably overtaxed for
> several days, with the operators at 202-456-1414 unable to answer in
> any realistic timeframe. The Western Union machines in the Senate

Is there any plan in place to cope with telephone communications in a
real national emergency?  Can the phone company selectivly "load shed"
if they want to?  Suppose TMI had not been brought under control and
popped its cork for example.  I've been involved with local emergency
planing thur ham radio but have never heard any mention of the local
phone company.  Just wondering ...


Ken Sprouse / N3IGW      [e-mail]   GEnie mail ksprouse

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Source for EIA/TIA Standards
Date: 22 Oct 91 12:02:37 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


The Electronic Industries Association (EIA) and Telecommunications
Industry Association (TIA) have contracted out the distribution of
their published standards to Global Engineering Documents.  All orders
for EIA or TIA standards should now be directed to Global Engineering
Documents instead of the EIA/TIA Sales Department (although EIA/TIA
still handles proposed standards and other work in progress).

Global Engineering Documents can be reached at:

For inquiries from within the USA:

        Global Engineering Documents
        1990 M Street NW, Suite 400
        Washington DC 20036
        800-854-7179 Voice
        202-331-0960 Fax

For inquiries from outside the USA:

        Global Engineering Documents
        2805 McGaw Avenue
        Irvine CA 92714
        [phone]


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet       [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: The Oakland Fire
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 03:28:01 GMT


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

[stuff, deleted]

> As of this time the stats are as follows:

> People killed:    14
> People injured    148
> Structures destroyed:    000+
> Acres involved:    1500+
> Estimated loss:    $1.5 billion

> Pacific Bell set up a free message center for people to be able to
> communicate with those who were displaced from their homes. (800
> 427-7715 ext.345).

[John is correct]

> [Moderator's Note: The pictures on television today were pretty hard
> to believe. They're saying some 4000-5000 people are homeless as a
> result of the blaze. Is that correct? Apparently the Berkeley campus
> is almost at ground zero; the television news on Sunday said much of
> the campus was being evacuated as a precaution. I know the computer
> links were down because I could not reach agate.berkeley.edu all day
> and I assume the site was closed with the machines powered down.

Major wrongo Pat, the campus is safe, including the Strawberry Canyon
area (chock full of '60s era nuke stuff). Ground zero is my old
cycling haunts behind and above the Clarimont, and the upper Rockridge
area of Oakland, running down almost to the Piedmont boundary, the
first mile or so south of the highway 24 tunnel east of highway 13
(the Warren), plus spot fires further south along 13 around Shepard
Canyon. The evacuation numbers were _low_ for Sunday/Monday, try 10K
plus, the burnt-out numbers are high, try 3K minus.

> As of Monday evening, the television news said the fire was still
> going, but at long last it was finally under control. Fact or fiction?

It was "contained", not "controlled" at that time, since then we've
had overcast which is helpful on the fine-fuels index side, and
south-westerly winds, which is also helpful.

The difference between "contained" and "controlled" is vast and beyond
the usual telcoms scope.

> The report said further this was apparently the worst fire in
> California history since the big earthquake around the turn of the
> century, and one of the worst in US history, following the great fire
> in Chicago and a couple other ones.  PAT]

That's for the stats mavens. As a former wildlands firefighter, it was
_bad_, Sunday afternoon was hell, we're awfully fortunate that the
pseudo-Santa-Ana condidtions did not persist after 11pm Sunday, or
return after the ordiarily prevelent evening maritime airflow
condidtions should have ended Monday mid morning.


Eric Brunner    Tule Network Services, 4bsd/rt project
I speak for me, authoritatively of course. My clients' views are generally
made known via print channels (usually).


[Moderator's Note: The news on Tuesday was the financial losses are
now approaching two billion dollars, meaning it will exceed the
damages in Chicago.  Of course, it is hard to compare the dollar in
1871 with the dollar in 1991. Following the Chicago fire, several insurance
companies filed bankruptcy within days. Many countries around the
world have begun rescue efforts for the people of Oakland, coordinating
their efforts through the local Red Cross. Please readers, do what you
can to help also.  :(   PAT]

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

From: ut-emx![e-mail] (Dave Newman)
Subject: Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus
Date: 23 Oct 91 03:52:04 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas


I've been resisting responding to this thread because I don't have all
the information, but I'm now giving in to temptation.

Here at the University of Texas they have telephone registration.  In
general, it works better than standing in line for hours in the Erwin
Center, provided you know just what you want and there isn't any
problem with over-full classes.  (Being a grad student has only a
*few* advantages.  This is one of them.)

The main trouble with the system was lack of capacity.  Lots of people
missed their original registration date and time and tried to get in
on a 'special' time at the end of registration.  This time was
intended to get all those who goofed somehow, and it did.  The problem
was that the number of goofers was far greater than anticipated, and
many people could not register at all.  Because this was the last day
of registration, they would have had to pay a late registration fee
except that the adminstration took pity on them and extended the
deadline a day.

For further information, I'm sure you could contact the administration
here at UT.  The student's association might have further information
regarding the problems with the system.


Dave

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

From: Dale Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus
Date: 22 Oct 91 23:38:26 -0500
Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock


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

> The use of DTMF/voice to handle class registration seems a bit
> inefficient to me.  A school is going to have to buy lots of new
> equipment and pay for lots of DTMF/voice phone lines.  It seems to me
> that it'd be better handled through the existing computer systems.
> Cal Poly [...]

> Even without fancy software, the use of existing equipment
> seems to be much better than adding more hardware (DTMF/voice).

Ah yes, but you are assuming that the students are computer literate. :-;

At our campus, (11,000 students) there are 24 dial-in lines about 3/4
of which are in use during the day.  There are also 100 public-access
terminals on the campus.  While I think with minor additions this
would probably be sufficient (and once argued the point), the campus
administrators have decided to go the DTMF/voice route. (Maybe lack of
understanding of the computer system?)  The equipment is a Perception
Technology unit handling 16 lines (for those same ~11,000 students!)
It's just now being installed, if anyone is interested, I'll post
observations when it is operational.


Dale Miller   University of Arkansas at Little Rock
[e-mail],      [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #844
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21726;
          24 Oct 91 1:43 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17480
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 24 Oct 1991 00:00:19 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01935
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 24 Oct 1991 00:00:04 -0500
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 00:00:04 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #845

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 Oct 91 00:00:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 845

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [John Higdon]
    Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [Michael Riddle, Esq.]
    Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [J. Brad Hicks]
    Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [Nick Reid]
    Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Re: Modems and Business [Bud Couch]
    Re: Modems and Business [Jim Redelfs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 02:43 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real!


Bill Hirt of 1:280/[e-mail] writes:

> This revision would allow customers not needing Information Terminal
> Service to subscribe to a flat rate business offering. Message or
> measured rate service may not be used with the equipment described
> above.

This is the heart of the matter. SWB wants to charge for a line on the
basis of TOTAL traffic, not just calls out. The assumption is that the
lines would have heavy INCOMING traffic that SWB would not be
"compensated" for. Since, as was pointed out, such lines on a BBS
rarely make outgoing calls, the usual practice is to have the
cheapest, measured service installed. This filing would end that
ability.

It does rely on something that is completely foreign to the CPUC
tariffs and that is the concept of "intent of the service". In all my
years of dealing with the various telephone companies in California, I
have yet to have anyone ask what the service was to be used for. As
Pat has pointed out, residence service goes in residences and business
service goes in businesses. Beyond that, measured lines charge by the
call; unmeasured lines do not. Regardless of the type of line, the
customer may connect any FCC registered device. In California, the
telco does not ask you what the line will be used for. If you do get
asked that question, "none of your business" is a suitable and
acceptable response. (I have been asked in a friendly manner and have
answered truthfully, but I knew it would not affect the order in any
way.)

My question: does Missouri currently have an "intent of the service"
imbedded in the regulatory structure? With the creative and diverse
uses people in this area put phone lines to, I cannot imagine such a
concept ever getting past the starting gate in this part of the
country.

> 2. Mr. Bailey told me once this tariff becomes effective, Southwestern
> Bell current plans are to convert all BBS's on the Missouri side to
> business rates.

Excuse me, but that tone sounds very much as though SWB is just
waiting for a rubber stamp to be applied to its very offensive
proposal. Is there going to be no public input? Is there going to be
no review by the commission?

BTW, you may be interested to know that in CA, a measured business
line (the only kind available in metro areas) carries about the same
basic charge as a residence flat-rate (both around $8.50 per month). A
measured residence line is about $4.50 per month. A "threat" to
regrade BBSes to business would not be the end of the world here. But
then it would not be worth all the bad press for Pac*Bell, either.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 12:04:22 GMT


What the bulk of this message seems to report is that SWB will insist
on flat rate, as opposed to measured service, for *business* customers
in their service area.  SWB is reported to have said that "local
measured service was designed as a lower-priced service option for
customers with low outgoing usage. It was not designed to accomodate
cusotmers with high volume incoming calls as is the case when service
is used with data transmitting and receiving equipment."

While I thought that the increasing number of message units was the
vehicle by which the economic decision between measured and flat rates
was made, and therefore feel that SWB's logic is somewhat(?) flawed,
there is a larger question looming: Why assume that BBSes are a
business?  This was, after all, the question in Texas and nothing in
this post describes the logic SWB will use in classifying a line as
business or residential.

The post does tell us that:

> Mr. Bailey and an associate will be coming to Kansas City from St.
> Louis next month to speak about Southwestern Bell's view of the BBS
> community. He told me they hope they can get some input from the
> sysops here in Kansas City. He said Southwestern Bell's plans (which
> follow) will not probably be popular, but they will meet with us.

Once again, while the prospects of being charged flat business rates,
even for a "data grade" line, are not appealing, we really haven't
seen the logice ("ratio decidendi") by which SWB will attempt to
classify lines.

Except, of course, we know what they did in Texas and what the
settlement was.

We do see this part:

> While the tariff requires the application of Information Terminal
> Service when data transmitting and receiving equipment is processing
> data and/or performing calculations, in many cases succesful data
> transmission is possible using a voice grade communications offering
> such as a single-line business.

Does this mean that *all* data must be on Information Terminal
Services, or does it only mean that *business* data must be on such
services?

One reason I question how this will really work is the following:

> This revision would allow customers not needing Information Terminal
> Service to subscribe to a flat rate business offering. Message or
> measured rate service may not be used with the equipment described
> above.

This would imply that all customers, not using data, are business
rates, and we know (I think) that not to be true.

> Mr. Bailey told me once this tariff becomes effective, Southwestern
> Bell current plans are to convert all BBS's on the Missouri side to
> business rates.

Yes -- but nothing in what was posted really tells us why.  It tells
us why they think business data customers should be flat rate, not why
all data-using customers should be treated as business, or more
importantly, why this tariff will require such.

The "bottom line:" can someone get us a copy of the proposed tariff as
it was filed?


          <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]        |  Nebraska Inns of Court
[e-mail]        |  [phone] (Data/Fax)
Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet          |  V.32/V.42bis   /   G3 Fax

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 16:38 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real!


Quotes in this section are attributed to William Bailey, District
Manager for Ratemaking, SWBT:

> The tariff defines Information Terminal Service as the communications
> link between cusotmer-provided data transmitting and receiving equipment
> that processes data and/or performs calculations and the Telephone
> Company's central office.

More important comments will follow, but I already see a loophole that
you could drive a truck through.  The vast majority of hobbyist BBSs
neither process data nor perform calculations.  They STORE data for
transfer and retrieval, but no processing is performed.  (And I don't
want to hear some nitpicky lawyer-type tell me that the checksums in
the XMODEM and related protocols count as performing calculations for
tarriff purposes.)

> While the tariff requires the application of Information Terminal
> Service when data transmitting and receiving equipment is processing
> data and/or performing calculations, ...

Is this a description of the present or proposed tariff?  If, as it
appears in this quote, it is in the present tariff then there must
already be a "modem tax."

> The business office depends on the customer's description of how service
> will be used when quoting the approriate rates for service. If the
> customer informs us the service will be used for data transmission,
> he/she would be required to pay the applicable Information Terminal
> Service rate. However, if the customer does not disclose their
> intentions to transmit data, they may order a lower-priced service which
> provides completely satisfactory data transmission.

Now, notice this.  If you don't tell them that you want ITS, then you
can still use the unspecified "lower-priced service" for data
transmission.  If I read this right, then the "modem tax" which (per
above) is now mandatory is about to become optional!  And sysops are
complaining?

If ITS is optional, then what incentive is there for ordering it?  The
only guess I could make is that in the future, SWBT will refuse any
trouble calls referring to modem transmission from non-ITS lines.  I
don't like this, but from a public utilities viewpoint it makes sense
 -- to rule otherwise would be to require SWBT to upgrade every single
piece of old or otherwise degraded copper or network with data-grade
facilities, and why should your grandmother, or some poverty-level
family, have to have their rates raised to pay for it? Put the cost on
the people who need it.  If you're already on a clean line, then you
don't need ITS.  If you get a dirty line and want to put a modem on
it, then you'll have to pay for the upgrade.

Put that way, then maybe it makes sense to spread the cost across all
modem users, doesn't it?  TANSTAAFL!  If you want a universal,
modem-quality network then you'll have to pay for it.  Why should
people who neither want nor will use such a network have to pay?
"Public good"?

In the interest of brevity, I summarize the next few paragraphs as
reading that SWBT wants to make it illegal to use a modem on a
measured service line, both home and business.  Fine with me; their
reasoning makes perfect sense to me.  (But then, when I was a FidoNet
sysop, fast, efficient echomail routing was resulted in enough local
calls to make flat-rate service just about as cheap.)

Finally, they want to ammend the tariff so you can mix ITS, flat-rate,
and measured service at a single site.  Who could oppose this?

Quotes in the remainder of this message are attributed to Kansas City
sysop Bill Hirt of 1:280/[e-mail]:

> Essentially the way I read it is you have a modem hooked up the line
> (like a BBS) and take incoming data calls, you must pay flat rate
> business rates on each line.

As I read Mr. Bailey's quoted words, you must pay flat rate, whether
that's flat residential rate or flat business rate.  There's nothing
in there to say that BBSs must pay business rate.  SWBT has other,
current, existing (and imperfect) guidelines that regulate whether or
not a BBS can pay residential rate, but that's not relevant to this
posting.

> 2. Mr. Bailey told me once this tariff becomes effective, Southwestern
> Bell current plans are to convert all BBS's on the Missouri side to
> business rates.

Did he say business rates, or flat rates?  The quoted text above says
nothing about converting BBSs to business rates.  If your claim is
accurate, then this, not the tariff proposal you quoted, is the scandal.

Earlier in the message, Bill Hirt said:

> Mr. Bailey and an associate will be coming to Kansas City from St. Louis
> next month to speak about Southwestern Bell's view of the BBS community.
> .... He said Southwestern Bell's plans (which follow) will not probably
> be popular, but they will meet with us.

Will you relay the appropriate phone number so that St. Louis sysops
can attempt to set up a similar meeting?

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Reid)
Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real!
Organization: Oregon State University, CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 22:38:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> William.Degnan@p0.f39.
n382.z1.FidoNet.Org (William Degnan) writes:

> I received the following this evening from a concerned sysop in
> Missouri. It seems that Southwestern Bell, unaware or forgetful of
<etc, deleted>

and the Moderator noted:

> users. If a BBS 'conducts business', ie charges a fee for usage,
> advertises itself as a community service, carries commercial messages,
> etc. then *maybe* the business classification would apply, as (I had
> thought) the compromise worked out earlier specified. Anticipating a

The IRS has a definition of "hobby" that allows small, permanently
non-profit-making cash flows - could not the telcos be persuaded of
the validity of that in their determination of "private" v "business"?

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 00:36 GMT
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real!


> Essentially the way I read it is you have a modem hooked up the line
> (like a BBS) and take incoming data calls, you must pay flat rate
> business rates on each line. This is even if you make little or no
> outgoing calls.

Leaving the usual arguments about running a BBS and my personal anger
aside, I have the following comments:

1) I don't think this move is going to generate any more revenue for
SW Bell -- it could even be a money loser.  My speculations (with the
disclaimer that I don't work for the phone company):

a) While it's possible to have a BBS and your personal phone on the
same line, it's more likely that the BBS has its own, dedicated line.
If the sysop is displeased with the rates he is suddenly charged for
running a BBS, he may drop the line altogether.  Gone are the monthly
rates the sysop would pay the telco.

b) If the sysop runs a Fidonet or Usenet-type BBS service, he may
incur intra-LATA long distance changes for receiving a portion or all
of his news feed.  The revenue from those calls would also drop if a
significant number of BBSes decide to pull the plug.

c) If a BBS ceases to operate, it follows that calls to the BBS will
cease.  Some or many of these calls (depending on the popularity of
the BBS) may be intra-LATA long distance. They're gone too.

2) It is unnerving that the telco (Southwestern Bell, in this case)
has decided that they must take an adversarial stance against amateur
bulletin board systems.  Furthermore, I'm surprised that anyone hasn't
targeted any of their marketing towards BBS users or sysops.  Things
like increasing the local calling area, or intra-LATA long distance
calling plans for $x.xx a month might appeal to BBS users.  So do some
of the latest custom-calling services such as "Repeat Dialing" (so you
can reach a busy BBS), "Call Waiting" or "Memory Call"* (so you won't
miss any calls while you're on the modem), or "Caller ID" (of use, it
seems, to the sysops).

Their present approach, I think, is at best unproductive.

* "Memory Call" is a voice mail service.  All services in quotes are
as they've been named by Bell South.


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

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: Modems and Business
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 18:09:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> This is scary!  Even though the specifics of this case may be a false
> alarm (are they charging anything for the BBS?), I think vigilance is

>From reading local posts on the subject, I beleive that the
"business" conducted on the BBS's were acting as support for a peice
of software.  No charge was levied to the user for this service, but
the sysop got a small commission on sales of the software resulting
from these leads.

I know that at least one of the two, which I have called, is a free
BBS, although he does solicit voluntary contributions to help cover
his costs.


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

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 23:47:18 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jim Redelfs)
Subject: Re: Modems and Business
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


> With the recent decisions to allow telcos to provide information
> services themselves, they have been eyeing the popularity of BBSes.

> Simply setting up pay-for-play BBSes will not make it because of the
> fact the currently available free BBS offerings fill any and all such
> needs very well. It is very hard to compete with "free". Enter the
> telco, who now has the power to force the free BBSes out of business.
> SWBT and US West can do something even the mightiest of corporations
> could not previously do: get rid of that nasty "free" competition.

We had our annual, group-think thing on Conflict of Interest the other
day, John.  I wonder if I'm "in for it".

I am an employee of U S WEST Communications.

I operate a FREE BBS.

THEY operate U S WEST Communications Community Link Service (tm).

Hmmmmm ....

Fortunately, the BBS is *NOT* on either of my two CONCESSIONED lines!


JR   --- Tabby 2.2
MacNet Omaha [phone]  -  O.M.U.G. On-Line    (1:285/14)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #845
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22762;
          24 Oct 91 2:08 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25350
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 24 Oct 1991 00:31:03 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14165
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 24 Oct 1991 00:30:39 -0500
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 00:30:39 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #846

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 Oct 91 00:30:36 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 846

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pal Charged For Five-Hour LD Call [Jack Decker]
    Re: Call Screening Device Needed [Chris Johnston]
    Re: ANI in C&P-Land [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: New Colored Box [Tim Gorman]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Steve Baumgarten]
    Re: Is There Any Plan For a REAL Emergency? [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus [Christopher Lott]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 91 20:32:01 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pal Charged For Five-Hour LD Call


In a message dated 16 Oct 91 07:23:00 GMT, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> There is one other trick used in the radio biz. It is called the
> threat of "free advertising". I cannot even begin to count the times
> that some utility or another has seemed immovable on some matter and
> simply the mention that "the listeners" would be most interested in
> the case usually brought complete satisfaction. This has been
> particularly effective with Pacific Bell, who seems most sensitive to
> public opinion (except for mine, of course).

I know of one radio station owner who discovered that his cable TV
service had been disconnected because he was ONE DAY late with his
payment (I guess this is what happens when you deregulate a utility!).
Not only that, but when he phoned them, they told him that if he would
bring a payment to their office immediately, they would turn the
service back on with no reconnect charge, so he dispatched an employee
to hand-deliver a check to the cable company office, some 25 miles
away ... THEN the company called him back and told him that they would
not have a service person "in his area" for a week, so it would take
them that long to turn his cable back on!

After some heated exchange of conversation, he said to the business
office person something to the effect of "Look, I own a radio station.
Suppose I ran an editorial suggesting that those folks who are
dissatisfied with their cable service show their displeasure by
waiting until the very last possible day to pay their cable bill.
What do you think that would do to your cash flow?"

She said, "You wouldn't!"  And he replied, "Try me!"  So she put the
call on hold, went away for a couple of minutes, and came back and
informed him that his service would be reconnected that afternoon!

The station owner later confessed that he probably would not have
actually run such an editorial, but since the threat alone was enough
to get action, it wasn't necessary for him to make that decision.


Jack Decker  : [e-mail]  : FidoNet 1:154/8

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 18:30:45 CDT
From: Chris Johnston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Screening Device Needed
Organization: Department of Computer Science


Telmate 702 telephone call screener $69.99 plus $6.50 shipping and handling
One year Manufacturers Warranty
Damark 1-800-729-9000

Promate PR702 telephone call screener $59.99 plus $5.00 shipping and handling
90-day limited warranty
C.O.M.B. 1-800-328-0609

>From the pictures these appear to be the same unit.

Pre-recorded synthesized voice requests four digit code.
On/Off switch.
LED indicators for power and screen.
Test button.

I've purchased items from both of these companies in the past.  They
both liquidate overstock, discontinued items, remainders, factory
reburbished items, items from bankruptcies, etc.  Quality varies.
Both numbers are staffed 24 hours, seven days.


cj

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 23 Oct 91 14:24:40
Subject: Re: ANI in C&P-Land


csense![e-mail] (John Boteler) writes:

> Charlie Mingo doesn't mention where in C&P land he is located, but I
> can assure you that test codes vary from office to office around the
> Washington D.C. area.

    Sorry.  I was calling from downtown DC (Washington Circle; 785
exchange, don't know the CO name).  The original report claimed 811
worked in Arlington, VA.

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

Date: 23 Oct 91 20:26:53 EDT
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Colored Box


In TELECOM v11, #841, John Higdon writes:

> It actually took the mechanical offices of the day about one to two
> seconds to recognize supervision from the called end.

Lest someone get the wrong idea about this statement, let me throw in
my two cents. In a way the statement is true, but based on my memory,
it was not cross-office delay that caused this but rather the
resolution of the timing equipment in the AMA equipment. I can
remember in the early 1970's changing out some AMA equipment in 5XB
machines to go from five second resolution to two second resolution.
Again as I remember (and the memory isn't what it used to be :>),
off-hook had to be available for an entire resolution interval before
the initial timing entry was recorded.  Thus the two second delay in
billing.

> Yes, indeed, modern electronic switches do NOT take two seconds to
> recognize supervision and consequently you WILL be billed for a call even
> if you hang up immediately after someone answers.

I agree that modern switches don't take two seconds to recognize
answer supervision. Since this is based on scanning rate and "hit"
timing, most will recognize the off-hook somewhere between 50-100ms
after state change.  This does not mean billing begins immediately,
however. This is a software dependent variable (i.e. the software
determines the actual time entered on the billing tape). I no longer
have access to the LSSGR (moved to a different building) but I'm
pretty sure I remember reading about the ability to NOT bill
immediately being a requirement for the vendors.

I do know that the billing delay is a directly set software parameter
in the Northern Telcom DMS100F series of switches. The default setting
for this is two seconds. This is also how we leave it set.

This is extremely hard to test. Most electronic switches will delay
anywhere from 450-800ms before recognizing an on-hook line as a
disconnect (with custom calling-i.e. flash capability this timing is
extended to 1000ms as I remember) in order to not cause disconnects on
line irregularities. Coordinating hanging up the calling phone with
off-hook from the far end would not be easy for the casual user. If
you could dial something that returned tone coincident with its
offhook so you could hang up immediately it might be possible. I don't
know anything you could dial for this.


Tim Gorman - SWBT     [e-mail]
*Anything contained herein is my opinion, not to be taken seriously :>*

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

Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card
From: Steve Baumgarten <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 14:23:13 EDT


Jack Decker ([e-mail]) writes:

And here's the important point ... does AT&T have any proof at all
that another long distance company's operator has ever said "You're
not using AT&T!" to a customer in that tone of voice?  I doubt it, yet
this is how they characterize their competition.  It's really dirty
advertising, and a company as big as AT&T should be above that sort of
thing.

I remember back when I was an MCI customer (about five years ago), I
found myself at a rest stop on the interstate attempting to call home
and let my mother know when I'd be arriving.  For some reason, though,
I couldn't get my MCI card to work -- I kept getting strange error
codes and unhelpful responses from their 950 computer, and I finally
gave up and called customer service.

Though they have perhaps improved their response time in the
intervening years, I waited about 20 minutes on hold (I actually had a
friend call them from another payphone after about five mintues just to
improve our chances of getting through -- and he got through first!)
and explained the problem to the service rep.  The rep told me that my
card had been disabled because MCI had detected possible fraud.  I
asked for details, since the card had worked fine just the other
night.

It turns out that the MCI computer had noticed a large number of call
attempts to a single number and decided that that constituted possible
fraud.  I told the rep that yes, I had made a lot of call attempts
(using the handy "#" key for redialing) the other night, because the
number I was dialing was busy for a long time and I had nothing better
to do.  I didn't see why 30 call attempts to the same (busy) number
should constitute fraud, and I suggested that their computer needed a
better fraud-detection algorithm.

He informed me that they were providing this "service" -- that is,
disabling my MCI card -- for my own protection.  After all, I wouldn't
want to have to pay for fraudulent calls, would I?  I said that it
hardly mattered to me if someone used my card fraudulently, since I
have no intention of paying for any but my own calls.  I also noted
that if MCI was so concerned with possible fraud, why had they issued
me a card number that consisted of my phone number plus only four
security digits (i.e., a four-digit PIN).

That got me bumped up the line to the rep's supervisor, and I went
through the story again.  I also asked that since I was now standing
in a McDonalds in the middle of nowhere, and since I had explained
that I had, in fact, made the calls the other night (only one of which
had actually completed), and that since I now wanted to use my MCI
card to call my mother in New York, could they please re-enable the
card and let me get back on the road.

The supervisor said that they would be happy to re-enable the card,
but that it would happen at 2 AM that night (in some sort of batch
operation, I guess).  I told the supervisor that this wasn't
satisfactory -- they had disabled the card without telling me or
providing me with any means of using my MCI, and all because their
computer made what seemed to me to be a mistake.

But try as I might, I couldn't get the service rep to re-enable the
card right away.  He at one point suggested that this, too, was for my
own good, but I'd had enough of that about ten minutes before, and
suggested that I was better prepared to look out for my own good than
MCI was.  At another point he decided that he might not believe that I
was who I said I was, and that he would have to call my home number
for verification.  Fine, I said, but who do you think will answer the
phone, since I'm standing in a McDonalds in the middle of nowhere
talking to you?  That stumped him long enough for him to pass me on to
yet another supervisor.

By the time service rep number three picked up the phone, I was really
very angry.  All thoughts of doing the sensible thing -- just
forgetting about this idiocy, calling my mother collect or getting $3
in quarters from the cashier, and canceling my MCI card the next day
 -- had long since left me, and I let the latest rep know in no
uncertain terms what I thought of the way they were treating one of
their customers.  Twenty minutes on hold, ten minutes worth of
fruitless conversations with three different service reps,
middle-of-the-night card cancellations with no notice given to the
customer until he tries to use the card -- and even then, no message
from the 950 computer number that says something helpful like "Your
card has been disabled for your own protection.  Please call customer
service for details."  It seemed a pretty sorry state of affairs.

I finally asked him how he thought I should get in contact with my
mother, since I didn't have a pile of change in front of me and I
didn't have a usable MCI account any more (remember, I'd forgotten all
about calling collect by this point).

The rep suggested that I use a calling card from "another" long-
distance company.

I told him that I didn't *have* a calling card from "another" long-
distance company, because I was under the (now obviously mistaken)
impression that as long as I paid my bills I'd be able to use my MCI
card.  However, I hastened to add that I would certainly be applying
for another calling card from another long-distance company the very
next day.

Hearing this, he suggested that he could put the call to my mother
through for me -- but that since he couldn't bill the call, he'd have
to stay on the line.  (This was for a call that might cost MCI $1,
mind you.  And never mind that I'd already wasted over ten minutes of
three different customer service reps' time by that point.)

I said that if he wanted to stay on the line and listen to me talk to
my mother he would be more than welcome, but that he'd have to explain
to her why MCI was listening to a private conversation between her and
her son.

He put the call through, and then said that he wouldn't, after all,
have to stay on the line.  I thanked him for making my afternoon so
interesting and said that I hoped his company wouldn't have to
inconvenience too many more of its customers before it learned the
meaning of good customer service.

I called AT&T the next day and asked for their calling card (they
answered the phone on the first ring, of course), and I cancelled my
MCI card as soon as the AT&T card arrived.  AT&T has not yet disabled
my card for my own protection, and they also haven't suggested that I
might want to get calling cards from other long-distance companies on
the off-chance that they do.

Sadly, there may be a little more truth to the "You're not dealing
with AT&T" commercials than you'd like to believe ...


Steve Baumgarten
Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York, NY

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 00:38:51 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is There Any Plan For a REAL Emergency?
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

 [ deleted ]

> Is there any plan in place to cope with telephone communications in a
> real national emergency?  Can the phone company selectivly "load shed"
> if they want to?  Suppose TMI had not been brought under control and
> popped its cork for example.  I've been involved with local emergency
> planning through ham radio but have never heard any mention of the local
> phone company.  Just wondering ...

  THE phone company ? Have you been sleeping the last ten years ?

  In any case, as witnessed by the recent AT&T fiasco in NY, the
question is not whether any of the carriers have plans but whether the
plans and plants are adequate to the disaster(s) and whether they have
the competence and practice to actually implement them.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 12:58:18 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Lott)
Subject: Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus
Organization: University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science


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

> The use of DTMF/voice to handle class registration seems a bit
> inefficient to me.  A school is going to have to buy lots of new

The Ohio State University instituted this during my time there.  It
worked GREAT.  The alternative was SOOOOO BAD, anyhow, but still it
was very nice.  Students were given a window (about 48 hours or so) to
call in and a PIN - the PIN was different each quarter and you had to
see your department to get it.  I think it was five digits or so, not
great security, but something.  I don't know how windows were
assigned, but the U. claimed that your priority depended on how early
in your window you called, not how early your window appeared in the
grand scheme of things.

Remember that OSU has > 57,000 students on the main campus, and they
basically ALL know how to use phones.  I would be far more hesitant to
make that claim about computers.  BRUTUS, as it is called, does not
tell the student whether a requested class is full, it just allows
users to enter requests.  So the problem of getting a class for a
low-schedule-priority buddy isn't an issue.

Sign me a graduated, ex-brutus user.


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 #846
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25924;
          24 Oct 91 3:19 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01349
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 24 Oct 1991 01:31:54 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30253
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 24 Oct 1991 01:31:37 -0500
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 01:31:37 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #847

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 Oct 91 01:31:35 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 847

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Speech Recognition [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: How Are 900 Calls Received? [Harold Hallikainen]
    Why Separate Business and Residence Rates? [Felix Finch]
    System 85 "Authorization Codes" [Andrew D'Uva]
    Switching System Model Numbers? [Jim Haynes]
    Dialing 811 Gets 911 (was ANI in C&P-Land) [Vance Shipley]
    Pac*Bell Doubles Its Rates [John Higdon]
    Voice/DTMF Registration at UC Berkeley [Maxime Taksar]
    Noise-Cancelling Handset [Andy Behrens]
    SHF or UHF SATCOM Transponder Rates [Jerry Bass]
    Wanted: Comm Software For 3B2 [James L. Strickland]
    Rude Operators [[e-mail]]
    56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail] (Jeff Carroll)
Subject: Re: AT&T Speech Recognition
Date: 23 Oct 91 22:40:18 GMT
Reply-To: ssc-vax![e-mail] (Jeff Carroll)
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> This is NOT a proprietary Sig. Processor, at least no more proprietary
> than those of TI or Intel.  It was covered in a special SP issue of
> IEEE Spectrum about two years ago.  I believe we also supply support
> programs, debuggers, etc. for the DSP-32(tm).  I will attempt to find
> a contact with more accurate information on the exact configurations
> available, as well as information on the "BT-100" or whatever speech
> recognizer you mentioned.  {Unless that would be too close to
> advertising??}

    The AT&T DSP line has been well covered not only in _Spectrum_
but with more satisfying technical detail in _Proceedings_of_the_IEEE_,
in much the same way as the TI chips, I believe.

    Also AT&T publishes (at least they used to) a periodic
newsletter hyping their latest DSP developments, in much the same way
as TI or Motorola. I'm sure the local AT&T sales office will be happy
to tell you about their products ...


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 23:52:03 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jim Redelfs)
Subject: Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


> We Rape Beautiful Young Virgins, But Only Girls Beyond Sixteen. (And
> to all the radicals out there ... NO, I am not promoting violence
> toward women ...) You can't be too careful these days ... Hope this
> helps you to remember, it worked for me.

> [Moderator's Note: He's right, of course ... as awful as the code is,
> given our present sensibilities, that is the way it was taught to new
> installers for many, many years. PAT]

Gee!  That's a NEW one on me!  A kindly, old installer (now retired)
trained me with "Why Run Backwards You Varmint"!!

I'm sure the former example would NEVER fly in today's environment.


JR --- Tabby 2.2
MacNet Omaha [phone]  -  O.M.U.G. On-Line    (1:285/14)

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: How Are 900 Calls Delivered?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 07:26:49 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Indeed they do. For example, 900-410-TIME (the
> Naval Observatory Talking Clock) rings down on 202-653-1800.

    Which reminds me, I think there is a modem line for the NIST
that gives you the time of day.  Anyone know the number and the format
of the data?


Thanks,

Harold

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

From: crowfix.crowfix![e-mail] (Felix Finch)
Subject: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates?
Organization: Scarecrow Repair, Dutch Flat.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 01:52:35 GMT


    This talk of yet another modem tax has me curious.  Why
separate business and residence rates?  If it's because residences
don't make many calls, why not just a low usage category?  Is there
some interesting history behind it?  And, last but not least, I
suppose since the self-appointed consumer watchdogs don't gripe, it
must be the businesses that subsidize the residences.  What is the
real cost of phone service, say in the areas of cost to just have a
phone, cost to initiate a call, and cost per time and distance?

    Well, I suppose that's enough questions for now ...


       Felix Finch, scarecrow repairer / uunet!crowfix!felix


[Moderator's Note: Well essentially telco does have a 'low usage'
category, which they at present call 'residence service'. The idea is
that residences use less phone service than businesses. That may not
be so true these days. I'm sure at least a few residences use more
service than some very small business places. But there is another
form of low-usage service in many communities. Here in Illinois it is
called "Life Line", and it is intended to provide a very minimal, very
basic connection to the network with no bells or whistles. It costs
about five dollars a month and is intended for people on welfare or
otherwise with a limited income.   PAT]

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

Date: 23 Oct 91 00:37:00 EST
From: "Andrew D'Uva (STA)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: System 85 "Authorization Codes"


Here on campus we have an AT&T System 85 PBX.  As an administrator for
one of the academic areas, my life is much complicated by the fact
that our campus telecom people refuse to implement "authorization
code" billing for toll calls (i.e., dial 9 + 1 + NPA + number + seven
digit auth code). This arrangement is allowed for placing calls via a
modem pool, but not for administrative phones or (and here is the
problem) fax machines.

I administer an area which has no fewer than ten distinct budgets.
Since auth codes may be programmed to charge against a particular cost
center, I would like to have auth codes for each center number and
then require them on fax usage.  Currently I need to have a student go
through trnsmission reports (and there are hundreds, no thousands) and
match them with phone bills and then prepare invoices for billing the
various budgets.  Auth codes would seem to be a simple solution ... and
the students (served by the same switch) use such codes for all calls.
Their service is run by AT&T ACUS.  The administrators of the System
85 have told me that the security codes are 1) a security risk and 2)
countered the administrative decision to use "station billing".

Now this seems to be a lame excuse.  The telecom technicians have
personal auth codes, etc.  But the security risk intrigues me.  Can't
an auth code be set to allow calls on a particular class of service,
etc?  If anyone out there has run into this problem, or has some sort
of solution, I would *truly* appreciate any help.  Thanks!


Andrew D'Uva, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Switching System Model Numbers
Date: 23 Oct 91 05:27:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


I've heard of the #1 crossbar, and I guess #4 crossbar was a toll
tandem switch, and then there's #5 crossbar.  What happened to 2 and
3?

It looks as if AT&T is relating ESS model numbers to the crossbar
models, since I haven't heard of 2 or 3 ESS either.


[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Dialing 811 Gets 911 (was: ANI in C&P-Land)
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 03:03:22 GMT


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

> About a year ago, I accidently dialed 711 from my test set
> autodialer here in Auburn, and was connected the E911 operator.  I
> was surprised when the operator answered, and told her it was a
> mistake.  She suggested I call again.  I did and the same thing
> happened.  I checked the DTMF output later, and the tones were of
> the right frequency with minimal twist, so the fowarding had to be in
> the switch (5ESS).

Several months ago I was sitting at home reading a DMS-100 feature
guide and read that 811 was usually reserved for calls to the business
office of the local operating company.  I of course tried it.

I dialed 811 and received a normal ring back tone.  This lasted for a
few seconds and then the ring back changed as if it had been
forwarded.  Now the ring back was much lower in volume.  After a
while, when no answer was received, I hung up.  About 30 seconds later
I picked up the phone again (to try 311 :)) and it was still ringing!
I hung up for several minutes and picked up again, it was clear, I got
a dial tone.  After a few minutes of ponderance I tried it again.
This time it did the same except that after a while it was answered
with a recording announcing that I had reached the regional emergency
services!  I hung up immediately.  After a few minutes I picked up the
phone and there was no dial tone.  My line was dead!

Later that night I called repair (611).  I told them my line was dead
and that I suspected it had something to do with 911.  Of course they
ignored this.  The next morning a repair man called.  I answered the
phone and he said he would be right over to "fix" my phone.  I
explained that my phone was quite obviously "fixed" as he had just
called me (all it needed was to disconnect the 911 equipment which has
"called party control").  He insisted that I had a short on my line
and wanted to come over.  I was home for the day any way so I let him
in.  He eventually found a cheap phone that he said was the cause of
the problem.  As it turned out he was a friend of my roommate's so I
left it at that.  Had this not of been the case I would of called 811
again while he was packing his tools.

I have meant to try it again ever since.  Preferably from a pay phone
or that of someone I didn't like very much :).  They may have
discovered something wrong in connection with this repair and fixed
it.  It may be that this is intenetional.


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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 91 21:47 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Pac*Bell Doubles Its Rates


Didn't anyone else notice what bombshell was buried in Pac*Bell's rate
restructuring?

>From the bill insert:

Local Measured Usage (Daytime Rate)
    Initial Minute increases from $0.04 to $0.05
    Each Additional Minute increases from $0.01 to $0.02

[end quote]

Anyone who pays a typical measured bill knows that local usage
accounts for a major portion of the non-long distance amount. Many of
my clients pay hundreds of dollars a month for local calls. As you can
see, Pac*Bell proposes to DOUBLE the additional minute rate. That
means that a ten-minute call goes from $0.13 to $0.23. This is a huge
increase.

In fact, this is the biggest increase in the whole package and will
provide a tremendous shift in revenue base. But Pac*Bell has business
by the calls, as it were, since it is literally impossible to bypass
Zone 1 local calls and hand them off to another carrier.

I would recommend that anyone who operates a business and who does not
want the local bill to go up more than 50% attend one of the hearings
listed in the insert and SOUND OFF! But hurry; the one scheduled for
San Jose (850 N. Second Street) is this Thursday at 7:00 PM. There is
another one in San Francisco at the State Building on Van Ness
November 4 at 2 PM and at 7 PM. You can bet I will at one of them for
sure.


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

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

Subject: Voice/DTMF Registration at UC Berkeley
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 91 23:31:35 -0700
From: [e-mail]


Apparently, there is going to be a voice/DTMF system here at Berkeley
for Spring '92.  At the moment, it is working to the extent that one
can call up and obtain one's class schedule.

I am surprised that there is no computer-based registration, seeing as
Berkeley is well known for its computer literacy, not to mention the
fact that registration is eventually put into a computer anyway.


Maxime Taksar  KC6ZPS
PO Box 14322 Berkeley, CA 94701  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Behrens)
Subject: Noise-Cancelling Handset
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Andy Behrens)
Organization: Burlington Coat Factory
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 12:47:38 GMT


I'm looking for a telephone with a noise-cancelling microphone in the
handset, for use in a very noisy environment.  The plain ordinary
telephone that I now use transmits so much background sound that the
person I'm calling has trouble hearing what I'm saying.

Amplification of incoming calls would be nice too, but isn't
necessary.

If you know of a vendor who sells these phones, could you send me the
name and address so I can order a catalog.  Thanks!


Andy Behrens   <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Jerry Bass)
Subject: SHF or UHF SATCOM Transponder Rates
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 18:43:30 GMT


Can anyone give me a ballpark cost for leasing a UHF or SHF SATCOM
transponder channel (around 56Kbps) by the minute, day or month?


Jerry Bass    The MITRE Corporation    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (James L Strickland)
Subject: Wanted: Comm Software For 3B2
Date: 21 Oct 91 17:14:23 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


I am looking for dial-up communications software for an AT&T 3B2.  It
needs to do xmodem and read scripts for session control.  Please let
me know where I can get source or binary.


Thanks,

James Strickland        | Systems Programmer
DSAC-FSD                | DLA Systems Automation Center
P. O. Box 1605          | [e-mail]
Columbus, OH 43216-5002 | [phone]  AV 850-9649

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

From: [e-mail] (The Squire, Phish)
Subject: Rude Operators
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 12:06:01 GMT


Okay, I may be picking nits here, but I just got off the line with a
very rude operator. It's 5am here, and I'm finishing a program. I
realized that it's 8am on the east coast, and I could probably call
tech support of the company that I need help from, if they're on the
east coast. So I called my trust Pac*Bell operator:

Operator: Yeah?   /* this surprised me off the bat! */

Me: Uh, good morning. Could you tell me where, and in what time zone
    area code 513 is?

Operator: Yeah, I guess so. Hang on. /* this said as if I were interrupting
      a nap */

      (pause)

      It's in Ohio. <click>

Now, I may be a little critical here, but it really rubbed me the
wrong way. I can deal with impersonal operators, but this was just
rude. Her tone of voice WAS as if she had been asleep. Very slow and
drawn out.  Is this normal? *Am* I being too critical? I was just a
little shocked.


[e-mail] | Fubar Systems BBS
                       | (805) 54-FUBAR
3/12/24, MNP5, 8N1     | FSBBS 2.0, FSUUCP 1.2

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

From: [e-mail]
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thursday, 24 Oct 1991 01:28:23 EDT
Subject: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada


Is there any 56 (or higher) Kbps dial up service available in Canada?
I send and recive files between New York City and Toronto using 19.2
Modem. Someone told me that there are 56 (or 64) Kbps dial up services
available. How much does it cost (a ball-park figure will be fine) and
what type of hardware do I need? Is there some kind of spcial modem
required? Where can I get more info on this?


Thanks

Jay

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #847
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05775;
          25 Oct 91 2:30 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00078
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 25 Oct 1991 00:43:06 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21536
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 25 Oct 1991 00:42:52 -0500
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 00:42:52 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #848

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 Oct 91 00:42:31 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 848

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Today's Phones Must Go!!! [[e-mail]]
    800 Backdoor: No Accident [Martin McCormick]
    High Speed Internetworking [Gudmundur Joekulsson]
    510 Cutover Annoyance [Linc Madison]
    GTE Mobilnet and the Oakland Fire [Bill Berbenich]
    US West Customers Can Start Service Themselves [mission![e-mail]]
    Master Clocks (was How Are 900 Calls Delivered?) [J. Brad Hicks]
    How Does the Law Handle Crank Calls? [Robert Chao]
    AT&T Opens Direct Dial Service USA <--> Armenia [Bill Berbenich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Today's Phones Must Go!!!
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 91 17:26:03 PDT


I think that now is the right time to force a change in the phone
system.  All the old equipment should be obsoleted because it's
dangerous.  Conversion kits could be made available at low cost for
owners of old Western Electric phones.

The reason existing equipment is dangerous is the 48 volts it uses for
powering the bell and sensing the switch hook.  I got a shock from
this a few times, once seriously.

Now admittedly I was doing something dumb, stripping the ends of the
phone wire with my teeth because I didn't have a wire stripper.  I've
only done this a few times, and you wouldn't think I would receive a
phone call while doing it, but the last time I did it, I did.  And I
got shocked.  It wasn't bad, but it could have been.  My tip to the
unwise is not to have both ends of the wire in your mouth while
stripping one end.

I've also noticed you can get a shock from contacting the wires with a
wet part of your body and flipping the switch hook on and off.

So I think it's time all this dangerous equipment should be rendered
obsolete.  This would both improve the public safety, and allow a new
generation of telephone technology to be introduced.


[Moderator's Note: I was shocked to find out the Chicago Police were
obtaining confessions from people they arrested -- not, mind you using
the gentle art of persuasion -- but by using an old magneto crank-style
phone, circa 1910 or so which had been laying around the police
station for many years after being removed from regular service. I say
'regular service' because the police had a different use for it: With
the prisoner handcuffed to a radiator, one wire from the old telephone
would be clipped on an ear lobe ... the other wire terminated in a
probe which was inserted somewhere or another. Then the cops would
take turns cranking the phone, pausing from time to time in order to
reassess the prisoner's attitude. *They* supposedly learned of this
technique from the Warden at the Tucker (Arkansas) State Farm, who it
is alleged used the 'Tucker Telephone' quite frequently during the
1930-50 period, until the Supreme Court made him stop. The Chicago PD
got nailed at it about three years ago.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 10:54:56 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 800 Backdoor: No Accident


Yesterday, I finally let curiosity get the better of me and called
that {USA Today} 800 backdoor from Oklahoma State University's PBX
which shows an ANI of 372-0174 regardless of the calling extension
number.  On a one or two minute call, it worked perfectly.  I, then,
decided to give it a really good workout, at least for five or ten
minutes to see what would happen.  The first problem was in trying to
find enough remotely interesting stuff to occupy the time.  I settled
on some movie reviews and the weather line.

After about five or so minutes, an interesting thing happened.  As I
was about to try to get the weather for Hawaii, the recorded female
voice which is used for the main menu said, "Please stand by."  After
about 10 to 15 seconds of dead air, the background noise increased
slightly and I thought another menu was coming on.  Instead, I heard
the familiar three-note sequence for a non-working number and a
recording that said, "Your call can not be completed as dialed."
There was an area code of 417 tacked on as an identifier and that was
that.  I really think that this is some form of screwball advertising
campaign.  Maybe, the ANI at the other end will be used to generate
telemarketting information or something, but I don't really think that
this is accidental.  It has been active for too long and the strange
"Stand by" message from the menu system indicated that it was upset
about something.

     While there is nothing sneaky or dishonest about this 900 number,
I can't see paying $.95/min for anything I heard.  I guess that I am
spoiled, in this information age, by CNN, shortwave radio, and various
news magazines.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Gudmundur Joekulsson)
Subject: High Speed Internetworking
Organization: University of Tromsoe, Norway
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 08:37:01 GMT


Can anyone provide me with information about ongoing research or
development activities in the area of internetworking of high speed
networks.

I am especially interested in interconnection of FDDI, FDDI-II or
FFOL-like networks with DQDB or QPSX.  Further, I am interested in
interconnection of these LANs/MANs via WANs based on Frame-Relaying,
SMDS or ATM.

All other possible configurations and standards/technologies for
high-speed internetworking are also of interest.

Hints about persons to contact and/or references to reports or
articles are extremely welcome.


Gudmundur S Joekulsson
[e-mail]   || Foundation of Applied Research at the University
FORUT IT                 || of Tromsoe, Information Technology dep.
Tromsoe                  || P.O.Box 2806 Elverhoy, N-9001 Tromsoe, Norway.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 03:17:34 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: 510 Cutover Annoyance


Well, perhaps Pacific*Bell should inform some of its own employees
that there is a new area code in place hereabouts.

About a week ago, I was at a Pac*Bell payphone in Berkeley, and needed
a number in San Francisco.  San Francisco is now in a different area
code (415), which means that, according to Pac*Bell's repeated drills,
I should dial 1-415-555-1212.  I did so, and was cut over to an
operator -- a regular operator, not a directory assistance operator --
who asked me in what area code I had dialed information.  I replied
"415"; he said, "Oh, you should have dialed 411; I'll connect you."  I
managed to say before he cut me off, "No, I should NOT have; I'm
calling from area code 510."  The idea of permissive dialing is to
allow you time to become accustomed to the new procedures, right?  As
of January 27, I will have to dial 11 digits instead of 3.

It's one thing when some mismanaged PBX blocks a new area code when
it's already been in service for a month and a half; it's another
thing for the LEC to do it.  Then again, I sometimes wonder if
Pac*Bell isn't just one giant PBX ...


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


[Moderator's Note: Are you positive about this? The reason I ask is
that even though we have both 708 and 312 exclusively for the Chicago
and suburban area, we dial 411 from either area for information about
both. Then the recording which plays back the number we requested
appends an area code on the front *only* if it detects you are calling
from the opposite area, ie. a caller in 312 gets a seven digit recital
for a Chicago number and "708-xxx-xxxx" for a suburban number, or
vice-versa.   PAT]

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

Subject: GTE Mobilnet and the Oakland Fire
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 16:23:38 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]


GTE Mobilnet put out the following PR blurb.

HAYWARD, CA (OCT. 22) - Since the emergency situation began, GTE
Mobilnet cellular service in the affected areas of Berkeley and the
Oakland Hills has remained operational and public safety organizations
and the general public are relying on the service for communication
needs.

   Since Sunday, over 50 cellular telephone systems have been
dispatched to the City of Berkeley, Oakland Police Department, Oakland
Fire Department, California Highway Patrol, California State Police,
American Red Cross and California State Office of Emergency Services.
The phones are housed in GTE Mobilnet's GoPac Emergency Response
Systems which are built specifically for emergency operations.  They
are being used heavily in the Command and Control Centers (C3), which
are coordinating efforts in the emergency situation. Infrared
satellite photos of the Bay Area taken by NASA will be faxed to the C3
locations using the cellular fax machines contained within each GoPac
System.

   In addition to the public safety sector, cellular phone usage is
rising among GTE Mobilnet cellular customers as normal communication
lines become affected.

 GTE Mobilnet normally operates seven cellular communications cell
sites in the immediate Berkeley/Oakland service area.  "Currently,
only the Caldecott tunnel site is non-operational due to a damaged
landline connection.  All other sites continue to function normally
and are having no problems carrying the increased level of traffic
during this emergency," added Ripley.  GTE Mobilnet continues to
monitor the system and is prepared to add channels or realign antennas
as required to assist emergency workers and cellular customers.

   In the early stages of this emergency on Sunday, cellular
communications played a critical role at the San Francisco 49'er game
in Candlestick Park. GTE Mobilnet delivered over 20 inbound emergency
calls related to the Oakland/Berkeley Hills fire to medical personnel,
city officials, volunteers and civilians.  The calls were received
into the cellular main command number as part of the company's on-
going Emergency Cellular Message Service (ECMS).

   GTE Mobilnet is a wholly owned subsidiary of GTE Corp.  GTE also
owns 90 percent of the outstanding shares of Contel Cellular Inc. and
throughout these entities, GTE is the second-largest cellular provider
in the United States, serving more than 50 million POPs (POPs refers
to the population of an area multiplied by the company's percentage
ownership in the cellular system serving the area).

   GTE is a world leader in its three core businesses -- telecommunications,
lighting and precision materials.  Its combined revenues and sales in 1990 were
$21.4 billion with net income of $1.7 billion.

   CONTACT:  June Delaney of GTE, 510-732-3501 or 415-385-3484 (mobile).

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

Bill Berbenich

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

From: mission![e-mail]
Subject: US West Customers Can Start Service Themselves
Date: Wed Oct 23 20:51:49 1991


In a recent list of notable uses of On-Line Transaction Processing
outside the traditional airline and banking world, I saw a reference
to US West, which is said to allow new customers to just plug in a
phone, press 8 (or 9), and set up their own service (they are asked if
they want call waiting, etc.)

Does anyone know anything more about this?

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 14:39 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Master Clocks (was How Are 900 Calls Delivered?)


My copy of the Macintosh version of SetClock 2.2 provides the following
phone numbers:

U.S. Naval Observatory, D.C.    1-202-653-0721 (GMT)
Norfolk, Virginia               1-804-424-5631 (EST)
Toronto, Canada                 1-416-445-9408 (EST or EDT)

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

From: well![e-mail] (Robert Chao)
Subject: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Date: 24 Oct 91 06:12:34 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


I'm looking for info on how the law handles crank calls.  If someone
places crank calls that do not contain profanity, threats, or abusive
language, and do not come at an unreasonable hour, and the calls are
not placed very often, what laws are applicable against him?  What
kind of sentence is involved? What evidence would be required?
Suppose the calls do contain language that implies that the caller is
watching and/or following the receiver? How would the laws change in
that case?  In the first example, I am referring to calls that contain
silly or garbled language.  Thanks to anyone who can help.


Robert Chao   Oakland, California


[Moderator's Note: Obscene language is not required. If you read the
tariffs on this you'll see they refer to 'repeatedly causing the bell
to ring on another's telephone ... ' as harassment, whether or not the
caller speaks up when answered or what is said. The usual techniques
(trap and trace, etc) would provide the evidence required, and Illiois
law, to cite but one example says that such behavior is a misdemeanor
crime punishable by time in jail. There is no reference to the Tucker
Telephone as a method to obtain the confession of the suspected
harasser. :)   PAT]

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

Subject: AT&T Opens Direct Dial Service USA <--> Armenia
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 14:29:51 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]


A friend sent me this recent AT&T press release and I thought I'd pass
it along.

NEW YORK (OCT. 24) - The Soviet Republic of Armenia and AT&T today
celebrated the inauguration of direct dial telephone service between
Armenia and the rest of the world.  An inaugural conference call
connected Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, with New York City and Los
Angeles and marked a historic step toward improving telecommunications
in the Soviet Union.

   Previously, all calls to Armenia went through an operator in
Moscow. Now, with the installation in Yerevan of the AT&T 5ESS(R)
Switch, the company's state-of-the-art digital switching system, calls
can be dialed directly to Armenia.

   It is the first time direct dial service has been available in a
Soviet Republic.  Until now, direct dial service was available only to
limited parts of Moscow.  Also, this is the first time a digital
switching system has been installed in a Soviet Republic.

   The conference call was placed from Armenia by Minister Avoyan and
Sam Willcoxon, AT&T Group executive, international, to John Berndt,
president, AT&T International Communications Services, in New York and
Berj Zeytountsian, the Armenian Minister of Culture, in Los Angeles.

   Zeytountsian is in the United States participating in the
University of Iowa's International Writing Program.  His participation
in the program is sponsored by the AT&T Foundation.

   The call was witnessed by Armenian government officials and AT&T
executives as well as by representatives of other Soviet Republics.

   Students in Yerevan and Los Angeles participated in the ceremony by
faxing artwork to each other.  The students became acquainted last
year through a "sister school" exchange program.

   A postage stamp has been commissioned to commemorate the
inauguration of the service.  The stamp is the first issued by the
independent republic of Armenia since the 1920's and features the
letters "AT&T" and an illustration of the satellite dish used to
process calls.  The stamp was presented to Minister Avoyan at the
ceremony.

   The 5ESS was purchased from AT&T Network Systems International by
the Armenian Ministry of Communications in December 1990. The
additional circuits the switch provides will allow 180 simultaneous
calls to and from Armenia.  This compares with 91 circuits available
to other parts of the Soviet Union.

   Separately, AT&T today announced it has received temporary
permission from the Federal Communications Commission to add 36 more
circuits to handle calls between the United States and the Soviet
Union. The circuits are provided by the Intersputnik satellite system.

   This will bring to 127 the total number of circuits available to
provide telephone service from the United States to the rest of the
Soviet Union.

   In the Soviet Union, the highest volume of international phone
calls are placed to Moscow and Armenia, respectively.  The large
ethnic Armenian communities in various parts of the world account for
the volume.  One million ethnic Armenians live in the United States.

   Customers who have questions on how to call Armenia and other parts
of the Soviet Union or who need general information on AT&T
international prices and dialing may call 1-800-874-4000, ext. 199.


Bill Berbenich

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #848
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09386;
          25 Oct 91 3:51 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01108
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 25 Oct 1991 01:31:48 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23966
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 25 Oct 1991 01:31:38 -0500
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 01:31:38 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #849

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 Oct 91 01:31:28 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 849

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    IBT ISDN Pricing [David E. Martin]
    ISDN Terminal Equipment [David E. Martin]
    Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Susan Haug]
    Station Message Detail Recording (SMDR) [Horacio T. Cadiz]
    Need Help Operating a Plantronics StarMate Headset Unit [Jonathan_Welch]
    Not-so-Brilliant Bell Service [Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt]
    Program in New Area Code [Carl Moore]
    MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone [RISKS, via J.P. Miller]
    Sprint and MCI Fraud "Detection" and Account Suspension [Bob Yazz]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David E. Martin)
Subject: IBT ISDN Pricing
Date: 24 Oct 91 17:23:20 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory


I am setting up an ISDN connection into my home as a trial.  Illinois
Bell Telephone gave me the following prices for ISDN:

$13.14          ISDN Direct Base Price
  3.00          Per Activated B-Channel Voice-Only
  8.00          Per Activated B-Channel Data-Only
  9.00          Per Activated B-Channel Voice or Data
  0.25          Additional Dialable Number for 2nd B-Channel


So, one B-channel, usable for voice or data would cost me $22.14 per
month.  Very reasonable, until you look at the usage charges.

Voice Usage:
Standard Voice Rates, including evening/night discount and banding.
No charge if not originating party.

Data Usage:
$0.12           1st minute
 0.01           each additional 1/10th minute

This is charged on *ALL* data connections!  No matter whether you are
the caller or the callee.  No matter whether it is long distance or
within the LATA.

This is crazy!  Are they trying to kill ISDN dead?  Ten cents a minute
is nuts, and they charge both ends of the connection!  I am making IBT
verify these prices in writing, but the woman I spoke with quoted me
straight from the tariff.  It seems they're using the same tariff as
for Swithched 56.

Have others found such nutso prices from their RBOC's?  Is there some
way to fool the equipment into thinking you're making a voice call?  I
assume something in the call setup packet tells the switch you're
using the channel for data, but otherwise the bandwidth is exactly the
same.  I'm really upset that IBT decided to screw people for the same
bandwidth with a different use.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (David E. Martin)
Subject: ISDN Terminal Equipment
Date: 24 Oct 91 19:05:25 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Batavia, IL, USA


Several moons ago, I requested information from readers of the Digest
about ISDN data terminal equipment for BRI.  Here is the list of
providers.

Teleos Communications, Inc.
Eatontown, NJ
[phone]

Mitel Semiconductor
Ogdensburg, NY
[phone]

AT&T Network Systems
Morristown, NJ
"Contact your AT&T Sales Representative"

Fujitsu Network Switching of America
San Jose, CA
[phone]

DGM&S
Mt Laurel, NJ
[phone]

Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc
Atlanta, GA
[phone]

Dealing with these companies was an adventure. Most deal through local
representatives who are pretty clueless on data communications.
Teleos, Hayes, and Fujitsu were the best with giving technical
information. DGM&S is interested only in the OEM market and AT&T is
not interested in selling anything.  I bounced around AT&T 800 numbers
for about an hour until I talked to someone in "National
Telemarketing" who promised to send literature right out and have a
technical person call me.  I got a 200 page packet on AT&T's premesis
distribution system and no phone call.

Your mileage may vary.


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

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

From: haug@ka3ovk (Susan Haug)
Subject: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Susan Haug)
Organization: Internal Revenue Service
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 14:07:32 GMT


Today, on the front page of the {Washington Post}, there is an article
about Prodigy ... the title is _Computer Network to Ban 'Repugnant'
Comments_.  Prodigy has been charged with allowing "antisemitic slurs"
to run on its network.  Prodigy officials said they would *not* censor
discussion of controversial subjects, such as the one that has been
raging over the net for several months -- whether the Holocaust was a
hoax.

The controvertial message that was labeled "repugnant" included the
statements: "Hitler had some valid points...", and "...whenever Jews
exercise influence and power, misery, warfare and economic
exploitation [are the result]".  There were six other messages that
the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith are complaining about.  The
Hitler message was not available to all subscribers, it was just
personal mail between users.  The person who received the mail brought
it to the ADL's attention.

Civil liberties groups have compared computer networks to telephone
companies, which do not censor calls.  However, Prodigy officals
object to that analogy, saying it is more like a newspaper, and that
Prodigy must judge what is acceptable and what is not, much as a
newspaper editor must.

Prodigy officials take the position of, and I quote, "we were speaking
in broader terms ... we were focused on the broad issue of free
expression".


Susan L. Haug, IRS, Applications Development Support, Falls Church, VA
UUCP: {media|teemc|tcsc3b2|ki4pv}!ka3ovk!haug  Voice: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for summarizing this for us,
Susan. It was in all the papers the past couple days. For the life of
me, I could never understand why anyone would waste money on a service
like Prodigy to begin with, considering there are so many good and
useful things to do on free networks such as our own Internet; and the
countless BBS' around the world which are always pleased to receive
new callers. Compuserve at least has many nice features for the money
they charge, even though the price is a bit steep. And isn't it quite
curious how all those online pay services are more than happy to seek
protection from the consequences of their users' behavior by invoking
common carrier status when it suits them ... yet not hesitate to
assume the role of newspaper publisher with a right to say what does
and does not get printed when that better meets their purposes.  You
can't have it both ways!  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Station Message Detail Recording (SMDR)
Date: 24 Oct 91 21:34:08 GMT
Organization: VPI&SU Computer Science Department, Blacksburg, VA


    I'm looking for a device which could be connected to a PC and do
the following:

    1.  Sense that a phone is offhook; record the dialed number;
        time the duration of the conversation or until the telephone
        is placed on hook again.

    2.  Allow the computer to monitor several phones simultaneously.

    I've been told that what I need is an SMDR. What is an SMDR? Is it
a peripheral which could be attached to a phone line and a PC (like a
modem) and do what is written above? Do I need a PBX to be able to use
an SMDR?  Any ideas how to go about getting the above capabilities?
Where can such a device be bought? Are there books/manuals available
which deal with such a device? Thanks in advance.


Horacio T. Cadiz  [e-mail]

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

From: Jonathan_Welch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Help Operating a Plantronics StarMate Headset Unit
Date: 24 Oct 91 17:10:44 GMT


This weekend I bought a Plantronics StarMate headset unit (that goes
inline with the handset cord) at a flea market and need some help
figuring out how to operate it.

There are six dip switches on the back I'd like to know the meaning of
and there's a socket for a mini power plug so I need to know how much
voltage the unit is designed to operate with.

I've already tried the obvious things such as applying low voltage and
operating the handset/headset switch, but with no luck.  Is there
anyone that can help me out?


Many Thanks,

Jonathan Welch     Bitnet: JHWELCH@umaecs
Internet: [e-mail]    VAX Systems Programmer   Umass/Amherst

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

From: [e-mail] (Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt)
Subject: Not-so-Brilliant Bell Service
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 02:47:49 GMT


Figure THIS one out!!!

    A friend of mine has call waiting installed on his residential
line. Since he couldn't disable it when, for example, using his modem,
Bell Canada offered him a free of charge change-over to another
(newer) exchange.

    Well, the current status is as follows (or has been for the
last 10h):

1) When his old number is dialed, a Bell recording states that the
number is not in service.

2) When his new number is dialed, a rather better and newer Bell
recording still conveys the same message as above.

3) My friend is able to dial out, locally only, though. Not only he
cannot direct-dial any LD numbers, he also cannot make collect or
calling card calls.

Bell promissed to take care of the problem tomorrow (it was phoned in
after business hours), and having had no problems with their service
before, I have no reasons to believe otherwise. What does bother me,
however, is that the programming (and I assume, maybe incorrectly,
that the proble lies in software) used to connect / disconnect /
change numbers and lines has allowed for such a compromising mistake.

If anybody has any ideas with regards to:

1) What might have actually happened ?
2) What kind of retribution :-) should Bell consider for
inconveniencing their customer? ,

 ... please feel free to respond to this posting either by e-mail, or
in this newsgroup.


Thanks,

Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt   <[e-mail]>
School of Business - Computer Consulting - Carleton University

p.s. The ideas in this article are not even mine, let alone my employer's ...

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 13:54:38 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Program in New Area Code


I received a message at my office saying that "Everyone that has a
cellular phone needs to go to ... today 24 Oct 91 to get the new area
code programmed into the phones."

The ANNOUNCED date for 410 area code coming into use is November 1.

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Philip Miller)
Subject: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 22:21:02 CDT


This was posted on RISKS.  It clearly is yet another reason to stay
away from the MCI gimicks.

phil

 Forwarded message:
 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 19:11:07 EDT
 From: "Brian R. Krause" <[e-mail]>
 Subject: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a Touch-Tone Phone


I should have known better than to tell MCI who my friends and family
are.  Here's part of the brochure they sent to introduce me to their
Friends & Family program:

   Q.  "How can I leard the immediate status of my Calling Circle?"

   A.  All you have to do is dial 1-800-FRIENDS from any touch tone
       phone, anytime.  A recording will tell you who has been added,
       who is not eligible and who is in the process of being  contacted.

Anyone who knows your phone number and ZIP code can get a complete
list of your Calling Circle.  You don't need to know a number to check
its status; the computer lists them all.

I called MCI about this.  The first representative I spoke with tried
to convince me that nobody would try to get my numbers that way, and
that, really, if someone was malicious, they could call him and cancel
or change my service anyway.  That made me feel good.

I then spoke to the supervisor -- she had never used the FRIENDS
number, since "I work at MCI and can check my numbers all the time."
She seemed surprised that you only needed a ZIP code, and has promised
to get back to me.

In the meantime, I'm not adding any more people to my list, and I'm
considering switching to a company that doesn't make my monthly bill
public information.


Brian R. Krause, Software Developer, Milwaukee, WI 532XX

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

     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint and MCI Fraud "Detection" and Account Suspension
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 04:52:25 GMT


I posted a similar story recently.

Sprint suspended my card because I used it for ONE 30-minute overseas
call while on vacation.  Now isn't this what they WANT you to do?  It
was a number in Sweden that I had called several times in the past,
using the same Sprint calling card, and the account was certainly paid
up.  They went to the trouble of calling my home, to warn me of the
"fraud" but obviously I wasn't there -- it's a long way from Key West
to San Diego.  Sprint was incapable of re-enabling my card right away,
too.

I kept the account, but only use it when AT&T is unavailable, like in
ripoff-oriented hotels.

As a final act of defiance, I underpaid my last bill by one cent.
I've been getting billing notices -- but no collection agencies
every month.

How did a wonderful woman like Candice Bergen ever get mixed up with
this bunch?


Bob Yazz == [e-mail] ==

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 21:22:53 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> It turns out that the MCI computer had noticed a large number of call
> attempts to a single number and decided that that constituted possible
> fraud.

I had a similar thing happen to me about three years ago with US
Sprint.  It wasn't a large number of attempts to a single number, but
just a bunch of calls from different locations.  I had driven from
Seattle to Santa Cruz for a trade show, and had placed several calls
along the way, many of them from cellular (this was in the day where
roamers most everywhere could not use 1+ for long distance).

Without warning, my card stopped working.  Calling customer service, I
was told how they had suspected fraud, and cancelled my number.  I
complained how no warning had been given, and they said that they had
tried to call me at home, but were unable to reach me.  Obviously, if
the calls were not fraudulent, I would not be at home.  The whole
thing was quite stupid, as if my number turned up on some phreaking
BBS, calls would be coming in from all over the country.  A computer
could certainly tell that the pattern of originating locations/times
was consistent with only a single person using the code, especially
since many of the calls were to the designated home phone number on
the account, checking for messages.

What was really annoying is that they were unable to turn the card
back on.  They could re-enable a card disabled for administrative
purposes (such as a late payment), but not one disabled because of
"fraud."  Since Sprint has long used the 14 digit random number
format, and I had committed my number to memory, it was a hassle to
learn a new number.

This is one of the reasons that I use my AT&T card as my primary card
now.  I have the FONCard for a backup.

A new feature of the AT&T random number cards is that they can be
moved from one billing number to another, so that when your phone
number changes, your card number stays the same.  They can even
"unhook" it all together and bill direct for awhile, then later bill
it to home service again.  However, when I tried to do this by calling
the 800/222-0300 folks, they claimed that this was impossible.
Calling 800/CALL-ATT got a different department that said "of course
you can do this!"  So, be persistant if you are told this is not the
way.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #849
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10493;
          25 Oct 91 4:09 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16743
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 25 Oct 1991 02:28:29 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07142
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 25 Oct 1991 02:28:14 -0500
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 02:28:14 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #850

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 Oct 91 02:28:10 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 850

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Oakland Fire [Linc Madison]
    Re: The Oakland Fire [Shawn Nunley]
    Oakland Fire Question [Earl Boebert]
    Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates? [J. Brad Hicks]
    Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates? [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, OR [Tad Cook]
    Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [Derek Billingsley]
    Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [David G. Lewis]
    Re: Dialing 811 Gets 911 (was ANI in C&P-Land) [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Dialing 811 Gets 911 (was ANI in C&P-Land) [Gary Morris]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 02:28:36 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: The Oakland Fire


Well, as has been mentioned, the campus itself wasn't in the fire
zone, but we weren't far away, either.  The fraternities, co-ops, and
dorms in the southeast corner of the campus area were evacuated, and
it was only the fact that the winds stayed primarily from the
northeast that kept the fire from coming this direction.  My co-op is
located just over a mile from the northern parts of the fire, so we
had a good view of the fire from our roof.  I first noticed the fire
before noon, almost an hour before the TV broke the news.

As for the destruction, the latest official count I've heard (Tuesday
evening) was 2200 structures destroyed, with estimates over 2500.
Given that there isn't a single structure in the area valued at less
than $200,000 (even subtracting land value), the damage is likely to
be well in excess of $5 billion.  In addition, there has been
extensive erosion damage to the land itself, and may be more so in the
event of heavy rain.  The death toll was at 19 as of Wednesday, but
that includes only people whose remains have been positively
identified.  There were several more people dead but as yet
unidentified, and about three dozen missing and presumed dead.

As for telephony, in addition to inbound calls being curtailed, there
were sporadic difficulties in areas near the fire.  One friend who
lives quite near the Mountain View Cemetery reported loss of
electricity (in his case, only brief outages) and loss of dialtone for
a couple of short time periods.

Most striking was that during one telephone conversation I was having
with him, his call waiting beeped, and he was unable to switch over to
the other call.  This happened three times -- twice he put me on hold
but couldn't answer the other call, and the third time he couldn't
even put me on hold.  The prefix he's in is 510-655; I'm not sure what
kind of switch, but I heard the "click" when he got a "beep".

Here in Berkeley, 510-540, I had no telephone problems, but I didn't
try to call the University computers, out of consideration for the
request to keep phone traffic to a minimum.  One specific request that
was made repeatedly on the news, by the way, was to keep CELLULAR
traffic to a minimum -- emergency crews were using cellular to
maintain contact.  Also, the TV coverage inadvertently gave more
public exposure to the 510 area code than any ad campaign ever could,
although, as noted, the radio stations usually just quoted seven
digits.

Even as of the 6 o'clock news Wednesday, the fire was not entirely
extinguished.  In particular, the roots of many trees are still
smoldering in the ground, making the soil temperature still several
hundred degrees in patches.  Thankfully, the weather has turned cooler
and humid the last couple of days, with much less wind.  The main road
artery closed by the fire, California Highway 24 through the Caldecott
Tunnel, was reopened Monday afternoon in time for evening rush hour
traffic, and BART service was near normal by Monday evening, except
that I think they said the Rockridge and Orinda stations are closed.

As for myself, aside from eye irritation from the smoke and loss of
sleep from staying up until 3 AM watching the TV news, I was not
personally adversely affected, although it was certainly pretty tense
for a while.


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


[Moderator's Note: Well, I am glad you are safe and sound. I knew it
would only be a matter of time until we heard from you with a very
detailed report, and I thank you for sending it along.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Shawn Nunley)
Subject: Re: The Oakland Fire
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 20:56:13 GMT


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> As of this time the stats are as follows:

> People killed:        14
> People injured        148
> Structures destroyed:        1000+
> Acres involved:        1500+
> Estimated loss:        $1.5 billion

The stats as of today, as heard on KCBS news radio 740 AM, were:

People killed:            24
Structures lost or damaged:    3400+
Acres involved:            1800+
Estimated loss:            5 billion+

5 billion dollars! (with a 'b', billion, a thousand million) YIKES!

There are still many people missing.

Now we have more bad news. Rain is expected, and they predict massive
mud-ash-sludge slides to follow.  Great 8(


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


[Moderator's Note: This tragic event has been the subject of many
hours of news coverage here also, as apparently it has been around the
world.  We heard today on the news that rain is definitly expected out
there over the weekend and that crews were busy trying to do something
to hold the soil in place. Apparently the mud slides -- if they come
 -- will finish off whatever the fire left behind. The most horrible
thought of all is that it may have been arson: Our television
talking-heads are now saying (quoting CA authorities) that efforts to
find some natural reason for the fire -- any reason at all that
'mother nature' chose this time and place for such a thing -- have
failed. They found where the fire started, but no natural reason for
it at all. The Oakland Red Cross is in pretty desparate straits and I
hope everyone reading this will chip in however you can. I sent my
donation today.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Earl Boebert)
Subject: Oakland Fire Question
Organization: SCTC
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 03:05:19 GMT


What is the response if you call a number that has been destroyed in
the fire, and in particular, does a ring tone give one any cause for
hope that the house may have survived?  I am trying to determine the
fate of an old family friend who lived right on the edge of the
destroyed area (on Ocean View, just a few houses up from Broadway).


Many thanks,

Earl

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 14:53 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates?


> Here in Illinois it is called "Life Line", and it is intended to provide
> a very minimal, very basic connection to the network with no bells or
> whistles. It costs about five dollars a month and is intended for people
> on welfare or otherwise with a limited income.

I've heard proposals for such a thing, but I could never figure out
what they would DO?  What can an ordinary residential phone line do
that a "Life Line" can't?  Is a "Life Line" something you have to
persuade a professional do-gooder (social worker, case worker,
"consumer rep" at IBT) that you're entitled to, or can anybody order
one?


[Moderator's Note: A Lifeline phone here is underwritten in part by
the Welfare Department. It can do anything a 'regular' phone does but
has no additional custom calling features or allowance made for long
distance calls, etc.  If you are entitled to receive public assistance
then you are entitled to have Lifeline phone service; likewise if you
are an elderly person living alone on a limited income.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 17:03:58 GMT


    It seems like telcos are trying to charge for the costs they
incur due to equipment usage on long calls, whether the call is
originated on this line or received on this line.  I agree that there
are costs involved in tying up the equipment, but, it appears to be
more traditional to bill whoever originates the call (or mails a
letter) instead of trying to divide the cost between the originator
and the receiver.  This MAY be some of the reasoning for PacBell's
proposed doubling of the "second minute" rate for measured service.

They may want to also get rid of "flat rate" service and make it
"free" for the first few hours a day of call origination, then go to
the measured rate.  Most voice customers (other than teenagers) would
not see a difference in the bill.  Large users (often data users)
would see a higher charge, compensating the telco for use of the
switch.

    The proposed "modem tax" or requirement that those receiving a
lot of calls have business service seems to be a very round about
solution to the problem the telcos are facing.  The problem is NOT the
use of modems, the problem is long calls.  So, don't bill for modems,
bill for long calls (which, again, may be part of PacBell's reason for
the rate increase).


Harold

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

Subject: Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, OR
From: hpubvwa![e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 20 Oct 91 22:16:48 GMT


[e-mail] (Andrew Klossner) writes:

> Here we go again.  US West (formerly Pacific Northwest Bell) is trying
> to charge business rates to all households with a modem ...

> Two Portland Fidonet systems have been sent *official letters from US
> West informing them that since they have modems on some of their phone
> lines, *all* of their phones *must* be converted to business lines.

This is a completely false and misleading characterization of one
particular incident in Portland.

There is no modem tax.

There is no change in the tarrifs.

There is no move on the part of US West to charge business rates to
all customers with modems.

What happened was that US West is telling a commercial BBS that
charges users for access that they cannot do this on lines that are
billed residential rates.  The BBS owner, in a misguided attempt to
bolster public support for his position, is spreading a lot of
misinformation to BBS users.  One thing I read claims that the
difference in rates for business and residential service is somehow
"arbitrary."  They haven't figured out yet that residential service is
offered at below cost, and is subsidized by business rates.  If they
actually petitioned the PUC to equalize the rates, the modem users
that they now have all riled up would REALLY be screaming!

> Over the last week, they (and others) have been arguing with the PUC
> and US West about this. US West's stand is that *all* "non-voice"
> lines fall under the business section of the tariff.

> We *all* need to get together and get ready for the hearing, as the
> decision will affect every modem user, fax user, and TDD user in
> Oregon.

This is baloney.  US West has made no such statement.  Get your facts
straight.  In this case, most folks in the BBS community are getting
their misinformation from the affected commercial BBS owner, rather
than trying to familiarize themselves with the tarrifs, or talking to
the PUC.


Tad Cook    Seattle, WA    Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]    MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or, [e-mail]
or, [e-mail]   or, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (BILLINGSLEY)
Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real!
Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 12:39:14 GMT


$8.50 for a measured business line and $4.50 for a measured
residential line?  That sounds as though Pac*Bell is sweetening the
pot making it seem like a better service.  Incidentally, you may be
interested to know that in New Brunswick, a metro un-metered
residential rate is approx $16 including the 11% provincial and 7%
GST.  An unmeasured metro business rate will run you for about $43.
Mileage fees are a bit astronomical as well.  I used to live in the
suburbs and was about 20 kilometers from the CO and was charged $25
(plus taxes, of course) for a total rate (about $13 in mileage fees).

We have been on a DMS-100 for some time now (NBTel has always been
quick to bring in the new technology (probably so no-one has a chance
to complain ...)

We have had a number of CLASS features for some time (Prime example is
call id being here for about three or four years) Mind you, $12 a
month for rental of the Maestro telephone and an additional $4 to send
the number on the ring signal kind of deters from the usefulness of
the system.  (Though I did built a device to decode the LED signals
and bring it to my computer for logging ...)


Regards,

Derek Billingsley

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real!
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 13:34:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> This is the heart of the matter. SWB wants to charge for a line on the
> basis of TOTAL traffic, not just calls out. The assumption is that the
> lines would have heavy INCOMING traffic that SWB would not be
> "compensated" for. Since, as was pointed out, such lines on a BBS
> rarely make outgoing calls, the usual practice is to have the
> cheapest, measured service installed. This filing would end that
> ability.

However, (as I'm sure John is aware), SWB *is* compensated for
incoming traffic to this type of line.  If the call is intra-LATA,
they're collecting directly from the originator.  If the call is
inter-LATA, they're collecting IXC access charges for minutes of use.

Seems to me like they're saying they, in effect, want to collect
revenue from both sides of the call.

Also seems to me that it's a questionable marketing plan to endanger a
stable current source of revenue on behalf of a potential future
uncertain source of revenue, but hey, I'm just an engineer, I don't
know nuthin' 'bout no marketing.  (But even I've heard of price
elasticity ...)


David G Lewis                    AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 10:41:48 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dialing 811 Gets 911 (was ANI in C&P-Land)


[[e-mail] (Vance Shipley) describes calling 811 and it
"lock up" his line.]

I have notice this effect on the Alexander City CO (5ESS, I think).
The effect usally lasts for a few minutes and then everything returns
to normal.  It isn't one of SCB's better CO's.  This could be a real
problem for someone who misdials 911, which is how I found out about
it.  Luckly, the person who called didn't have a real emergency, she
just panicked.


Patton Turner   [e-mail]    KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM

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

From: telesoft![e-mail] (Gary Morris @wayward)
Subject: Re: Dialing 811 Gets 911 (was ANI in C&P-Land)
Reply-To: telesoft![e-mail]
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 03:15:32 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
writes:

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

>> About a year ago, I accidently dialed 711 from my test set
>> autodialer here in Auburn, and was connected the E911 operator.

> Later that night I called repair (611).  I told them my line was dead
> and that I suspected it had something to do with 911.

That brings to mind a similar incident I had last year.  I had just
moved from San Diego to Houston and my new phone service with GTE had
severe crosstalk on the line.  I could hear other conversations while
making calls.  So I called the 611 repair number, and it was answered
by the 911 operator.  I had assumed that 611 was the number to call
for service but not so on their system.  I have no idea why it went to
911, and they didn't seem to believe it when I reported it the next
day.  At least they fixed the crosstalk problem.


Gary Morris                  Internet: [e-mail]
KK6YB                        UUCP:     ucsd!telesoft!garym
TeleSoft, San Diego, CA      Phone:    [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #850
******************************