Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss851-900

Text File | 1991-11-08 | 864KB | 21,030 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17907;
          26 Oct 91 3:13 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27660
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 00:27:30 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10322
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 00:27:08 -0500
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 00:27:08 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #851

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 Oct 91 00:26:30 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 851

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Oakland Fire Question [Linc Madison]
    Re: Oakland Fire Question [Doug Faunt]
    Re: Oakland Fire Question [Arthur Rubin]
    Re: Oakland Fire Question [Mickey Ferguson]
    Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Tim Gorman]
    Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Doug Krause]
    Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Robert L. McMillin]
    Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [John McHarry]
    Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Seth I. Robson]
    Re: Switching System Model Numbers [David G. Lewis]
    Re: Switching System Model Numbers [Steven P. Mazurek]
    Re: Switching System Model Numbers [John Hobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 01:04:26 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Oakland Fire Question
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> 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).

As of Sunday, the TV news was specifically telling people that getting
a ring tone did not confirm that the residence was not destroyed.  By
now, they have probably got appropriate intercepts on all the lines,
plus the people whose homes were damaged are being offered free
voice-mail and call forwarding services.  However, if you get
ring-no-answer, you might do better to try a work number or other
friends in the area.  In your specific case, much of Ocean View Drive
was devastated, so you are right to be concerned.  Let me know if you
continue to be unable to reach your friend, and I will try to get more
information.

As for the arson issue, there was an update on tonight's news.  The
reports that there is no evidence of any natural cause are correct;
however, it looks more likely that a person ACCIDENTALLY started the
fire than arson.  One possibility being investigated right now is a
construction crew illegally burning debris and/or brush.  It seems to
have been established now that Sunday's fire was a rekindling of a
fire that started Saturday and then broke containment when the wind
kicked up.  The damage toll now, with 97% of the area surveyed, is
2691 homes destroyed, 54 with major damage, 441 with minor damage.  24
confirmed fatalities, including unidentified remains, about 30 still
missing.  Over 2000 acres were burned.  The rain started this evening,
but has remained a light drizzle.  If it keeps this pace, it will help
to cool the ground and identify hot spots; if it rains harder or for a
prolonged period, mudslides are a major hazard.


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

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 10:25:12 -0700
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Oakland Fire Question


I evacuated a friend from Montclair Sunday noon, and cut off the power
at her house before we left, so her answering machine didn't work.  I
got ringing until 3PM, fast busy three times in the next two hours,
and then ringing again, although we have a reliable report that her
house didn't burn until just after 5 PM, so there was some correlation
between her house going and the ring tone, but it may have been
coincidence.

I live less than 3/4 mile from the edge of the fire in the direction
the fire was moving Sunday morning, and it was a little nerveracking
to evacuate our friend (who's deaf), and seeing fire on the ridge
above the road out, while hearing on the radio that the authorities
were considering evacuating my own neighborhood.


73, doug

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 12:21:04 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Oakland Fire Question


Didn't PacBell set up free message center mailboxes for people with
homes destroyed in the fire?  In that case, it suggests that a ringing
number is NOT hooked up, and hence not destroyed.


[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] (personal)
[e-mail] (work)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 13:30:05 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Mickey Ferguson)
Subject: re: Oakland Fire Question
Organization: Rolm Systems


Earl Boebert writes:

> 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?

Ringing tone unfortunately doesn't indicate anything at all.
(However, if a person or an answering machine answers, it is a good
sign! :) I just called PacBell to find out what the answers were, and
this is what they told me they could do for those people who had lost
their homes:

  o  offer free Message Center mailboxes.

  o  disconnect residence service and provide free referral number to
     the place for which the people could now be reached.

  o  provide free call forwarding, where the calls would be forwarded to
     where the people could be reached.

  o  provide remote call forwarding, where the residence service would be
     terminated, and then forward calls to a new number free, programmed
     from PacBell (and not from the home).

What I forgot to ask was if these services were mutually exclusive
(choose one only); if they were free for just the first month or for a
year or some other length of time; and if the installation
(programming) charge was waived.  I'm pretty sure the installation
charges are waived, but I really don't know about the other points.


Mickey Ferguson      Rolm Systems      [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Oct 91 18:11:54 EDT
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!!


[e-mail] writes in TELECOM v11, #848:

> I think that now is the right time to force a change in the phone
> system.  ... 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.

If all telephone equipment was locally powered from the power utility
lines what would you do in an emergency when the power was off?

It also seems to me that I remember reading that the "leakage" current
on the cable (to ground I suppose?) provides a "sealing" function to
splices in the cable preventing them from corroding to an open
condition. This function would have to be replaced also.

The shock you got from the line while ringing was from a much higher
voltage source than the -48v line power. I believe most ringing today
is 100v (or more) AC superimposed on the -48v. If I am not mistaken
this would make the maximum potential across the conductors about 150v
(or more).

The cost to replace or remodel all telephone sets in the country would
be tremendous, I am not sure most people would pay for it. Wouldn't it
be cheaper to provide some kind of optoisolator based equipment to
prevent the line voltages from entering the house for those people
wishing to use it?


Tim Gorman - SWBT
* opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence*

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

From: Doug Krause <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!!
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 25 Oct 91 09:48:45 GMT


> [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
> hone, circa 1910 or so which had been laying around the police
> station for many years after being removed from regular service.

"They" do this in the movie _Brubaker_.


Douglas Krause
University of California, Irvine    Internet: [e-mail]
BITNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 09:17:01 PDT
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!!


[e-mail] (who is it?) writes on Sat, 19 Oct 91 17:26:03 PDT
concerning telephone safety:

> 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.

And why is this dangerous, mmm?  Could it be that the user was doing
something to the phone that the manufacturer hadn't foreseen or
intended?  Apparently so:

> 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.

This is almost as silly as the "protect us from dialing 900 numbers"
thread that appeared a few months ago. Wake up and smell the
electrons!  EVERY telephone book I have ever read has warnings in the
front saying that you should NOT work with or use a piece of
electrical equipment while wet, telephones included.  Your whining
about the facts of life -- that a wet body, a quick route to ground,
and a charge imbalance equals a good jolt -- is about as reasonable as
complaining that inserting a dripping screwdriver into a wall socket
delivers a fatal dose of current.  Telephones are, PROPERLY used, one
of the safest and most reliable pieces of technology we have yet
invented.  Grow up!

Pat then adds:

> [Moderator's Note: I was shocked to find out the Chicago Police were
> obtaining confessions from people they arrested ...

[stuff deleted about the police using magneto crank-style phones to
extract jailhouse confessions from prisoners.]

Pat, curiosity fills me: did you run this piece to tell that story?


[Moderator's Note: No; I thought of the story while editing his piece,
and I was reminded of the **** sting **** you can get from DC.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John McHarry)
Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!!
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: 25 Oct 91 17:34:14 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> 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.

> 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.

Ringing is not 48 volts.  It is nominally 86 volts superimposed on the
48 volts d.c.  On frequency selective ringing lines it can be a bit
more, perhaps 120 or so, depending on frequency.  The 48 is normally
about 52, and is always there when the phone is on-hook or unplugged.


John McHarry ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: But if you really want a thrill, try mousing around
inside an RF linear amplifier after forgetting to first stick your
screwdriver in there and discharge those capacitors! :) And for an
exciting display for a young friend who has little or no knowledge of
the characteristics of electricity, let him watch while you 'innocently'
touch one end of your screwdriver to the (still) juiced-up capacitors
while another part of the metal touches the metal case on the unit or
some other source of ground ... bang! bang! pop! flash! No harm done,
of course, and always good for a laugh as you watch them jump out of
the way ... plus, for safety's sake you've insured the device is
drained and won't hurt anyone who tampers around inside the unit.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 12:55:49 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Seth I. Robson)
Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!!


The simple solution is to take one of your phones off the hook while
you're working on the wiring.  Just make sure no one else
inadvertantly puts the phone back on-hook while you're working. :-)

Doesn't seem like too much trouble to me.  Maybe I missed a phone call
or two, but I've never been shocked.


Seth I. Robson; [e-mail]
University of California, Santa Cruz


[Moderator's Note: Another way to strip a little wire in a hurry when
you don't have your tools is to use a cigarette lighter and burn off
the appropriate amount of insulation. Hold the flame to it just long
enough to start the insulation melting, then use your fingers to slide
it forward and off the bit of wire you are working on.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Switching System Model Numbers
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 13:23:43 GMT


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

> 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.

Well, I can supply a partial answer, but I don't have enough history
at my fingertips for a full answer.  Perhaps someone else can help
out.

#1 Crossbar (1XB): local switch designed for large metropolitan areas.
First one went into service in 1938 in Brooklyn.

#4XB: toll switch.  First went into service in 1943 in Philadelphia.

#4AXB: toll switch.  Improved version of #4XB.  Introduced in 1953.

#5XB: local switch designed for suburban applications.  (May have local/toll
functions, I'm not sure.)  First went into service in 1948.

#1ESS: local/toll switch designed for metropolitan areas.  First went into
service in 1965 in Succasunna, NJ.

#1AESS: local/toll switch.  1E with upgraded (#1A) processor.

#2ESS: local/toll switch designed for suburban areas.  Capacity 24,000
terminations per switch (compare to ~100k for a large 1A).  First went into
service in 1970 in Oswego, IL.

#2BESS: local/toll switch.  2ESS with upgraded (3ACC) processor.

#3ESS: local/toll switch designed for rural ("Community Dial Office") use.
Capacity of 5760 terminals.  Don't know first service date or location.

#4ESS: toll switch.  Big.  First put in service in 1976.  The heart of
the AT&T long-distance network, which is has 114 of them.

5ESS: local/toll switch.  First put in service in 1982.

I don't know if there ever were a #2XB and #3XB, at least in production.

By the way, ESS is a trademark of AT&T, and 5ESS is a registered
trademark of AT&T.  Just thought I'd let you know and make the lawyers
happy.


David G Lewis                    AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven P. Mazurek)
Subject: Re: Switching System Model Numbers
Organization: Ameritech, Hoffman Estates, IL
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 12:54:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim
Haynes) writes:

[about various models of phone switches]

Actually there was (is) a No. 2 ESS and No. 2B ESS besides the No. 3
ESS (and don't forget the venerable No. 101 ESS).

The 2 ESS was primarily used in suburban and small town situations
with a typical access line size of six to ten thousand.

The 3 ESS was a machine designed for rural application and usually ran
under five thousand lines.

Both machines are analog designs.


Steven P. Mazurek     | Email: {...,uunet,bcr,ohumc}!ameris!smazu
Ameritech Services     |        [e-mail]
Schaumburg, IL USA 60010 | Phone : [phone]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 19:04:24 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Switching System Model Numbers


Well, I know that #2 ESS exists, because my home (in Bolingbrook, IL)
is served out of one -- actually a 2A ESS.  It is the same generation
of technology as the 1A ESS, but smaller (only two NXXs served --
708-759 and 708-368).

I believe that I remember that the Number 3 is an even smaller version of
the same -- and I'm pretty sure that my mother-in-laws' home town of
Princeton, WI (population 1280) is served by one.


John Hobson        Ameritech Services
225 W Randolph  HQ 17B    Chicago, IL 60606    312-727-3490
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #851
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18167;
          26 Oct 91 3:18 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06606
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 01:25:48 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31182
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 01:25:37 -0500
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 01:25:37 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #852

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 Oct 91 01:25:33 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 852

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Video Dial Tone: Bell TV? [Charlie Mingo]
    Notice on GEnie About FCC Action [Michael Nolan]
    Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Larry Appleman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 25 Oct 91 16:34:50
Subject: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV?


PHONE COMPANIES COULD TRANSMIT TV UNDER FCC PLAN

 -- Blow to Cable Industry

 -- Viewers Expected to Benefit From Many More Choices - New Lines Needed"

By Edmund L. Andrews in {The New York Times}, October 25, 1991 at A1.

    In a surprising and controversial move to promote cable television
competition, the Federal Communications Commission proposed today that
local telephone companies be allowed to package and transmit
television programming.

    The proposed rules, which were unanimously endorsed and are likely
to be adopted within a year, would expose cable companies to the most
threatening competition yet.  But they could benefit cable television
consumers, many of whom have seen their bills double and triple in
recent years.

    The cable industry vowed to fight the proposals and threatened to
challenge the rules in court if they are adopted.  Telephone
companies, eager to enter a lucrative new business, applauded.

'MORE CHOICES' FOR VIEWERS

   "Today's action will create competition and offer consumers more
choices," said James R. Young, vice-president of regulatory and
industry relations at the Bell Atlantic Corporation.  "Let's hope it's
a beginning to the end of turf wars."

   In essence, the commission recommended that telephone companies be
allowed to offer "video dial tone" over telephone lines that would
carry programming produced by outside companies.  Consumers could view
whatever programs they pleased and would be charged accordingly.

    Initially, telephone companies would serve promarily as a
pipeline, not producing the programs.  But the commission said
telephone companies should also be allowed to organize and package
video services, as long as they make their networks available to all
programmers.  The commission also opened an inquiry on whether to let
telephone companies produce programs.

CONGRESS HAS AVOIDED ISSUE

    The idea of allowing so-called video dial tone service has long
been a favorite of the F.C.C.'s chairman, Alfred C. Sikes.  Congress,
which is weighing regulatory legislation to rein in cable proces has
shied away from the issue.  Today's action makes it more likely that
lawmakers will have to reconsider the role of telephone companies in
television.

    Before cable companies would feel much impact from today's F.C.C.
proposal, however, most telephone companies would have to spend
billions of dollars to install new fiber-optic transmission lines and
switching equipment that could carry large volumes of television
material.  Analysts have estimated that the cost of converting every
home in the country to a fiber-optic line would be $100 billion to
$200 billion and that it would take at least five years.

    Most large telephone companies, including all of the regional Bell
companies, already plan to replace their copper wires with fiber over
the next two decades.  The immense business opportunity posed by the
$18 billion cable television market is likely to accelerate those
plans.

    High-capacity communications lines that reach every home in
America could radically alter the distribution of entertainment and
enable people on home computers to tap distant libraries and obtain
information in seconds.

    "Both program providers and consumers would have chances they
don't have today, without the bottlenecks provided by cable companies
and without the bottlenecks of broadcasting," said Richard Firestone,
chief of the F.C.C.'s common carrier bureau.

    The move was immediately attacked by the National Cable Television
Association, which threatened to challenge any new rules in court.

    "Until and unless the telco's monopoly in voice telephone is
ended, no level of Government safeguards against cross-subsidies will
be effective," said James P. Mahoney, president of the cable
association.

QUESTION OF TV PRODUCTION

   The most controversial issue, which the F.C.C. raised for
discussion without recommendation, is whether telephone companies
should be allowed to produce programming, a much bigger business than
transmission.  Many Bush Administration officials favor such a move,
but television boradcasters and producers bitterly oppose it.
Officials noted that such a shift would require changes in the Cable
Television Act of 1984.

    "Among the top two or three concerns of ever cable operator has
always been head-to-head competition against local telephone
companies," said John Mansell, a senior analyst at Paul Kagan
Associates, a marketing-research firm that monitors the cable
industry.

    For telephone companies, the move could be a windfall.  Steven R.
Sieck, vice president of Link Resources Inc., a market-research firm
in New York, said, "It's by far the largest market opportunity among
the whole collection of information services" for telephone companies.

    It remains unclear, however, whether the new rules will survive in
court.  Teh Cable Television Act of 1984 bars a telephone company from
owning a cable television franchise in the same market.  The F.C.C.
ruled today, however, that the law does not prevent a local telephone
company from transmitting programs produced by other companies and
that it does not bar long-distance carriers in any way.

    The Bell companies have lobbied strongly for legislation that
would allow them to enter the cable business, and several companies
have invested in European cable franchises.  In addition, Pacific
Telesis Group, which provides local phone service in California,
already holds an option to buy a controlling interest in a Chicago
cable franchise, which could be [sic] permissible since it is outside
the company's telephone area.

RULING ON FRANCHISE FEES

    The commission also handed down a ruling that could give telephone
companies an important price advantage in future competition with
cable operators and could prompt protests from local governments,
ruling that neither a telephone company nor a video programmer needs
to pay franchise fees to local governments.

    Under the cable act, by contrast, local governments can charge
cable operators a franchise fee as high as five per cent of revenues.

    Explaining today's ruling, Mr. Sikes said, "We have segregation
laws, and these segregation laws should be ended."  He added that some
cable companies were already installing optical fibers in their own
networks, and that some were exploring the option of using their
netowrks to offer telephone service.

   The proposals mark the second major change in longstanding
restrictions on the telephone companies' ability to move into new
services.  Less than three weeks ago, a Federa appeals court cleared
the way for the regional Bell companies to begin providing information
services, like news, stock and sports tables, immediately.

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Nolan)
Subject: Notice on GEnie About FCC Action
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tailored Software Services, Inc.
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 04:23:35 GMT


The following showed up the other day on GEnie in the unix roundtable
(and possibly elsewhere as well), and is now part of the messages you
can display at signon time.  I can't exactly figure out what this
really means, can comp.dcom.telecom readers?

The Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has adopted rules that will
increase by up to five-fold the price of local telephone lines that use new
network features to provide access to information services.  The new rules
could have as serious an impact as the FCC's 1987 access charge proposal, which
was successfully defeated through a massive letter-writing campaign.

Any information service provider that wishes to take advantage of new network
features -- which are to be made available as part of the FCC's Open Network
Architecture ("ONA") -- must start paying the higher charges.  Although the FCC
would allow information service providers to continue using their existing
lines at current rates, providers choosing this option would be denied the use
of much existing and future network functionality.  Many state regulators are
compounding this problem by following the FCC's lead.

These pricing rules will needlessly inflate the costs of providing information
services.  Information service providers will have no option but to pass these
added costs on to their subscribers in increased prices.  This is bad for the
information service providers, bad for subscribers, and bad for the United
States.  At a time when the FCC should be encouraging the widest possible use
and availability of information services, the FCC has adopted rules that will
have precisely the opposite effect.

It's not too late to stop the FCC from implementing its new ONA pricing rules.
GEnie (through its trade associations ADAPSO and IIA), CompuServe, Prodigy,
BTNA (formerly Tymnet) and others have petitioned the FCC to reconsider its
rules, and the FCC is now considering whether it should grant those petitions.
You can help by writing to Al Sikes, Chairman of the FCC, and sending copies of
your letter to his fellow Commissioners.  You should also write to Congressman
Ed Markey and Senator Daniel Inouye, the Chairmen of the House and Senate
Subcommittees that have jurisdiction over the FCC.  (You may also wish to send
copies of your letters to your own U.S. Senators and Representative).

Tell them that:

 -  You use information services and how you use them.

 -  You will curtail your use of these services if prices increase
    as a result of the FCC's new ONA pricing rules.

 -  The FCC's new ONA pricing rules will create the wrong incentives
    by discouraging information service providers from taking advantage
    of new network features.

 -  The FCC should reconsider the rules it adopted in Docket 89-79 and
    allow information service providers to use new network features
    without being required to pay usage-sensitive access charges that
    are three to five times higher than existing rates.

Write to:

     Honorable Alfred C. Sikes
     Chairman
     Federal Communications Commission
     1919 M Street, N.W., Room 814
     Washington, D.C.  20554

     Honorable Sherrie P. Marshall
     Commissioner
     Federal Communications Commission
     1919 M Street, N.W., Room 826
     Washington, D.C.  20554

     Honorable Andrew C. Barrett
     Commissioner
     Federal Communications Commission
     1919 M Street, N.W., Room 844
     Washington, D.C.  20554

     Honorable James H. Quello
     Commissioner
     Federal Communications Commission
     1919 M Street, N.W., Room 802
     Washington, D.C.  20554

     Honorable Ervin S. Duggan
     Commissioner
     Federal Communications Commission
     1919 M Street, N.W., Room 832
     Washington, D.C.  20554

     Honorable Edward J. Markey
     Chairman, Subcommittee on
     Telecommunications and Finance
     U.S. House of Representatives
     2133 Rayburn House Office Building
     Washington, D.C.  20515-2107

     Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications
     United States Senate
     722 Hart Senate Office Building
     Washington, D.C.  20510-1102

Fax Numbers:

     Federal Communications Commission
     202-632-7092

     Senator Daniel K. Inouye
     202-224-6747

     Congressman Edward J. Markey
     202-225-8689

To the best of our knowledge, the FCC has only one fax number.  If you
send your letter via fax (standard fax or GE Mail-to-FAX), the body of
your message should indicate that it is intended for Mr. Sikes and
that copies should be provided to the other Commissioners.


Michael Nolan, [e-mail]
Tailored Software Services, Inc.
Lincoln, Nebraska [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Appleman)
Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 18:41:12 GMT


Here is the text of Prodigy's press release responding to the recent
controversy about anti-Semitic messages:

"PRODIGY DID NOT PUBLISH OFFENSIVE MESSAGE CITED BY MEDIA;
AFFIRMS STANDARDS AND FREE EXPRESSION ON BULLETIN BOARDS

"NEW YORK, October 23 -- The Prodigy service, a personal computer
network, never published a virulent anti-Semitic note widely cited by
the news media as having appeared on its public bulletin boards, its
management said at a press conference in New York today.

"The offensive note was distributed to the media by the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith as an example of vitriolic
material it claims Prodigy allows its members to post for general
viewing.  In fact, Prodigy has determined that the note was submitted
to the service for public posting 15 times in October 1990, and was
rejected each time.

"Prodigy said the Anti-Defamation League was misled into believing the
hate- mongering note appeared on its bulletin boards.  Henry
Heilbrunn, senior vice president of Prodigy, said, 'The truth is we
didn't post it then and we wouldn't post it now.'

"Mr. Heilbrunn underscored Prodigy's commitment to free expression on
its electronic on-line service.  'The free and open nature of our
bulletin board system means that we will post notes on controversial
subjects to which some people may object at times.  That is at the
essence of the lively and vital exchange of views which have come to
characterize interactive electronic media.  But we will NOT post
notices containing language so scurrilous that it is grossly repugnant
to society's standards of decency.  Obviously, the anti- Semitic
statements cited by the Wall Street Journal and others are grossly
repugnant, and that is why they did not appear on the Prodigy
service.'

"Prodigy President Ted Papes said, 'It is a difficult balancing act.
But we intend to offer this open forum to our members by following the
principles of freedom of expression while remaining true to our role
as a family service that reaches a very broad audience with diverse
viewpoints.  We were particularly distressed by the implication that
Prodigy might condone anti-Semitism.'

"Prodigy said its guidelines for posting bulletin board notes have
broadly stated that it does not permit notes that are 'offensive.'
Mr. Papes said, 'While our policy has not changed, we now have
amplified these guidelines to define offensive as notes that are
grossly repugnant to community standards.  This would encompass notes
that are blatant expressions of bigotry, racism and hate.'

"'Indeed,' said Mr. Papes, 'We condemn anti-Semitism and other forms
of bigotry.  They are repugnant and we would never encourage them.
What we do encourage is the free exchange of ideas.  To the extent
that a handful of the five million notes posted in the past year may
be thought of as intemperate, we think that the sunshine of free
expression is the best cure for the cancer of bigotry.'

"Bulletin board on the Prodigy service are public forums, where each
note can be accessed and read by other members interested in
particular subjects.  Prodigy screens incoming bulletin board notes
electronically for specific vulgar words; it asks its members to
identify notes they feel violate the guidelines so they can be
reviewed; and it post-audits bulletin board notes for appropriateness.
Public bulletin board notes that violate guidelines, or are irrelevant
to the designated bulletin-board topic, are returned unedited to the
sender for modification and resubmission.  Bulletin boards are not
related to private messaging, which is the one-to-one exchange of
correspondence between individual members.  Prodigy does not see
private messages, which are the sole concern of the sender and
receiver.

"The Prodigy service enables families with personal computers to save
time and money on shopping, securities trading, banking and bill
paying; to find and book solid values in travel and leisure
activities; to select a broad range of information, education and
entertainment; to search an encyclopedia; to place and respond to
classified ads; and to exchange personal messages from their homes and
offices.  Each household connects to these services through its
regular telephone line attached to a home computer with a simple,
inexpensive device called a modem."


Larry Appleman                         P.O. Box 214, Cambridge B, Mass. 02140

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #852
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03283;
          26 Oct 91 17:18 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25205
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 15:33:04 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32149
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 15:32:52 -0500
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 15:32:52 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #853

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 Oct 91 15:32:10 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 853

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [Bob Izenberg]
    Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response [Tad Cook]
    Re: Pac*Bell Doubles Its Rates [Linc Madison]
    Re: SHF or UHF SATCOM Transponder Rates [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada [Chuck Grandgent]
    Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Rude Operators [David Leibold]
    Re: AT&T Advertising [John Hobson]
    Re: Video Network/Compression [Lee Castellion]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Jack Decker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real!
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 2:39:15 CDT


In TELECOM Digest #845, "J. Brad Hicks" wrote:

> Finally, they want to amend the tariff so you can mix ITS, flat-rate,
> and measured service at a single site.  Who could oppose this?

The Southwestern Bell of more than two years ago would have.  When I
ordered several additional phone lines, I requested measured service
for the lines that I expected to be used for incoming-only calls.  I
was told that measured service couldn't be had for only some of the
lines at my location.  Another clerk might have interpreted things
differently in writing the order, but I would have to watch by phone
bill each month to be sure that those lines hadn't "accidentally" been
taken off of measured service.  Has anyone tried to split measured and
flat rate service in a residence in Texas more recently than I have?


Bob

DOMAIN-WISE: [e-mail]  BANG-WISE: ...cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei

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

Subject: Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response
From: hpubvwa![e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 18 Oct 91 22:57:44 GMT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> 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.

> 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.

(stuff deleted)

> 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?

Wrong.  As I wrote on this forum before, I am served by a 5ESS (the
LAkeview exchange in Seattle).  Call Waiting works great on a
three-way call.  I have personally verified this.  I have two lines at
home, and one used to be on a #5 Crossbar, while the other was a
#1AESS, both housed in the same building.  About five years ago all
lines in the LAkeview CO were switched to a new #5ESS.

I would offer to place a three-way call to Mr. Higdon, and then let
him call me back and I would answer his third line with Call Waiting,
but no doubt at this point he would claim that I was a complete idiot
who obviously doesn't know what flavor of switch is in the C.O.

Again, the LAkeview exchange (US West) is a 5E, and Call Waiting
works fine on three-way calling.

My guess is that someone at PacBell is assuming that their version of
software is the same as on 5ESS switches everywhere.


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: Thu, 24 Oct 91 03:08:04 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Doubles Its Rates
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> Didn't anyone else notice what bombshell was buried in Pac*Bell's rate
> restructuring?

> Local Measured Usage (Daytime Rate)
>    Initial Minute increases from $0.04 to $0.05
>    Each Additional Minute increases from $0.01 to $0.02

Yup, they're proposing to double the rates.  Another way of looking at
it is that when they eliminated the distinction between Zone 1 and
Zone 2 calls, they eliminated Zone 1 instead of Zone 2.

Old system (before 6/1/91):
Zone 1 (0-8 miles)  .04/.01  (free from unmeasured lines)
Zone 2 (8-12 mi.)   .08/.02

Proposed new system:
Zones 1 & 2 (0-12 mi.) .05/.02 (free from unmeasured)

So much for expanding the local calling area, if you have measured
service.  Furthermore, Zone 2 calls used to be itemized, but no longer
are, irrespective of class of service, so you can't even see where
they're nickel-and-diming you.

(The above rates are discounted 30% for evening and 60% night/weekend)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: SHF or UHF SATCOM Transponder Rates
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 16:49:06 GMT


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

> Can anyone give me a ballpark cost for leasing a UHF or SHF SATCOM
> transponder channel (around 56Kbps) by the minute, day or month?

    You might try calling Bill Sepmeier at National Supervisory
Network.  He has a national VSAT data network for the control of
broadcast transmitters, email, and digitized audio distribution.  You
can reach him at 800 345 VSAT or 303 949 7774.


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 17:13:57 GMT


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

> 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?

There are two kinds of dial up services for 56-64 kbps use:

(1) ISDN. Provided by your local exchange carrier. Extends the 64kbps
    long-distance signaling channel right into your telephone handset.
    Computer terminal equipment can be attached to special terminal
    adapter modules.
    Recent messages have discussed rates for ISDN service.

(2) Switched 56 data service. In the US, this is offered by the
    interexchange carriers as an option on their bypass services.
    I don't think it is offered on anything but T1 access lines, so
    at a minimum, your customer premises equipment must include a
    T1 multiplexer, even if you only subscribe to one line. (The T1
    can carry 24 lines).
    I have heard a usage-sensitive rate component of 16 cents per minute
    for switched-56 data service. I don't know what the fixed component
    runs to, but I am sure you would pay a monthly mileage charge for
    the T1 access, plus rent for the CPE.

In Europe, there are separate circuit-switched data networks, which
are as separate from the voice network as the TWX network is in the
US.  These only to connect to others of their kind, and are quite
expensive to attach to.

What is your application for this ? (Business, Educational, Hobby) and
what is the call volume ? Maybe you can use the Internet file transfer
mechanisms rather than dial-up (async ?) ? Maybe you need to look into
X.25 services?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Chuck Grandgent)
Subject: Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 9:59:48 EDT


[e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 847, Message 14 of 14

> 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?

AT&T has ACCUNET switched-56 service, $10 - $20 per hour typically;
MCI and Sprint have similar services ... ACCUNET gives you 700
exchange numbers that you dial.

You'll need a CSU (like a modem), often with V.35 connectors.  There
are V.35 boards for PC's.


Chuck Grandgent, K1OM        [e-mail]
PictureTel Corporation  Peabody, Massachusetts   Voice: 508 977 8314

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Hinckley)
Subject: Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans)
Date: 24 Oct 91 19:11:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> but that is another can of worms.) For instance, MCI's "Around Town"
> evaporated without a peep and Sprint Plus became the "standard" rate.

> 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.

This is just not true. While I was very unhappy with MCI discontinuing
their "Around Town" feature, they did not do so without notice. I
recieved my first notice three months before they discontinued it, then
another on the last "Around Town" bill. Apparently many people just
never bother to read the literature that is sent with their bills.

(BTW, MCI is losing a lot of money off of me. With "Around Town" I was
$60 - $100/month, now I only send them $5 - $20/month.


Scott  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Rude Operators
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 21:16:20 GMT


[e-mail] (The Squire, Phish) writes:

> 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

Most operators I come across are good, or at least mostly harmless.
However, I've had some bizarre experiences with some Bell Canada
operators in past years:

- One loser operator gave me a rough time when I was phoning out to
British Columbia one time ... she threatened to charge person-to-
person rates on me and was a nasty case; after the call was over at
the three minute mark, she dared to phone back and demand 75 more
cents from me. Since I didn't have the change, I hung up, and
eventually phoned back to another, more reasonable, operator who
explained that the operator who placed the BC call was acting in
violation of Bell policy, namely that there is never supposed to be a
call back and if no change is available from the calling party's end,
the called party is to be asked to accept any further charges (like a
partial collect call).  This was back in the mid-80's, and certainly a
finalist in the bogus Bell employee awards for that year.

- A more recent example of a loser operator at Bell Canada: I call an
operator to ask for a location for a given area code/exchange
(commonly known as a "name place" request); in the normal, proper
case, the operator will phone up a rate and route operator in Montreal
(if outside the home area code; with all that TOPS technology, they
could have that on the keyboard, but that's not the operator's fault);
the request is made and the answer given. The loser operator, unlike
the normal operators, cuts the voice path when calling rate and route;
she comes back, gives little more than a non-answer (for instance, she
would likely respond to a request for 313-822 by saying "Michigan" or
perhaps "United States", or some such generality, but never the
specific place name).

Strategies to report such operators seem to escape me; in the former
case, the second operator who told me about the real Bell policy said
he couldn't trace down the operator. Perhaps in retrospect, the
supervisor should be called back with all relevant information, or
maybe a top level type in the business office. Or you could try again,
and the next time get a better operator.

I have this feeling the Moderator is under a deluge on this topic...


Replies: [e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail] ()
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 16:06:56 GMT
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertising


In comp.dcom.telecom [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
writes:

> Indeed.  Jerry Pournelle once wrote that AT&T couldn't market Eternal
> Life.

I have a friend who works in AT&T Technologies (what used to be
Western Electric) in Montgomery, IL.  Her department makes modems.
She had to go to a meeting at AT&T Bell Labs in Naperville, IL (about
10 miles away), and while she was there, she did a bit of wandering
around, looking into peoples' offices.  She saw modems on most desks,
but not one of them was an AT&T modem.  Most of the people she spoke
to were at best vaguely aware that AT&T even made modems.  In other
words, they apparently can't even sell to themselves.


John Hobson        Ameritech Services
225 W Randolph  HQ 17B  Chicago, IL 60606    312-727-3490
[e-mail]

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

From: Lee Castellion <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Video Network/Compression
Date: 24 Oct 91 20:08:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA


The IEEE Magazine "Spectrum" had an article about video compression in it
sometime this year.


Lee Castellion

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 19:11:39 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card


>> 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.

That is simply not true, at least not in the 906 area code of
Michigan.  I can take you to step-by-step exchanges served by
independent phone companies (obviously NOT FGD capable) and dial
Sprint's 800 access number and it will go through.  I know of no place
that around this area where it will NOT work now, and the majority of
exchanges in my area (especially to the west of me) are either still
not converted to equal access or are just being converted this year.

> 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.

C'mon, John, you're telling me that your decisions are based solely on
"technical facts" and not at all on emotion or "gut feeling"?  One
would never get that impression from your posts, which seem to just
look for reasons to claim superiority for AT&T.

The only problem I have with this is that given that AT&T ALREADY has
a substantially larger market share than ALL of their competitors, I
still feel that there is some danger of them becoming a "defacto
monopoly" again.  They already have the largest piece of the pie but
they want the whole pie, and one of the primary ways they try to get
it is by attacking the competition in their advertising.  I agree with
the person who, in a recent article, stated in effect that AT&T must
have one of the most inept advertising agencies in the country (my
words, not his).  The image of the big company picking on the little
companies is not one that plays well in the mind of the American
public (stated succinctly, "nobody loves a bully"), but it's strange
how those in big companies are often blind to this.


Jack Decker           : [e-mail]              : FidoNet 1:154/8

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #853
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06947;
          26 Oct 91 18:26 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29173
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 16:30:11 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31819
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 16:30:00 -0500
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 16:30:00 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #854

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 Oct 91 16:29:46 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 854

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates? [David Marks]
    Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates? [Chris Johnston]
    Re: Call Parking (Was Why Can't I Pickup This Call?) [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Call Parking (Was Why Can't I Pickup This Call?) [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV? [[e-mail]]
    Re: AT&T/SkyTel Venture [Mark Seiden]
    Re:    Switching System Model Numbers) [Robert McMillin]
    Re: Oakland Fire Question [Alan Sanderson]
    Re: Very Nice Motel Telecom Policy [Joel Upchurch]
    Re: 950/800 and AT&T [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance [Linc Madison]
    Re: 800 Backdoor: No Accident [Alan Toscano]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: tijc02![e-mail] (David Marks)
Subject: Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates?
Organization: Siemens Industrial Automation, Johnson City TN
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 13:18:53 GMT


TELECOM Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: ... 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]

Here where I live (Johnson City, TN) the "minimal" service is similar,
but it is not JUST FOR PEOPLE ON LIMITED INCOMES. I pay $6 a month for
my phone connection and $0.10 a call ("Pay per Call" Service). I am
NOT on a limited income, but I am SINGLE and live alone. I would have
to make over 90 calls a month (that's over three calls a day) to make
it worthwhile paying for Flat Rate Residential service which costs
$15/month. In addition I have ROTARY (pulse) service, to avoid paying
the $1/month touch tone premium. I still have access to touch tone
services, as I have a phone that can become touch tone in the middle
of a call. I don't see paying $1 for an extra five seconds saved when
dialing a call, since I make so few calls each month.

So, it doesn't always make sense to pay for all that phone service
when your not really using it. Now, if I was married and had several
teeenage kids ...


David J. Marks                       |     UUCP:        ...!uunet!tijc02!djm408
Siemens Industrial Automation, Inc.  | Internet:     [e-mail]
P.O. Drawer 1255   Johnson City, TN 37605-1255

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 14:36:14 CDT
From: Chris Johnston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates?
Organization: Department of Computer Science


    Most businesses, including most telephone companies, give volume
discounts to encourage purchases.  Of course the caller usually pays
anyway.  Perhaps SWB, being a monopoly, beleives BBS operators have
inelastic demand curves and is trying to set rates that follow the
demand curve.  I sure don't understand why a company would want to
discourage use of its product ...


cj

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

From: ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail] (Jeff Carroll)
Subject: Re: Call Parking (Was: Why Can't I Pickup This Call?)
Date: 24 Oct 91 21:12:31 GMT
Reply-To: ssc-vax![e-mail] (Jeff Carroll)
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Richard H. Miller) writes:

> 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.

Call parking is not advertised in the little brochure that Boeing
circulates to authorized telephone users. Camp-on (aka automatic
callback) is advertised and doesn't work, and (at least at my
location) group pickup works and is not advertised.

Rumor has it (from a friend who works for Boeing's internal Network
Services Group) that the internal network is in a state of
bureaucratic crisis. The one time I've had opportunity to make a call
to NSG since we went to 5ESS, it took them overnight to restore dial
tone to a block of phones that had apparently been inadvertently
turned off.


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Hinckley)
Subject: Re: Call Parking (Was: Why Can't I Pickup This Call?)
Date: 25 Oct 91 17:52:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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.

On our Boeing phones the * and # functions of each key are painted on
the plate around the keys. *9 is call park, and it works quite well
for me.


VoiceNet:Scott Hinckley | ATTnet:[phone]
Internet:[e-mail] | UUCP:...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott
US snail:110 Pine Ridge Rd / Apt# 608/ Huntsville / AL / 35801
DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV?
Organization: H. L. Mencken Fan Club
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 07:42:39 GMT


[e-mail] (Charlie Mingo) writes:

[excerpting an {NY Times} article]

> "Until and unless the telco's monopoly in voice telephone is
> ended, no level of Government safeguards against cross-subsidies will
> be effective," said James P. Mahoney, president of the cable
> association.

This part of the article perhaps deserves extra note.  If this quote
is to be believed, then the cable companies would not at all mind the
telcos carrying video if they could in turn provide voice service.
The possibility and possible lucrativeness of this are familiar topics
to TELECOM Digest readers, but as an official policy of the cable
companies it is something new.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Seiden)
Subject: Re: AT&T/SkyTel Venture
Date: 25 Oct 91 15:38:02 GMT
Organization: Seiden and Associates, Inc, Stamford, CT


[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.

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

> 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.

The answer is:

Skytel designed an interface for a specific Motorola alpha pager so
you can poll it, and download its buffer from the safari serial port.
(They hemmed and hawed about how it would *only* work with a Safari at
the Comdex press conference I went to ... only *tested* on a Safari).

The messages are transmitted in the clear, although they could be
encrypted in software by the sender and decrypted on the Safari (in
this case, the pager could not be used to view the message contents
because it can't decrypt).

There are some other problems:

There are current limitations on what the pager can store.  As I
remember, 6k in aggregate data, 2k max per message, max 20 messages.
skytel at the moment sends max length 240 byte messages, so it doesn't
take advantage of the full capacity of the pager, and you'd have to
break your messages up into 240 byte packets.

There is hardware crc on the message (validated by the pager), but a
crc error shows up as { } rather than an out-of-band tag on the
message, so there isn't an 8 bit transparent path.

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 91 12:28:17 PDT
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Switching System Model Numbers


David G. Lewis <[e-mail]> writes in response to Jim
Haynes' request for information on crossbar and electronic switches:

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

>> 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.

[much stuff deleted about old switches, crossbar and otherwise]

> #4ESS: toll switch.  Big.  First put in service in 1976.  The heart of
> the AT&T long-distance network, which is has 114 of them.

ONLY 114?  How many switches do they have overall, one wonders?

Does anybody reading know where one can see these?  If there's anybody
in the Los Angeles area who knows of some local museums that might
have such things laying about, I'd be most appreciative.


[Moderator's Note: Museums? These are switches in service around the
USA, not museum relics! Ask at your local AT&T office for a tour if
you want to see one.  PAT]

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

From: Alan Sanderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Oakland Fire Question
Date: 25 Oct 91 20:43:44 GMT
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.


Pacific Bell has offered free voicemail service or call forwarding to
victims of the tunnel fire.  Your friends may have one of these
services if they were unfortunate enough to lose their house.
Otherwise, normal telephone and electrical service was expected to be
restored by this weekend.


Alan Sanderson      Hewlett-Packard AMSO    [e-mail]
US Snail:           1266 Kifer Rd. MS101S      MaBell: 408-746-5714
                     Sunnyvale, CA 94086        FAX:    [phone]
Disclaimer:  <Standard Disclaimer Applies>

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel Upchurch)
Subject: Re: Very Nice Motel Telecom Policy
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 05:11:30 GMT
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL


When I stayed at the Crystal Lodge in Eatontown NJ, they also had AT&T
as their default long distance carrier and no charge for local calls.
Also they had modular jacks in the room and my modem worked fine.

I thought about them a lot when I was staying at Caesar's Palace in
Las Vegas last week (the week BEFORE COMDEX, thank god). I never
figured out a way to place a LD call through AT&T from the room
without paying operator assisted rates.  And they still added a buck
per call to my bill even when I charged the call to my credit card.
And they charged a buck per call for LOCAL calls. I ended up making
most of my calls from the pay phones in the lobby. Even though the pay
phones were COCOTs, at least 10ATT worked on them. And to top it off
information on these excessive phone charges is information is buried
in the service directory.


Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
[e-mail] {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel [phone]

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

Subject: Re: 950/800 and AT&T
From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 23:26:05 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])


I called ATT last night, and was told to call 1-800-225-5288 (CALL
ATT) and they would connect me with an ATT operator for calling card
calls without a surcharge for OA.  THey've moved calling card
enquiries to a new number, so my hunch is that CALL-ATT will be ATT's
800 access number.


Steven S. Brack                  |  [e-mail]
Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower     |  [e-mail]
The Ohio State University        |  [e-mail]
50 Curl Drive                    |  [e-mail]
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112   USA  |  [e-mail]
[phone] or 419 474 1010  |  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 01:24:44 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:

> Well, perhaps Pacific*Bell should inform some of its own employees
> that there is a new area code in place hereabouts.

> [from area 510 dialed 1-415-555-1212 for San Francisco directory
> assistance, operator incorrectly told me I should have dialed 411.]

PAT adds (elided for brevity):

> [Moderator's Note: Are you positive about this? ...
> [[call 411 from 708 and 312 for numbers in either area code; the
> computer voice prepends the area code if it's the opposite]]

Yup, I'm sure.  Page A3 of the Oakland directory says to dial 411 for
directory assistance, but to dial 1 + Area Code 555-1212 for D.A.
Outside Your Area Code.  My impression is that the geographic area
covered by 312/708 is rather smaller than 415/510, and the line
between the two is much more neatly drawn here (east or west of the
puddle), which may explain why they combine them.  I wouldn't be
surprised if, even after the final cutover, dialing 411 would access
numbers in either area code, but the prescribed method is to dial 411
only for numbers within your own area code.

Of course, in Texas, you dial 1 + 411 (1+ because there's a charge)
for local numbers within your area code, 1 + 555-1212 or 1 + NPA +
555-1212 for non-local numbers within your area code, and 1 + NPA +
555-1212 for any number in another area code.

Your vileage may marry.


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

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

Subject: Re: 800 Backdoor: No Accident
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 13:48:12 CDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Alan Toscano)


In TELECOM Digest V11 #848, <[e-mail]> (Martin
McCormick) writes:

> Yesterday, I finally let curiosity get the better of me and called
> that {USA Today} 800 backdoor from Oklahoma State University's
> PBX... 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...

The "Please stand by." is normal when selecting the menu option for
weather. At this point, you should have been connected to WeatherTrak,
a service provided out of Dallas, TX, by a company called AirData.
Apparently, something went wrong in the call setup.  I doubt it had
anything to do with the length of the call.

You can also reach WeatherTrak directly by calling 1 900 370-8728,
again for 95 cents per minute.

In its early days, WeatherTrak had local "free" numbers in many US
cities. These numbers had local sponsors, with brief advertisements.
After listening to the ad, you could select any available city's
weather with your DTMF phone, or just hold on for the local city's
info. As sponsors dropped out, some of these "free" numbers were
converted to 976 numbers. I think these local ("free"/976) numbers
have now all gone away, replaced by the direct 900 number above, or
through "gateways" from other pay services generally accessed via 900
or 700 numbers. In fairness, let me say that the current "pay" version
of WeatherTrak provides far more extensive information than the
earlier "free" version did.


A Alan Toscano   Internet : [e-mail]
P O Box 741982   AT&T Mail: atoscano  ELN: 62306750
Houston, TX      CIS: 73300,217   Prodigy: BHWR97A 772741982 USA
Work: [phone]   Home: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #854
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09432;
          26 Oct 91 19:12 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09177
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 17:24:04 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30740
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 17:23:52 -0500
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 17:23:52 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #855

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 Oct 91 17:23:33 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 855

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance [John R. Levine]
    Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance [John Higdon]
    Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus [David Lemson]
    Re: Oakland Fire Question [Alan Sanderson]
    Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Chuck Forsberg]
    Re: How Are 900 Calls Delivered? [Stephen Friedl]
    Correction: Re: ISDN Terminal Equipment [Carl Moore]
    Re: IBT ISDN Pricing [Jeff Wasilko]
    Re: IBT ISDN Pricing [Robert L. McMillin]
    Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, Oregon [Alan R. Gross]
    Contacting Survivors of the Oakland Fire [Earl Boebert]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Arthur Rubin]
    Sexist Mnemonics [John Hobson]
    Life, the Universe and the Telephone [Adam M. Gaffin]
    What is the ANI Code For Fremont, CA? [Chuck Hein]
    Internet Address Wanted For NYNEX [S.E. Williams]
    Same Phone Number For Two Cellular Phones [Jeff Sicherman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 25 Oct 91 12:10:42 EDT (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


Linc Madison reports that directory assistance in 510 and 415 are
still handled by the same bureau, and he has to dial 411 for either,
with 1-415-555-1212 being intercepted.  This first part turns out to
be quite common.  The 201 and 908 areas in New Jersey, 617 and 508
areas in Massachusetts, and (I think) 212 and 718 in New York City
still have common D.A. bureaus.  But at least they do something
reasonable with (other area)-555-1212.

The relationship between local/toll, intra/inter-NPA and D.A. bureaus
has always been rather approximate.  For example, even though the 609
NPA in New Jersey is two separate LATAs with toll rates from anywhere
in one of the LATAs to the other (in between are the sparsely
populated Pine Barrens) the local free 411 directory assistance gives
numbers for anywhere in 609.  On the other hand, here in Boston, I
dial 411 for numbers local to Boston while 1-555-1212 has all numbers
in 617 and 508.  I don't know why they make this distinction.  All
residential D.A. calls within Massachusetts were free until recently
and are still free for the first ten calls per month.


Regards,

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

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

Subject: Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance
Date: 25 Oct 91 01:29:12 PDT (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


[e-mail] (Linc Madison) writes:

> Then again, I sometimes wonder if Pac*Bell isn't just one giant PBX.

As the administrator for several PBXes, I am offended :-)

> [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.

Without exception in California, the standard procedure to obtain
information in another area within the state is to dial AC + 555-1212.
Yes, there are places where the 411 operator will give you numbers
across area code lines (such as 818/213), but Linc should have
expected the method that he used to have worked.

Under current tariffs (soon to possibly be changed), it is very much
to your advantage to use the area code rather than 411. Calls to 411
are measured and charged for over an allowance. Calls to DA within the
LATA, but in another AC are free. For instance, even if I could get
411 to give me a listing in Mountain View, it would count against my
411 allowance. If I (correctly) dial 415-555-1212, the call is free.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

From: [e-mail] (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 05:23:31 GMT


[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.

The University of Illinois was planning for some time to go to a DTMF
system of class registration in about two or threee years.  I've seen
indications that the administration has decided that maybe it would be
better to go to computer-based (from PC's that have Telnet -- we have
about 700 on campus) registration.

Just to let you know that some universities are thinking about this.
(Our current registration system is pre-enrollment on scantron forms,
and standing in line two days before classes for everything else.)


David Lemson                          [phone]
University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CSO NeXT Lab Sys Admin
Internet : [e-mail]            UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson
NeXTMail : [e-mail]          BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD

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

From: Alan Sanderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Oakland Fire Question
Date: 25 Oct 91 20:43:44 GMT
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.


Pacific Bell has offered free voicemail service or call forwarding to
victims of the fire.  Your friends may have one of these services if
they were unfortunate enough to lose their house.  Otherwise, normal
telephone and electrical service was expected to be restored by this
weekend.


Alan Sanderson      Hewlett-Packard AMSO    [e-mail]
US Snail:           1266 Kifer Rd. MS101S      MaBell: 408-746-5714
                    Sunnyvale, CA 94086        FAX:    [phone]
Disclaimer:  <Standard Disclaimer Applies>

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

From: omen![e-mail] (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!!
Organization: Omen Technology INC
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 21:09:00 GMT


[stuff deleted about the police using magneto crank-style phones to
extract jailhouse confessions from prisoners.]

[Moderator's Note: No; I thought of the story while editing his piece,
and I was reminded of the **** sting **** you can get from DC.   PAT]

In grade school our science teacher had our entire class of 30 join
hands and then "charged" us with a telephone magneto.  In preparation
for this everyone rubbed their hands on their clothes to get them as
dry as possible.  I wetted mine, and was the only one not to feel a
shock.

As I relive the experience I shudder to think what would have happened
if someone had a heart problem.  The circuit path was certainly
optimized.


Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX          ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc    "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD   Portland OR 97231   503-621-3406

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Friedl)
Subject: Re: How Are 900 Calls Delivered?
Date: 25 Oct 91 16:41:20 GMT
Organization: V-Systems, Inc / Santa Ana, CA


Harold Hallikainen writes:

> 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?

The phone number is [phone] at 1200bps, and the format of the
output is:

    *^M^J
    jjjjj ddd hhmmss UTC^M^J

    jjjjj    Julian date modulo 2400000
    ddd    days since beginning of year
    hhmmss    time of day in Universal Time Coordinated (aka "GMT")


Stephen Friedl, Resident Wizard /  [e-mail] /  {uunet attmail}!vsi!friedl
V-Systems, the VSI*FAX people /  Santa Ana, CA  / [phone]v 545-7653 fax

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 10:41:34 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction: Re: ISDN Terminal Equipment


Please change 201 to 908 in the listing you provided for Eatontown, NJ.
You gave the number as 201-389-5700.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko)
Subject: Re: IBT ISDN Pricing
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 13:37:29 EDT
Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY


David E. Martin wrote:

> 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

I was able to get some info on the residential pricing here in RochTel
land.

The basic price is around $26.00 for 1B+D. To add packet data over the
D channel it's an additional $1.50 or $2/month. The person I talked to
wasn't sure about adding a second B channel for voice or data.

There is no unmeasured service for residential ISDN service. Each
voice call is 8 cents. Packet-switched data in the D channel is billed
at 8 cents for 1000 packets (a packet is 128 bytes).


Jeff

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 91 12:52:32 PDT
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: IBT ISDN Pricing


David E. Martin <[e-mail]> writes:

> I am setting up an ISDN connection into my home as a trial.  Illinois
> Bell Telephone gave me the following prices for ISDN:

[rates and subsequent gripes about Illinois Bell's ridiculous ISDN
policies deleted]

> 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, I must admit I would like to be able to complain about GTE
California screwing me on ISDN, but I can't.  Why?  Because ALL of the
people there that I talked to couldn't even spell ISDN, nor did they
even know what it was.  I sympathize with your plight, but at least
you're getting ISDN into your home.  Out here, only business class
lines running Centrex get ISDN (so far as I know).


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com

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

From: [e-mail] (Alan R. Gross)
Subject: Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, Oregon
Reply-To: locke@.PacBell.COM (Alan R. Gross (1-1-90))
Organization: TREE BBS [phone] Sacramento, CA
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 05:36:08 GMT


qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:

> 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.

    I wonder like John Higdon, if we have the whole story here --
Are the BBS's in question pay boards? Do they advertise in local rags,
or on other boards? Does it matter?

    The telco I worked for once won a case at the PUC by walking
the board members out to the defendent's truck, to see the sign on the
side which advertised the number in question.


Randall A. Gross   csusac.ecs.csus.edu!tree!locke
The UNIX Tree BBS, Sacramento, CA   ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!tree!locke
Sprintmail: A.R.Gross   DISCLAIMER: Ego loquito

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

From: [e-mail] (Earl Boebert)
Subject: Contacting Survivors of the Oakland Fire
Organization: SCTC
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 22:32:14 GMT


I now have sad confirmation from eyewitnesses that my friend's house
is indeed lost and I am trying to make contact with the family.  When
I call their old number (old 415 area code, which I presume is now
510) I get a steady ring.  When I call the number that was posted here
for messages to survivors (1-800-427-7715) I get a "This number is not
reachable from your calling area."  I am calling from the 612 area
code.  Any suggestions?


Earl

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 12:26:54 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card


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.

On the other hand, Sprint just turned off one of my FONCards for fraud
(six simultaneous calls from San Fernando, CA to Mexico), and let me
know when I used one of my other FONCards (it wasn't locked, but it
transferred me to Sprint security to let me know.)


[e-mail] [e-mail]
[e-mail] (personal)   [e-mail] (work)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail] ()
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 17:49:33 GMT
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Sexist Mnemonics


> 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]

I remember "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly"
for the bands on resistors.  And there is the old astronomical one of
"Oh Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me Right Now, Smack!" (the spectral classes
of stars in descending order of heat).

(BTW -- If anyone would like the text for a poem which gives the
English monarchs from William the Conqueror on, send me e-mail).


John Hobson        Ameritech Services
225 W Randolph  HQ 17B    Chicago, IL 60606    312-727-3490
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Adam M Gaffin)
Subject: Life, the Universe and the Telephone
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 14:30:39 GMT


I am working on a couple of stories for the fine suburban daily where
I work about the future of telephones, both from the gee-whiz angle
(wow!  you mean Picturephones are coming back?!?) and in terms of
potential policy and societal changes. So far I've got PCNs, ISDN,
fiber-optics and caller-ID (and related "smart phone" services) for
the gee-whizy things, and privacy, cable vs. telco, the potential for
network collapses and universal access for the policy and societal
issues. Are there any other new technologies or issues I should be
looking at?

Many thanks!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Chuck Hein KC6SOZ 415-688-4465)
Subject: What is the ANI Code For Fremont, CA?
Organization: cisco Systems, Incorporated
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 21:52:11 GMT


I am in the Fremont, CA. area = (510)-797-xxxx.  Does the East Bay
have an ANI code ???


C.Hein

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

From: [e-mail] (S.E. Williams )
Subject: Internet Address Wanted For NYNEX
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 22:23:23 GMT


Does anyone know the internet node-name for NYNEX in Buffalo, NY?


Sean E. Williams                      ([e-mail])
Rochester Institute of Technology  -  Telecommunications Technology (ITFT)

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 01:36:30 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Same Phone Number For Two Cellular Phones
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


What are the technical and regulatory ramifications of programming two
or more cellular phones with the same phone number?


[Moderator's Note: Technically it is not possible, or at least very
unusual and difficult to accomplish. The 'regulations' say it is not
to be done.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #855
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12405;
          26 Oct 91 20:16 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07169
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 18:29:23 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31290
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 18:29:11 -0500
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 18:29:11 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #856

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 Oct 91 18:28:57 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 856

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [TELECOM Moderator]
    Call For Papers: Lightwave Technology Conference [Firat Uludamar]
    Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Dave Platt]
    Minitel and US West: <<Nice-Matin>> Reports Joint Venture [Fred Linton]
    AT&T Equipment Contracts [John Higdon]
    Test Marketing TV-by-Phone [Jeff Fires]
    Help Needed With Odd Type of LAN [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Halting 900-Lines From Sharing Info in NY [Newsday via Dave Niebuhr]
    Centrex Makes [U.K.] Public Debut [Electronics Weekly via Adam Ashby]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 17:35:14 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"


This is just a reminder to all our USA readers that we discontinue
"Daylight Savings Time" as of tonight and resume "Standard Time"
beginning at 2 AM your local time Sunday morning. Tonight you get that
extra hour to make up for the one we lost last April when clocks were
advanced the same amount of time. At 2 AM (or really, at your
convenience anytime Saturday overnight / Sunday morning) set your clock
back one hour.

If calling the talking clock (202-653-1800) to hear what it has to
say, you'll note it doesn't miss a beat: after 'at the tone, Eastern
Daylight Time, one hour, fifty nine minutes, fifty seconds', (and the
GMT/UCT offset) it will announce the time as 'Eastern Standard Time,
one hour, zero minutes exactly'. If you need to set your computer
clock, dial 202-653-0351 at 1200 baud, and note the final six digits
in the continuous printout.   PAT]

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

Date: 25 Oct 91 13:37:00 EDT
From: Firat (F.) Uludamar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call For Papers: Lightwave Technology Conference


                      BILCON'92
                   Call for Papers

        1992 Bilkent International Conference
                        on
        Lightwave Technology and Communications

                  July 27-28, 1992
                 Bilkent University,
                   Ankara, Turkey

Theme:  The goal of the conference is to provide a forum to discuss
        new and emerging trends and topics in lightwave technology
        and communications.

Paper Topics:

Theory:                             Systems:
 Basic Optical Phenomena               Fiber Optic Broadband Networks
 Optical Waveguide Theory              LAN/MAN Fiber Optic Networks
 Nonlinear Optics and Devices          Optical Image/Data Processing
 Quantum Optics                        Optical Imaging
                                       Optical Distribution Systems
                                                  (PON, FTTH, FTTC)

Transmission/Switching:              Components and Devices:
 Photonic Switching                    Fiber Sensors
 Coherent Systems                      Lasers, Fibers and Cables
 Soliton Transmission                  Integrated Optics
 Transmitter/Receiver Design           Active and Passive Fiber Components
             and Performance           Optical Amplifiers and Applications

Papers in other related areas are also welcome.


Invited Speakers: The conference will feature a number of invited
                  presentations, as well as contributed papers.
                  Invited speakers include:
      P.L. Chu, (NSW, Australia), L.G. Kazovsky (Stanford, USA),
      J.D. Love (ANU, Australia),  F.P. Payne (Cambridge, UK),
      J.H. Shapiro (MIT, USA).

Conference  proceedings:
  All papers presented at the conference will appear in a
  proceedings volume, which will be published after the conference
  by a major publishing company. The conference language is
  English.

Authors schedule:
  400-800 word summary due :               April 15, 1992.
  Notification of acceptance mailed :      May 1, 1992.
  Camera ready copy must be submitted during the conference.


There will also be optional tours to major cultural and historic
centers in Turkey.

Send all correspondence to the following address.
Include an e-mail address if possible.

BILCON'92, Bilkent University,
Bilkent, 06533
Ankara, TURKEY.

Tel: [phone],
Fax: [phone],
E-mail: [e-mail] or
        [e-mail] (in some places).


The conference is organized by Bilkent University, in cooperation with
IEEE Turkey Section.

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 10:16:28 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Platt)
Subject: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls


I recently heard a DJ on a local radio station urging people to tune
in the next morning to another DJ's show.  He said something to the
effect of "We're going to call Zaza Gabor ... we've got her phone
number.  We know she likes to sleep late ... so we're going to call
her as early as we can.  Tune in to hear the fun."

I've heard these sorts of "celebrity" phone calls on both AM and FM
radio for many years (back to the '60s, certainly) ... they seem to be
a staple gimmick for DJs on some talk-oriented shows and some rock
stations.  The people being called aren't always celebrities in the
usual sense ... sometimes they're somebody-or-other's boyfriend or
mother.  The DJ making the call sometimes identifies himself ... but
sometimes doesn't, and sometimes makes up a cock-and-bull story about
why the person is being called.

This is supposed to be funny, I guess, or good for the ratings, or for
the DJ's ego.  My own reaction is that these sorts of calls are in the
same category as rubber-crutch jokes.  The call which was going to be
placed to Zaza Gabor is an extreme example ... the DJ made it clear
that the call was going to be placed at a time when the callee was
expected to be asleep and would not normally want to receive
phone-calls.

 From my readings of the wording in our local phone book, I can't be
sure whether placing a _single_ call of this sort to an individual
would constitute harrassment (multiple calls almost certainly would).

A few questions for the readership:

-  Is this sort of yuck-it-up unsolicited phone call from a radio-station
   DJ a common practice in other parts of the country?

-  Do you think that a single such call constitutes harrassment?

-  To your knowledge, has any DJ, or radio station ever been disciplined
   for this sort of practice?


Dave Platt                  VOICE: [phone]
Domain: [e-mail]      UUCP: ...apple!ntg!dplatt
USNAIL: New Technologies Group Inc. 2468 Embarcardero Way, Palo Alto CA 94303

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

Date: 25-OCT-1991 15:05:50.38
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Minitel and US West: <<Nice-Matin>> Reports Joint Venture


The French daily <<Nice-Matin>>, in an issue appearing on (or not long
before) 18 October 1991, had the following to say under the banner
"Minitel Begins Thrust into United States" (translation here may be
more free than you'd like, but I think it captures the salient points
faithfully enough):

   After having conquered France, Minitel is beginning a thrust into
the American market.  France Telecom, along with the American
operation US West, has created a joint video-text subsidiary named
Community Link Minitel (CLM) Associates, representing a total
investment of 75 million dollars.  Of its capital, 40% is held by
Intelmatique, a subsidiary of France Telecom, while 60% is held by US
West.

   CLM Associates will use the video-text network of US West known as
Community Link, already operational in Omaha, NE, and soon to begin
operation in Minneapolis-St.Paul, MN (during October), and in Seattle,
WA (before the end of 1992).  Ultimately, Community Link will be
extended to other metropolitan regions in US West's territory, such as
Denver, CO, and Phoenix, AZ.

  CLM Associates will take an approach similar to that of the French
Minitel system, including support of the Teletel standard, low cost
distribution of Minitel terminals, and "kiosk" billing, according to
France Telecom.

  The potential market of CLM extends over 14 states with a combined
population of 25 million.  Further down the road, it is foreseen, the
France Telecom/US West partnership may extend beyond the North
American borders.

  US West, a result of the dismantling of AT&T, is one of the seven
[sic] American telephone companies.  Its value rose in 1990 to 1.2
billion dollars.  It has recently begun operations in Easter Europe.

  France Telecom, for its part, is the fifth largest
telecommunications operation in the world.  Its 1990 consolidated
"business figure" was 115 billion French francs [roughly 20 billion
dollars -- Tr.].

                        -----------

Thanks to my nice Nice cousin Irene for sending this clipping my way
:-) .

Fred E.J. Linton  Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.  649 Sci. Tower  Middletown, CT 06459
E-mail:  <[e-mail]>     ( or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com> )
Tel.:         + 1 203 776 2210 (home)      or     + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)

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

Subject: AT&T Equipment Contracts
Date: 25 Oct 91 12:06:32 PDT (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


In the process of consulting with business who have AT&T equipment
leases, a pattern is beginning to emerge. It has been mentioned on
this forum and elsewhere that AT&T lease contracts are air-tight and
that it is practically impossible to get out of them. This is not
necessarily true.

On a number of occasions lately, I have been involved with business
owners who have some miserable AT&T telephone system (usually a
Merlin) and have dismissed the idea of moving up to something useful
because of some long-term lease with AT&T that is "not cancellable by
the customer". On close inspection of the contracts, however, it has
been determined that AT&T neglected to dot an 'i' or cross a 't'.

In one case, AT&T neglected to properly transfer the contract to the
new owners of a business. In another, AT&T actually neglected to get
the customer's signature on ITS copy. In both cases, the Miserable
Merlins found themselves in a box outside the front door.

The reason I bring this up is that I know there are people who are
suffering under an AT&T "air-tight" contract who would give some part
of the anatomy to be free of it. My suggestion is that you examine it
carefully from top to bottom for errors and omissions. Make sure the
correct customer is named; that AT&T actually has your signature; or
that some other mistake has not occurred. You can bet that AT&T would
hold you to every letter of the contract; you are just as entitled to
use any missed detail to get out of it.

As an aside, I spent a day on the premesis of a client going over his
phone charges. After making a number of calls on HIS Merlin, I thought
that I would go nuts. It became very clear why he wanted OUT of that
system. After examining his AT&T lease, I cheerfully accomdated him.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Fires)
Subject: Test Marketing TV-by-Phone
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 19:03:30 GMT


Does anyone know if TV by phone wires is being tested???

  Please e-mail any info.


[Moderator's Note: Please see the 'video dial tone' articles in
previous issues of the Digest today.  PAT]

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

Date: 25-OCT-1991 04:29:34.06
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed With Odd Type of LAN


We're trying to set up a new and/or modify our present computer
system, and could use some advice and suggestions.

Specifically, we are trying to set up a system so that we can
communicate more readily with other "outside" systems (DEC, IBM, Wang,
etc.) other than our own.

We have more or less decided to set up our own system on a Banyan or
Novell Netowrk, with IBM 386s, and possibly a Wang VS-100 as one of
the nodes in this network.

Does anyone have experience setting up such a system with the Wang as
a node?  How well does this proposed system function in terms of
communicating with the outside world?

I *believe* the people purchasing the system were suggesting an X.25
link to any and all outside systems, and (I'm a bit hazy here) an x.12
protocol which all the data must conform to which will run over the
links. This is supposedly going to allow us to share IBM PC (or IBM
clone) based files, such as WordPerfect files, with the Wang and the
other nodes on the network.

I've posted aspects of the above in other forums, and although I got
some good responses, I'd like some input on the proposed system
overall and/or the X.25/X.12 protocols, which I know very little
about.

Any references to a few good texts would also be greatly appreciated!

Please reply by mail, and I'll summarize to those who are interested.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.


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

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 7:50:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Halting 900-Lines From Sharing Info in NY


This appeared in today's {Newsday}.

"Callers to dating hotlines might be giving up more than their
'innermost secrets.'  They and others who call 800 and 900 numbers
also might be helping to provide their credit histories and other
informatin that could later be used to pitch products, the state's top
consumer official says."

"Richard Kessel, executive director of the state Consumer Protection
Board, asked the FCC in a letter sent yesterday to require that
callers be told if their telephone numbers are being displayed on the
other end of an 800 or 900 call."

The article is quite lengthy but goes on to state that the service
pays the telephone company to provide ANI.

"These (I chopped down on the text while attempting to maintain the
thread) companies subscribe to data bases maintained by other than
telephone utilities and it can be cross-checked to obtain the caller's
name, address, neighbors' names, credit histories and the number of
people in the household."

"Kessel ... wants the ANI service suspended until the FCC requires
some notification to the caller that their number is being displayed.
The issue, as he sees it, is similar to the Caller-ID controversy
about displaying the calling number on the other end."

The FCC hasn't commented as yet.  "AT&T, which offers ANI in 400
markets, said that it opposed suspension of ANI but was in favor of
'safeguards that balance the consumer's right to privacy with out
commitment to enable consumers to reap the benefits of information
technology'."

Here we go again.


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

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 15:25:09 BST
From: [e-mail] (Adam Ashby)
Subject: Centrex Makes [U.K.] Public Debut


Copied varbatim from {Electronics Weekly}, 10/23/91

"After a four year delay, BT has launched its centrex service, which
allows large customers to hive off part of a public exchange.

Last week, Barclays Bank became the first customer of the new BT
service which will enable the compnay to save money on its private
telephone network through the use of BT's exchanges for call routing.

John Grimmett, head of Barclays Network Services estimates the company
will save L5m (five million pounds) on capital investment.

BT first talked of a centrex service in 1987 which was to be based on
intelligent exchanges provided by AT&T.

A lukewarm response to Mercury's 2110 centrex service launched in 1987
prompted BT to indefinitely postpone its plans.

The first centrex services based on US protocols were believed to be
difficult to use and expensive.  the service BT has launched is
significantly different from the earlier version.

It will use five intelligent exchanges supplied by Northern Telecom
last November and will support virtual private networking over a
national network.

The Barclays Bank network will initially link 900 offices around the
country and this will rise to 1,400 by 1993."

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

Not a very informative article, but a little piece of UK telecom
history being made.  A bit more meaningful to me as I spent some time
working on the Mercury Centrex, a DMS250, basically a hotchpotch of
DMS100 and SL100.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #856
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21124;
          26 Oct 91 22:03 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05278
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 20:17:58 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25890
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Oct 1991 20:17:45 -0500
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 20:17:45 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #857

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 Oct 91 20:17:24 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 857

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    MCI Friends and Family Privacy Concerns [Rob Knauerhase]
    Maximum Output for Canadian Handheld Phones? [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Concord Data Systems Help Needed [[e-mail]]
    New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing [Dale Trotter]
    Higher Rates For Modems? [Jamie Mason]
    AT&T Ads Promote Motel 6 [Harold Hallikainen]
    Station Message Detail Recorder [Tim Gorman]
    US 0800 From UK [Graham Toal]
    Philippines AT&T Credit Card [Herb Jellinek]
    Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response [John Higdon]
    Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Patton M. Turner]
    Adult Time and Temperature Service [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 19:34:14 -0500
From: Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Friends and Family Privacy Concerns


There was mention in the most recent comp.risks that MCI uses an
800-number to make available the Friends and Family circle (a list of
numbers which are 20% discounted for the F&F subscriber).  Being a
suspicious type, I fingered the account of a friend of mine (to get
his zipcode, which is the only password protection in the system) and
called the MCI number.

Surely enough, it spewed out for me all the people he lists as
"friends and family."  I was gratified to find myself on the list as a
"nominee" (which I think means he has given MCI my number to solicit
to join, though I haven't been contacted by them).

What's even more annoying about this is that for the people in his
circle, it lists the relation -- "Your sister at xxx-xxx-xxxx.  Your
cousin at xxx-xxx-xxxx" and so on.

I thought it was bad that Sprint offered your balance and payment
status to the world, but this is worse.  If I decide I hate you, and
you're in F&F, I can not only harass you, but your mom and sister as
well; from a phone number I can use a criss-cross directory and move
on from there.  Or, if my friend is investigated (on drug charges or
some such), I (or my phone number) *without my permission* am now
linked as somehow affiliated with him.

The morals of the story?

1) Why not use account number (so it's harder to remember, but it IS
at least a bit more secure, if different from phone number)?  Better
yet, why not let people choose n-digit passwords?  It's a fine line
between "user-friendly" and "amazingly invasive of privacy."

2) The bigger concern: This is arguably not the end of the world,
since it's not highly sensitive data.  But when we do end up with
phone/ISDN/network access to important data/files/whatever, it would
be nice to have an established precedent of security in today's
systems, rather than lull the general populace into permitting
trivally-acquired access to their information.

Current or past offenders include Sprint, MCI, Discover, Chas. Schwab,
and a host of others.  It would be nice to see Computer Professionals
for Social Responsibility (if that's the right name), ACM, or _any_
group with a modicum of authority take a formal stand against dialup
systems that use zipcode or the like as access codes ...


Rob Knauerhase           University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
[e-mail]       Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group


[Moderator's Note: This message has also been forwarded to the Telecom
Privacy mailing list <[e-mail]> where discussion can
continue as desired. I would like to comment though and point out that
as long as it is possible to call a live customer service representative
of any utility (telco, electric, etc) and discuss one's account with a
minimum of identification required, it seems only logical to be able
to do the same thing using an automated system. And what telco do you
know that -- unless you specifically ask them to password the account
 -- asks for anything further than 'your' name and 'your' phone number
when you call to make an inquiry? The fact that inquries are made with
touch tone buttons (or a computer keyboard) instead of your mouth does
not make the former a tool to violate someone's privacy. Instead of
worrying about this, maybe time would be better spent insisting that
the telcos -- and all utility services -- password all accounts and
require the password to be presented before 'discussing' anything. Or
is it simply easier for people to blame the computer because it does
the customer service rep's job faster and more effeciently?   PAT]

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

Date: 26-OCT-1991 15:41:15.88
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Maximum Output For Canadian Handheld Phones?


Is there a different maximum output for Canadian handheld cellular
phones?

In the U.S., the maximum output is 0.6 watts I believe. Since Canadian
full-powered cell phones can put out four watts instead of three as is
the limit in the US, I was wondering if there was any concomitant
increase in the maximum output in the handhelds.

You can bring any Canadian cell phone into the US, but the US tower
will order the phone to power down to three watts (or less), but
perhaps if the Canadian handhelds had a maximum output of one watt or
something they may be more useful than the 0.6 watt ones in some of
the more rural areas were coverege isn't so great. This would of
course still comply with the US Max output of three watts, unless
there are separate standards for handhelds (although I doubt many
switches -- especially older ones -- can tell if you are using a
handheld or not, and thus it would seem a bit difficult to set a
separate 0.6 watt handheld limit which is imposed by the tower.)

I realize that too much RF near my brain isn't a good idea, etc.. :)

Thanks for any info,


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Existentialist Man)
Subject: Concord Data Systems Help Needed
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 21:50:45 GMT


I recently acquired a modem made by Concord Data Systems. I did not,
however, acquire any documentation along with it ... if anyone can
help, I would be vastly grateful.

It is: CCD 224/AD. It is a white plastic box about the size of two
bricks side by side. It has what looks like an RS232C port on the back
labelled DTE.

It has a membrane keypad-type front panel, with quite a few indicator
LEDs. The interior has 32 DIP switches, in four clusters of eight.

Any help anyone can give me would be welcome.

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 06:35:22 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing


    I thought I might be able to solicit some ideas and comments
about an interesting problem that a friend of mine has encountered. He
has had the same unpublished telephone number for the past eight years
and has been paying New England Telephone (NET) for that service the
entire time.

    Recently new telephone books were distributed in my friend's
neighborhood and yes -- you guessed it -- his name, address and phone
number are in the book! Needless to say, he's upset over this and
would like to take some action to correct this problem.

    What he's not so sure about is what is rights are in a
situation like this. He's more upset by the fact that his address was
included since has some good reasons to want to keep that kind of info
out of the book. Obviously they could change his telephone number but
that is a minor hassle when compared to changing his address!

    Anyone got any suggestions on a course of action? He's really
quite upset about this and would like to take NET to task over this
issue. Thanks in advance for any information.


Dale

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Higher Rates For Modems
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 19:09:33 -0400


In article <[e-mail]> Chris Johnston <chris@
gargoyle.uchicago.edu> writes:

> demand curve.  I sure don't understand why a company would want to
> discourage use of its product ...

     You are assuming that the telephone company's 'product' is
phone service, i.e. providing dial tone and local calling service.
That is a reasonable assumption to make.  A phone company provides
phone service.  Totally sensible.

    Since when were telcos sensible?

    If you remember a thread of a few months back, the Baby Bells
were grated permission to offer 'Information Services'.  And they want
to make money of course.  It should be easy to undercut the competition.
They are the phone company, right?  They can do what they always do
(even though it is not allowed), which is being able to sell
'information services' by not charging themselves for access to the
phone network.  In other words, they give themselves an unfair
advantage over competing commercial providers of 'information
services'.

    Unfortunately, there are some hobbyists who are also providing
'Information Services', for FREE.  They are called BBS Sysops.  Now
the phone company has a problem: they can't sell cheaper than free.
So how can they get rid of this pesky free competion, so they can get
their monopoly?

    Oh yeah, they're the PHONE COMPANY.  They can just raise the
phone rates for their competion until they are driven out of
'business'.

    NOW do you see why they want to charge modem users more?


Jamie

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: AT&T Ads Promote Motel 6
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 22:19:02 GMT


    A recent posting complained about the TERRIBLE telephone
policies at fancy hotels (typically evidenced by very high prices for
telephone calls).

    Several of us replied with the great telephone policies of
Motel 6 (free local calls, no call surcharge, etc.).

    Today, I started hearing on the radio an ad for AT&T that
tells how great the telehone service is at Motel 6 (free local calls,
no call surcharge, AT&T long distance, etc.).

    So, does AT&T marketing read comp.dcom.telecom?


Harold


[Moderator's Note: Everyone reads TELECOM Digest, including me most of
the time.  PAT]

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

Date: 25 Oct 91 18:12:02 EDT
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Station Message Detail Recorder


Horacio T. Cadiz  [e-mail] writes in TD v11, #849:

> What is an SMDR?

SMDR is typically used with a Centrex service. The customer can get
detailed calling records on all stations in the Centrex rather than a
summary bill against the main billing number for the Centrex. It is a
software function in the central office switch that has to be applied.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
* opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence*

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: US 0800 From UK
Date: 25 Oct 91 23:08:07 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


I read in some article here recently that you can call US 0800 numbers
from the UK by going via AT&T if you have an AT&T credit card.  This
sounds good, I said, so I phoned AT&T London today to ask for a fact
sheet on their credit-card service and an order-form. I'll let you
know if I can get away with never using the card for pay-calls... :-)

The real reason I'm posting is to tell you that London directory
enquiries *had never heard* of AT&T! (Or American Telephone &
Telegraph ...).  It took me *ages* to find their number, under a
non-obvious subject heading in the business directory.

I wonder whether this is deliberate on the part of BT?


[Moderator's Note: Actually, we call them '800' numbers rather than
'0800' and you *will* pay for the call between the UK and the USA. It
is only the second part of the connection -- from Pittsburgh in the
USA to the place where the 800 subscriber is located that you will get
without charge -- and then, only if the subscriber uses AT&T 800
service. You didn't assume AT&T would connect you free to the 800
numbers of MCI subscribers or give you a free call across the ocean,
did you?  :)  Regards the listing, it is probably incompetence on the
part of BT (or the way AT&T chose to be/not be listed) rather than a
deliberate action by BT with malice aforethought. PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 91 20:06:19 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Herb Jellinek)
Subject: Philippines AT&T Credit Card


Full page ad in the Oct. 25, 1991 issue of {Asiaweek Magazine}, p. 30:

A dollar saving idea for frequent travellers to the US.

Call in the US ...

    but pay in pesos in the Philippines.

The PLDT Telecharge Card lets you make calls in the US and charge them
to your telephone number in the Philippines.

That means you pay in pesos, in the Philippines!  What's more, the
Telecharge Card can be used for both domestic and overseas calls made
in the US.

Save your dollars in the US.  Apply for a PLDT Telecharge Card today!

[Ordering information deleted]

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

The ad features a picture of a PLDT Telecharge Card, which bears both
the PLDT and AT&T logos.

Is anyone aware of similar foreign-issued US phone cards?


Herb Jellinek, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think you can use the British Telecom card here.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response
Date: 26 Oct 91 16:07:17 PDT (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


hpubvwa![e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

> Wrong.  As I wrote on this forum before, I am served by a 5ESS (the
> LAkeview exchange in Seattle).  Call Waiting works great on a
> three-way call.

To parphrase a line used recently in this forum:

"Gee, who am I supposed to believe -- two AT&T engineers, a Pac*Bell
senior switchman, about ten correspondents, MY own experience on three
separate 5ESS switches, and the published feature description, OR Mr.
Cook?"

In all fairness, more than one person has suggested that CW on 3W MIGHT
be possible if the line is equipped with some flavor of Centrex or
"mini-Centrex" such as Commstar or Starline or whatever. Is this the
case, Tad?

> My guess is that someone at PacBell is assuming that their version of
> software is the same as on 5ESS switches everywhere.

And is there some reason why it should be any different? As far as I
know, AT&T is still responsible for all the generics.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 91 18:47:22 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!!


Tim Gorman <[e-mail]> writes:

> It also seems to me that I remember reading that the "leakage" current
> on the cable (to ground I suppose?) provides a "sealing" function to
> splices in the cable preventing them from corroding to an open
> condition.

This is true.  The cable is at -48 V so it presents a negative charge
to ions that would otherwise corrode the metal.  This is a common
technique called cathodic protection and is often used on bridges and
pipelines as well.


Patton Turner   [e-mail]    KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 20:03:16 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Adult Time and Temperature Service


In case you want something other than the standard messages to set
your clock by tonight, you might try the "Adult Time and Temperature
Service", a free program heard at 312-489-1505. In addition to the
aforementioned information, as it relates to Chicago, you get a choice
of voicemail advertisements wherein people describe their special
interests. You also get to place your own personal message on the
service if desired, subject to review before it is heard by others.

It would be a bargain at twice the cost ... or half the cost for that
matter ... and certainly more interesting to listen to than the one
sponsored by the First National Bank. Don't forget to set your clocks
back one hour tonight!


PT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #857
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29324;
          27 Oct 91 12:57 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29678
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 27 Oct 1991 11:15:35 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14219
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 27 Oct 1991 11:15:20 -0600
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 11:15:20 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #858

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Oct 91 11:15:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 858

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Graham Toal]
    Switched 56 [Steve Forrette]
    Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada [Vance Shipley]
    Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada [Ted M. A. Timar]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [John Higdon]
    Re: Life, the Universe and the Telephone [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [[e-mail]]
    Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: AT&T Ads Promote Motel 6 [Chuck Forsberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 00:54:04 GMT


    I've also heard several calls that I don't think would get
past the FCC, but the FCC generally works on a complaint basis.  For
reference, you can check 47CFR73.1206, which says:

    73.1206 Broadcast of telephone conversations.  Before
recording a telephone conversation for broadcast, or broadcasting such
a conversation simultaneously with its occurrence, a licensee shall
inform any party to the call of the licensee's intention to broadcast
the conversation, except where such party is aware, or may be presumed
to be aware from the circumstances of the conversation, that it is
being or likely will be broadcast.  Such awareness is presumed to
exist only when the other party to the call is associated with the
station (such as an employee or part-time reporter), or where the
other party originates the call and it is obvious that it is in
connection with a program in which the station customarily broadcasts
telephone conversations.

    This section adopted by FCC Docket 18601, effective 22 June
1970.  The Report & Order is in the Federal Register, volume 35, page
7732 and FCC Report Second Series, volume 19, page 1504.

    This question was also brought up on a panel discussion (where
I was a panel member) at the National Association of Broadcasters
Radio Convention in September in San Francisco.  I think the rule is
quite clear (as opposed to many FCC Rules), but it is violated
frequently.  A station here in San Luis Obispo was fined for violating
this rule somehwere between 15 and 20 years ago.  I have not heard of
anyone getting fined for this recently.  I've read all the FCC
violation notices issued to radio and TV stations in 1988 and 1989,
and there were none for that violation (the violation notices and
related correspondence runs about 3,000 pages per year).

    In August, the FCC released a new "fine schedule" that
specifies fines of up to $25,000 per violation/day for various
violations.  This one is not on the list.


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Date: 27 Oct 91 13:20:51 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


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

> A few questions for the readership:

> Is this sort of yuck-it-up unsolicited phone call from a
> radio-station DJ a common practice in other parts of the country?

Noel Edmonds used to call people at random on his UK TV show. It
appeared to be live -- hence the following: one call was answered by a
very determined woman who insisted on knowing how he got her
ex-directory number.  "But but but I'm *NOEL EDMONDS* from BBC's Swap
Shop" he spluttered; "Never heard of you.  Please tell me how you got
my ex-directory number."

Haven't heard much of N.E. since someone got killed in one of his
stunts a few years back.

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 91 22:18:29 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Switched 56


Does anybody know if there is interconnection between AT&T's "Switched
56" and the similar products offered by MCI and Sprint? i.e. can
someone with a T1 to AT&T connect a 56Kbps channel to someone with a
Sprint T1?  If this is not possible today, is it something that is
likely in the future?  I realize that ISDN will do this, but I'm
interested in something that's generally available today.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 15:34:43 GMT


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

> I don't think it is offered on anything but T1 access lines, so
> at a minimum, your customer premises equipment must include a
> T1 multiplexer, even if you only subscribe to one line. (The T1
> can carry 24 lines).

This is simply not true.  Switched 56 service san be obtained on
Datapath lines which are functionally similiar to modems.  AT command
set, RS-232 and ringback through the speaker.

(Datapath is a Northern Telecom product.)


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

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

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 00:27:51 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Ted M A Timar)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Omron Computer Systems R&D Labs
Subject: Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada


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

> Switched 56 data service. In the US, this is offered by the
> interexchange carriers as an option on their bypass services.
> I don't think it is offered on anything but T1 access lines, so
> at a minimum, your customer premises equipment must include a
> T1 multiplexer, even if you only subscribe to one line. (The T1
> can carry 24 lines).

An alternative to a full T1 channel bank would be a drop/add
multiplexer capable of just dropping one line from a T1.  Bayly
Telecom in Ajax, Ontario sells a device called the T1 Omniplexer,
which does this.


Ted Timar - - - [e-mail]
Clearly, this has nothing to do with my present employer.
I have not affiliation with Bayly Telecom, though I did work for their
predecessor two years ago.

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

Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card
Date: 26 Oct 91 16:38:28 PDT (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes:

> That is simply not true, at least not in the 906 area code of
> Michigan.  I can take you to step-by-step exchanges served by
> independent phone companies (obviously NOT FGD capable) and dial
> Sprint's 800 access number and it will go through.  I know of no place
> that around this area where it will NOT work now, and the majority of
> exchanges in my area (especially to the west of me) are either still
> not converted to equal access or are just being converted this year.

Just because an office does not offer the end user PIC or 10XXX
dialing does not mean that the FGD mechanism is not in place. The
equipment and protocols that make up the FGD capability are described
in a book two inches thick. Did a switchman tell you that the office
was not FGD capable or did you just assume that because it does not
APPEAR to be fully implemented?

> C'mon, John, you're telling me that your decisions are based solely on
> "technical facts" and not at all on emotion or "gut feeling"?  One
> would never get that impression from your posts, which seem to just
> look for reasons to claim superiority for AT&T.

I don't have to look for them. Over the past fifteen years, the OCCs
themselves have proved time and time again that the only consistent
performer in the IEC market is AT&T. Slick ads, "pins dropping",
"office-speak commercials", and Candice Bergen do not a long distance
company make. AT&T is STILL the only long distance company in the
country that can:

1. Provide the finest sounding international connections;

2. Reliably connect you with virtually any internal technical department
   in almost any telco in the nation;

3. Correct a billing mistake with one call to a rep that takes less
   than one minute from dialing to hanging up;

4. Require fewer of those calls than any other company because its
   billing is remarkably accurate;

5. Reliably and quickly give a caller "route and rate" info as well as
   place name.

I have said it before: if all you need out of your long distance
company is casual residential service, then any of them will probably
do. If your needs are somewhat more complex, then you had better
examine how important reliable and capable service is to your
operation.

> The only problem I have with this is that given that AT&T ALREADY has
> a substantially larger market share than ALL of their competitors, I
> still feel that there is some danger of them becoming a "defacto
> monopoly" again.  They already have the largest piece of the pie but
> they want the whole pie, and one of the primary ways they try to get
> it is by attacking the competition in their advertising.  I agree with
> the person who, in a recent article, stated in effect that AT&T must
> have one of the most inept advertising agencies in the country (my
> words, not his).  The image of the big company picking on the little
> companies is not one that plays well in the mind of the American
> public (stated succinctly, "nobody loves a bully"), but it's strange
> how those in big companies are often blind to this.

We disagree here. Granted, AT&T had a major head start, but if the OCCs
really provided such wonderful service with major savings all the
advertising in the world would not help AT&T. Also, I have not noticed
that MCI and Sprint are silent in the Madison Avenue arena.
And furthermore, if AT&T's agency is so inept, why has this not hurt
them even more?

The truth of the matter is that the OCCs are simply "me too" players
that would like to have the image of AT&T while appearing to be bargain
priced. What do the OCCs offer that you cannot get with AT&T? In my
experience, nothing on a consistent basis.

For instance, not one of the major OCCs offer alternative billing
(calling card, etc.) without a surcharge. Why? Because that is the way
AT&T has always done it? If you recall, the historical reason for a
surcharge was that such calls required operator assistance. That is no
longer the case, and yet AT&T and all the rest still tack on that
ridiculous charge. Why hasn't Sprint or MCI scooped AT&T on this?

A final point: if you are so concerned about monopolies, you need look
no further than your local telco. The FCC, the congress, and the courts
seem hell-bent on giving telcos more and more power and influence over
your life. They are now permitted to provide information and video
services in addition to local dial tone. And just how do you think that
they will finance these ventures? Hint: by draining those people
served by the only monopoly left -- local exchange service. Just look
what is happening in California.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 91 20:56:00 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Life, the Universe and the Telephone
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adam M
Gaffin) writes:

> I am working on a couple of stories for the fine suburban daily where
> I work about the future of telephones, both from the gee-whiz angle
> (wow!  you mean Picturephones are coming back?!?) and in terms of
> potential policy and societal changes. So far I've got PCNs, ISDN,
> fiber-optics and caller-ID (and related "smart phone" services) for
> the gee-whizy things, and privacy, cable vs. telco, the potential for
> network collapses and universal access for the policy and societal
> issues. Are there any other new technologies or issues I should be
> looking at?

  Well, you might want to examine how the miniaturization of cellular
phones and the ubiquitousness of the service will eventually make us
all available electronically. Seems like this has many implications
for security, privacy, and efficiency in our lives.

  BTW, speaking of "smart phones", has any one put one of the smaller
new ones in a shoe yet?

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!!
Date: 27 Oct 91 02:40:29 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 848, Message 1 of 9

> 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.

    This is joke right?

    All equipment using electricity can kill you, especially if
you put it in your mouth. Also, any conversion kit would still have to
convert the steam or other system to electricity to let your old phone
work.

    I would say you are not competant to work with electricity and
should maybe call in someone with the training and tools to do it.
Perhaps you should stay away from all machinery.

    By the way, the bell is not powered with 48V DC, it is powered
with AC up to 150 V.


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]
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Date: 27 Oct 91 14:47:55 GMT


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

> This is just a reminder to all our USA readers that we discontinue
> "Daylight Savings Time" as of tonight and resume "Standard Time"
> beginning at 2 AM your local time Sunday morning. [...] At 2 AM
> (or really, at your convenience anytime Saturday overnight / Sunday
> morning) set your clock back one hour.

Several years ago France introduced daylight savings time (or
"Summertime").  It was a new concept, so there was a bit of effort
expended to explain the idea, and how it worked.  I am told that in
every explanation it was carefully pointed out that "Now, this does
*not* mean that you have to get up at 2:00 AM to change your clock!
Any time Saturday night or Sunday morning is fine!"


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

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

Subject: Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs
From: cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 03:52:27 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Jim Redelfs) writes:

>> We Rape Beautiful Young Virgins, But Only Girls Beyond Sixteen.

> Gee!  That's a NEW one on me!  A kindly, old installer (now retired)
> trained me with "Why Run Backwards You Varmint"!!

Sounds like the way I was taught the resistor color code, way back
when...

"Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly.  Sometimes
for Gold, sometimes for Silver, but usually for Nothing."

(The second part? The tolerance coding, of course)

> I'm sure the former example would NEVER fly in today's environment.

Likewise my example, but I don't recall hearing a more politically
correct version.  Anyone else have a "clean" mnemonic for resistor
codes?


Roy M. Silvernail |+|  [e-mail]

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

From: omen![e-mail] (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Subject: Re: AT&T Ads Promote Motel 6
Organization: Omen Technology INC
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 11:46:20 GMT


I stayed at a Motel 6 (once upon a time it really was $6/night!)  in
Las Vegas over COMDEX.

The good news is: There is no charge for phone calls.

The bad news is: There is no way to charge phone calls to your room.
No problem for local calls, but you must use a credit card, call
collect, or whatever you'd have to use at a public phone.  That's not
as convenient as just dialing the number already.


Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX          ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
  Omen Technology Inc    "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD   Portland OR 97231   503-621-3406

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #858
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02267;
          27 Oct 91 14:18 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11917
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 27 Oct 1991 12:26:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05430
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 27 Oct 1991 12:26:04 -0600
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 12:26:04 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #859

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Oct 91 12:25:13 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 859

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates? [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [Colin Plumb]
    Residential vs. Business Rates: The Flip Side [Nick Reid]
    Re: AT&T Advertising [Mark Held]
    Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance [Al L. Varney]
    Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing [David Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Why Separate Business and Residence Rates?
Date: 25 Oct 91 17:43:55 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, crowfix.crowfix!felix@
uunet.uu.net (Felix Finch) writes...

> 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?

Great set of questions!  I'll try to answer as best as *I* can, but of
course it's all personal opinion (how's that disclaimer?).

As guessed, it's a subsidy.  The "real" cost of typical phone service,
as revealled in tariff-support filings over the years, for the average
urban line, is about $13/month fixed and $7/month for local usage.
That is, the phone company needs to average $20/month per line.  Note:
Rural costs more to serve, urban less.

Residential basic rates are held low to make service affordable.  It's
the "universal service" principle: If everybody has a phone, every
phone is worth more.  (Magazine ads in the '30s had postal addresses,
but rarely phones.  Mail order meant mail order, not phone/UPS!)  So
they intentionally lose a little on basic residential service.

Nowadays, toll usage is extraordinarily cheap to provide, compared to
price.  Few intra-LATA calls cost telco more than about $.03/minute;
most cost much less, based upon fully distributed cost.  The rest goes
to make up the losses on residential service. Likewise, business line
rates range from "compensatory" (pay their own way) to "contributory",
based upon state policy.

So reclassifying modems as "business" will remove them from the
subsidized residential class and, in the case of SWB, move them into
the "contributory" (overpriced) class.

If everybody paid true cost, with a limited subsidy for the needy with
an identified source, things would be a lot easier.  But the politics
are against it.


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] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real!
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 18:52:58 -0400
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


In article <[e-mail]> William.Degnan@p0.f39.
n382.z1.FidoNet.Org (William Degnan) writes:

> 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.

In other words, *nobody* gets it unless they ask (and pay!) for it.
H'm... that's a pretty big change hidden in three lines of text!

> 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.

In other words, any modem above 2400 baud counts (all use DSP
techniques), never mind every fax machine, terminal, terminal
emulator, or printer made since the days of genuine TTY's.  I suggest
that the fact that fax decompression is a non-trivial amount of
computation (which is germane to the telco -- without compression,
phone usage would be a lot higher) would let you provoke some wrath
from the business community.

Come to think of it, PBX's and most key systems (not A/A1) come under
this category.  What is my phone doing when I hit speed dial if not
processing data and/or performing calculations?  *Answering machines*
process data and perform calculations.  (Was that the security code?
What does that remote signal mean?  How many rings has it been?  Is
the OGM over yet?  Etc.)

I guess people don't count as "equipment," or it would cover *all*
phone usage.  Data = information, and you don't send much else over a
phone line.

> 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.

Is that disclose *directly*, or advertise?  It seems like an attempt
to directly attack BBS's whose numbers get spread around.  This is a
bit fussy, because "informs us" is compared (presumably as an
opposite) with "disclose."  Since they leave it as a possibliity, and
a phone line is not very useful unless someone else knows the number,
I have to assume they mean discloses directly to the phone company.
This, then, is fine ... few BBS operators do more to publicize their
numbers than get the ball rolling by telling a few friends.  Companies
which advertise directly (business cards, oir whatnot) their fax
numbers are in more jeapordy.

If this means "if we (the phone company) find out," then nobody has
any defense, as the phone company can always call the number and see
what answers.

> 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.

Funny, they're getting paid for the calling end ...

> 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.

The way I read it, there's a special "Information Terminal Service"
rate, which is higher than other available services which "provide
completely satisfactory data transmission."  It is not stated anywhere
how this rate compares with residential or business flat rate or
measured service.  It seems safe, however, to assume it's more
expensive than what most customers are using now.

Basically, the phone company is trying to charge for using the phone
line for anything other than people talking to people, which is a
rapidly growing field these days.  I suggest you alert everyone else
who has something hooked up to a phone line.  Regardless of assurances
the telco might make about my memory-dialer phone I got for $9.99 at
K-mart, once the tarriff is in force, thay can enforce it.

(I'm reminded of certain Canadian computer-law statutes that define a
computer as a collection of components some of which do computer-like
things.  So the whole country is a computer, as well as most subsets.)


Colin

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Reid)
Subject: Residential v Business Rates: The Flip Side
Organization: C.S. Dept, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 10:35:58 GMT


In an article on page 39 of {Communications News} for October 1991
(ISSN 0010-3632, Nelson Publishing, 2504 North Tamiami Trail, Nokomis,
FL 34275-3482) entitled "Collocation with rate parity an important
goal", August Blegen, Contributing Editor, notes that:

"Parity with residential rates, as collocation charges are established,
should be the next goal of business users."

and,

"For example, the tier I, basic, residence, one-party service rate
from the local exchange carrier in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area is
$14.16.  The comparable business rate is $42.48 or 200% higher.  The
only data with which this writer is familiar that supports any
disparity is a claim business lines, on the average, carry 60% more
traffic than comparable residential lines."

The disparity in rates is attributed to the fact that "State public
service commissions historically have approved loading business rates
to pay for residential services.  It's a political, populist ploy that
plays well in most local governments" and the thrust of the article is
"Why?  Because its been going on for years?  That's a review of history,
not a justification!"

Clearly, in a pressured economy, this will be the viewpoint of many
businessmen, comprising a powerful lobby persuading the telcos not
only to reclassify bulletin boards from residential rates to business
rates, but also to raise residential rates and lower business rates
across the board - one which the telcos, without specific political
intervention, will find very hard to resist.

Which may be something worth considering at this time ...

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

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 10:13:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Held <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertising


It is very true that AT&T cannot market to themselves.  I was working
for AT&T Technologies (Reading Works) in late 1983 or early 1984 when
I was given a new 3B2 as a development machine.  The stock set of
software provided did not include a C compiler.  I attempted
unsuccessfully over the next eight months to purchase a compiler.  I
called the advertised internal number at least two dozen times, never
getting anywhere. Always the person who answered would "forward my
message to the correct person" but I never recieved any return calls.

Finally I noticed a huge two page spread in some trade magazine
advertising the 3b line of products including software.  It featured
an 800 number.  In desparation I called that number and explained what
I wanted.  I was sent to four more numbers in succession and the last
number I called connected me to someone who had no idea why I was
given their number.

I was dumbfounded at the ineptitude and the 3b2 was never used for the
project.  This little set of frustrations contributed to my decision
to leave as I felt that AT&T would surely go under before they could
support themselves by selling computers.


Mark Held ([e-mail])

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

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 09:20:42 CST
From: [e-mail] (Al L Varney)
Subject: Re: 510 Cutover Annoyance
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


It's not exactly "510 Cutover" related, but I'm confused about the
whole intra-NPA and inter-NPA Directory Assistance issue.  I've
excerpted some relevant comments below:

> Without exception in California, the standard procedure to obtain
> information in another area within the state is to dial AC + 555-1212.
> Yes, there are places where the 411 operator will give you numbers
> across area code lines (such as 818/213) ...

> Under current tariffs (soon to possibly be changed), it is very much
> to your advantage to use the area code rather than 411. Calls to 411
> are measured and charged for over an allowance. Calls to DA within the
> LATA, but in another AC are free. For instance, even if I could get
> 411 to give me a listing in Mountain View, it would count against my
> 411 allowance. If I (correctly) dial 415-555-1212, the call is free.

> Of course, in Texas, you dial 1 + 411 (1+ because there's a charge)
> for local numbers within your area code, 1 + 555-1212 or 1 + NPA +
> 555-1212 for non-local numbers within your area code, and 1 + NPA +
> 555-1212 for any number in another area code.

> Moderator's Note:
> ... we have both 708 and 312 exclusively for the Chicago
> and suburban area, [but] we dial 411 from either area for information
> about both.

> Linc Madison reports that directory assistance in 510 and 415 are
> still handled by the same bureau, and he has to dial 411 for either,
> with 1-415-555-1212 being intercepted.  This first part turns out to
> be quite common.  The 201 and 908 areas in New Jersey, 617 and 508
> areas in Massachusetts, and (I think) 212 and 718 in New York City
> still have common D.A. bureaus.  But at least they do something
> reasonable with (other area)-555-1212.

> The relationship between local/toll, intra/inter-NPA and D.A. bureaus
> has always been rather approximate.  For example, even though the 609
> NPA in New Jersey is two separate LATAs with toll rates from anywhere
> in one of the LATAs to the other (in between are the sparsely
> populated Pine Barrens) the local free 411 directory assistance gives
> numbers for anywhere in 609.  On the other hand, here in Boston, I
> dial 411 for numbers local to Boston while 1-555-1212 has all numbers
> in 617 and 508.  I don't know why they make this distinction.  All
> residential D.A. calls within Massachusetts were free until recently
> and are still free for the first ten calls per month.

Here is the reason for my confusion: There seems to be an underlying
assumption that, when calling 411, et al, one knows the NPA of the
desired party.  Is that a reasonable assumption?  Does 411 look up the
number, then determine you have accessed the DA bureau incorrectly?
So then you can call the same center again, using the required dialing
sequence?  Aren't there many cases where either the location spans two
NPAs or the specific location is unknown (the number for a restaurant
along a sparsely populated Interstate highway, for instance)?  It
would seem to me that the billing issues could be resolved by the DA
system, not the customer.


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


[Moderator's Note: What you are suggesting is the way it is done here.
We just dial 411, give the general region (north suburban, west area,
Chicago, etc) where the information is desired, and the name. The
system does the rest, including prepending the area code.  PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 10:28:17 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


{Friend paid for unlisted, SlimeBell listed it anyhow. What's his
recourse?}

This is exactly why I refuse to pay any LEC to have non-pub service.
"Unlisted" really means "unlisted until we decide to screw up, or
someone here sells it , or ALD sells it, etc."

In fact, Ohio Bell had such a rotten record of such, they made you
sign a disclaimer/waiver that said basically "We guarantee to CHARGE
you for non-pub, not deliver it."

However, such disclaimers are typically used to scare off the legally
naive. I settled my case for a trivial amount of money.  An attorney I
know collected far more. The irony is I suspect you would have a far
weaker case if the LECs did not charge for non-pub.

Have your friend retain an attorney. Start negotiations at the price
to buy and move to another house. Given that case in LA where some
suspect allegedly got the actress's address from DMV and then killed
her, you might find SlimeBell ready to talk.

Oh, and my long-term solution against future SlimeBell screw-ups is
simple:

    Never order service in your name.
    When you get service, demand an unlisted ADDRESS. This is
    typically free!


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #859
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17509;
          27 Oct 91 20:53 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04944
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 27 Oct 1991 19:05:51 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02545
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 27 Oct 1991 19:05:38 -0600
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 19:05:38 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #860

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Oct 91 19:05:27 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 860

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Accelerated Index for Back Issues [TELECOM Moderator]
    AT&T Data for HyperCard [David Newman]
    Speaking of Telco Security ... [[e-mail]]
    Snoopy Phone Wanted [David Dodell]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Paul Schleck]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Robert L. McMillin]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs [Jacob R. Deglopper]
    Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [David Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 15:42:43 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Accelerated Index for Back Issues


I spent much of this weekend working on an accelerated index for the
back issues of TELECOM Digest, and have the following now complete:

    Volume 11 to date
    Volume 10 complete
    Volume  9 mostly there

What I did was go through the archives files and grep the subject
lines from the headers of the past issues. I then sorted these in
alphabetical order, leaving the 'Re:' in place where it appears but
ignoring it in the sort.

A typical line in the accelerated index reads like this:

11/251-300: Subject Title Here [Author's Name]
11/251-300: Re: Subject Title Here [Author's Name]

The digits mean to look in volume 11 at the file of back issues (in
this case) 251-300. The first two digits will be 09, 10, or 11. The
next group of six digits will be 001-050, 051-100, 101-150 .... up to
801-850 in the case of volume 11. You'll find these in their own
directory within the Telecom Archives.

You can grep any meaningful part of this file. I strongly suggest
using 'grep -i' since there are instances of the wrong case used
in the titles, and other typographical errors.

Where there are duplicate titles such as an original message and many
other 'Re:' messages following, then all the messages of that title
are further sorted alphabetically by the author's entire name -- not
just his/her last name. For example, two articles with identical
titles, one by John Higdon and one by Fred Smith would have the one by
Fred Smith filed first.

You can grep-i for author's names, i.e. Higdon; you can grep -i for
single words if desired, or entire phrases. Only the headers of each
subject are in the index. From there you have to go to the referenced
file and pull the block of issues mentioned.

Remember when you use grep -i, the arguments go like this:

       grep -i keyword index >> output of choice
       grep -i "more than one word" index >> output of choice

A 'keyphrase' then, or complete article title, must be in quotes.
A single keyword does not have to be.

You will have to experiment with this and find the right keywords
to use to narrow your search. For example, the keyword 'cellular'
would produce screen after screen of listings. Likewise, to search
for 'MCI' or "AT&T' would be futile.  You'd have more than you
could ever deal with. Yet if you get too specific, then you might
not get a hit at all ... so play with it until you get it as
you like it.

This file (called 'index-vols.9-10-11.Z') is *so* huge. Of course, it
is but a mere fraction of the files it represents, yet the size
of the file is 1305005 if that tells you anything. Take it
from the archives back to your site via ftp at your risk! It is
compressed in the Archives with a size of 400000+, making it easier to
move by ftp back to your site. You'll need to uncompress it when you
get it to your machine.

This index starts in March, 1989 and runs through mid-October, 1991.
Later on, I'll figure out how to add issues after V11 #850, which is
where it stops presently.

Furthermore .... this is just a starter. A couple readers are
working hard on getting a WAIS (wide area information server) up and
running for the archives. We are hoping this will soon be available
also. But for now, if you can handle a file the size of the index,
go to it!

Enjoy!


Patrick Townson

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

From: [e-mail] (David Newman)
Subject: AT&T Data for HyperCard
Date: 27 Oct 91 21:59:42 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas


I just got an interesting pamphlet in the mail.  I thought that the
people here on C.D.T might be interested.  Here are a couple of
excerpts:

"... what time is it in Paris, France?  Find out with the new Area
Code & Time Finder HyperCard Stack.  This 3 1/2" Macintosh disk puts
the world in your hands.  Enjoy the benefits of having the area code
and time for over 8,400 domestic and foreign cities at your fingertips
filed neatly in the easy-to-use Area Code and Time Finder HyperCard
stack. This time-saver can be a huge asset to you or you business, and
it is as clos as your computer: Order this valuable HyperCard stack
today!"

"o Lists area code and current time for more than 7,000 listed
   U.S. and Canadian cities (with direct dialing access).
 o Lists area code and current time for more than 1,400 foreign
   cities from nearly 60 countries (with direct dialing access).
 o Designed for use with HyperCard 1.2, but can be easily converted
   to HyperCard 2.0. Simply click on Help/Instructions button of
   Title Card for information."

The Ordering information indicates that you should call 800 432-6600
and ask for #999-600-111D.  The price is $19.95, and the product will
ship in mid-November.  Oh, and by the way, the product is from AT&T.


Dave


[Moderator's Note: I assume all our USA readers got their clocks moved
back an hour over the weekend.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (The Squire, Phish)
Subject: Speaking of Telco Security ...
Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business.
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 05:23:40 GMT


The discussion of security got me to thinking about something I did
just the other day. One of the four roommates here decided that she
didn't like having all seven of our phone lines (we're all
computer-types and I run a BBS) in her name (It was for convienience).
So I arranged with another of the roommates to put in his name his one
line and my three. I called the service number one afternoon and had
them changed. They asked me his SSN and DLic, and that was all it took
to make changes. I could just as well have used the SSN and DLic of
someone I'm not too keen on and given them every COMSTAR feature (at
$5+ a pop...), changed their DX carrier, or even disconnected their
lines.

Things that make you go Hmmm...


[e-mail] | Fubar Systems BBS
                       | (805) 54-FUBAR
3/12/24, MNP5, 8N1     | FSBBS 2.0, FSUUCP 1.2


[Moderator's Note: The experience you describe is all too common, and
its one reason I can't get too excited if MCI or others want to put
all the data at your fingertips via touchtone buttons. Either secure
the data however it may be transmitted, or leave it all open. People
are either honest or they are dishonest.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 10:48:21 mst
From: [e-mail] (David Dodell)
Subject: Snoopy Phone Wanted


My wife's birthday is coming up, and she mentioned at one time that
she missed the "Snoopy" telephone she had as a kid.  I called the
local AT&T store, and confirmed that they did make one at a time, but
no longer.

Anyone have any suggestions where I might find one of these in working
order?


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]

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

Date: 27 Oct 91 11:42:00 CDT
From: "Paul Schleck" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls


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

> I recently heard a DJ on a local radio station urging people to tune
> in the next morning to another DJ's show.  He said something to the
> effect of "We're going to call Zaza Gabor ... we've got her phone
> number.  We know she likes to sleep late ... so we're going to call
> her as early as we can.  Tune in to hear the fun."

> I've heard these sorts of "celebrity" phone calls on both AM and FM
> radio for many years (back to the '60s, certainly) ... they seem to be
> a staple gimmick for DJs on some talk-oriented shows and some rock
> stations.  The people being called aren't always celebrities in the
> usual sense ... sometimes they're somebody-or-other's boyfriend or
> mother.  The DJ making the call sometimes identifies himself ... but
> sometimes doesn't, and sometimes makes up a cock-and-bull story about
> why the person is being called.

Your post reminded me of a (IMHO) hilariously funny DJ Doug Tracht,
AKA "The Greaseman" back when I lived in Washington, DC.  The
telephone was his tool of choice during his morning show.  I don't
recall if he specifically called any celebrities unsolicited (although
celebrities called him, including Ned Beatty and the guy with the
missing teeth in "Deliverance", you get the picture of the tone of the
show), but listeners would call in about one problem or another,
complaining about their parents, their boyfriends/girlfriends, the
company they work for, etc.  Greaseman would punch them up on the
phone (the PBX at the station was a "Telos" or at least that's what he
referred to it as, always had a lot of trouble with it, too), and talk
to the "other party", sometimes about the details of last night's
date, or just to ball them out.

Sometimes he would actually call the person, other times he would call
someone else.  One time (I don't know if this was staged or not), he
called some women in Arizona, harrassed her, and said "This is ADAM
SMASHER from DC-101" (the afternoon DJ).  That afternoon, Adam got on
the air and said, "does anyone know anything about this letter I got
from some woman's lawyer in Arizona?"

I am at least convinced that the calls to his "ex-wife" are staged.

> -  Do you think that a single such call constitutes harrassment?

Well, there were some legal actions (which I don't know were
successful, probably were settled out of court) against Mr. Tracht,
including a woman who called him and asked for him to talk to her
boyfriend.  He staged the call to another individual, and the
conversation about the "date" were fabricated, and quite libelous.

There was another incident which involved a girl who was underage.
Rumor has it Mr. Tracht spent the weekend in a DC jail.  That Monday,
he declined to go into details, but said that "I will never again make
fun of Stacey Keach!" (TV actor who spent some time in an English penn
for cocaine possession).

To this day, when talking with women he always asks, "how old are you?"

> -  To your knowledge, has any DJ, or radio station ever been disciplined
>    for this sort of practice?

Grease would occasionaly be suspended, but would always get back on
the air.  My feeling on the matter is that he generates millions in
revenue for the station, which can afford high-priced attorneys, and
can do almost anything he wants, despite his foot-thick file at the
FCC.

He also has a big following, from all ages and economic groups,
according to Arbitron.  Community Standards, go figure ...


Paul W. Schleck  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 10:51:53 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls


Dave Platt writes:

> I recently heard a DJ on a local radio station urging people to tune
> in the next morning to another DJ's show.  He said something to the
> effect of "We're going to call Zaza Gabor ... we've got her phone
> number.  We know she likes to sleep late ... so we're going to call
> her as early as we can.  Tune in to hear the fun."

KROQ, once the leading anarchist's radio station, used to do cute
things like call ordinary people up at 5:30 in the morning with all
kinds of obnoxious things, some of them pretty nasty -- "Your mother's
in the hospital", that kind of stuff.  The worst was a stunt they
pulled on a call-in show once, where the subject of the show was "The
Worst Thing You've Ever Done".  Naturally, somebody called in to
confess a Murder.  Unsurprisingly, LAPD wanted to investigate.  After
six months, the whole thing was found out to be a hoax, and the
offending Disk Jerkeys were kicked off the air for some piddling
period of time -- two weeks or so, as I recall.  Hey, I guess it's
hard to beat good ratings.


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 07:14:55 GMT


    As a followup to my previous posting on this subject ... I
just found the suggested FCC fine for broadcasting telephone
conversations without authorization.  It is $5,000 per violation or
per day when the violation is continuous for more than one day.

This is in FCC91-217 Policy Statement releasted 1 August 1991.


Harold

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

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 15:55:19 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs


cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail) writes:

> Anyone else have a "clean" mnemonic for resistor codes?

The way I heard it:

Big boys race our young girls, but violet generally wins.


Patton Turner   [e-mail]    KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM

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

From: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Subject: Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 22:50:25 GMT


In a previous article, cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
says:

>>> We Rape Beautiful Young Virgins, But Only Girls Beyond Sixteen.

>> Gee!  That's a NEW one on me!  A kindly, old installer (now retired)
>> trained me with "Why Run Backwards You Varmint"!!

> Sounds like the way I was taught the resistor color code, way back
> when...

> "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly.  Sometimes
> for Gold, sometimes for Silver, but usually for Nothing."

> (The second part? The tolerance coding, of course)

>> I'm sure the former example would NEVER fly in today's environment.

> Likewise my example, but I don't recall hearing a more politically
> correct version.  Anyone else have a "clean" mnemonic for resistor
> codes?

A little cleaner, but not much:

Bad Beer Rots Our Young Guts, But Vodka Goes Well.  I don't recall
where I learned this.

   _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad
   [e-mail] -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve
   Opinions my own...

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!!
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 13:14:06 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


> 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.

Somehow this reminds me of Ma's attitude during the closing arguments
of the MFJ. Having lost resoundingly on the "primary instrument
concept" idea, Ma was fighting against "grandfathering."

Ma insisted it was not SAFE to have all those inferior,'foreign' AE,
Kellogg, GTE, etc. phones on HER lines. She wanted a fixed, period of
a year or so, then they HAD to be removed. After much squabbling, ISTM
the FCC said:

FCC:    You win - no grandfathering after Jan 1, 198x.
Ma:    {smugly} We knew you'd see the error of your thinking.
FCC:    Oh, and that includes all of your phones, too - of course.
Ma:    NO! Grandfathering is a GOOD idea....


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #860
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03179;
          28 Oct 91 3:27 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27016
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 28 Oct 1991 01:38:12 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27504
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 28 Oct 1991 01:38:01 -0600
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 01:38:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #861

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 28 Oct 91 01:37:56 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 861

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [S. Spencer Sun]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Jeff Hibbard]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [[e-mail]]
    Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Directory/*Dialer* Cards? [Ron Bean]
    Re: Station Message Detail Recorder [John Higdon]
    Re: Life, the Universe and the Telephone [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV? [Tom Streeter]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T  [Tim Gorman]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [S. Spencer Sun]
    Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone [S. Spencer Sun]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Date: 28 Oct 91 05:07:42 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Platt)
writes:

> I recently heard a DJ on a local radio station urging people to tune
> in the next morning to another DJ's show.  He said something to the
> effect of "We're going to call Zaza Gabor ... we've got her phone
> number.  We know she likes to sleep late ... so we're going to call
> her as early as we can.  Tune in to hear the fun."

98 Rock in my hometown of Baltimore (WIYY 97.9 FM) often broadcasts
phone calls to "celebrities" which are really just people doing
impersonations of varying quality.  Is this possibly the case where
they claimed to call Zsa Zsa?

On the other hand, B104 (WBSB 104.3) often does this thing in the
morning where someone calls in and arranges for the DJ to call someone
else (usually spouse/significant other/good friend) and tell them
something outrageous ("Your wife just died" or something else to cause
a really heated/hysterical reaction) before telling them it's all a
joke.

I suppose in this circumstance they're ok because they're doing what
they're doing with permission from someone with a more than casual
relationship to the victim (although I additionally suppose that this
is on very very thin legal ice.)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Hibbard)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 04:53:45 GMT


> I just found the suggested FCC fine for broadcasting telephone
> conversations without authorization.  It is $5,000 per violation or
> per day when the violation is continuous for more than one day.

Interesting, but apparently stations in this area aren't afraid of
someone actually enforcing it.  What's the fine for broadcasting
obscenities?

The morning clowns on this area's top-rated rock station used to call
some unsuspecting local person every day, falsely identify themselves
and give the callee a hard time about something, hoping for humorous
reactions.  The conversations were all broadcast live.  Once they
called a woman I used to live with, purporting to be from the Decatur
(Illinois) Park District, having been tipped off by someone else (not
me) about a little problem she had with them.

I didn't know about this in advance (and don't normally listen to that
station), but I heard the tape a friend of hers made off the air.  The
conversation started out politely enough, and the DJ really had no way
to anticipate her sudden obscene response a couple of minutes into the
conversation when he pressed her a little too hard on something.  What
followed was two horrified gasps near the microphone (presumably the
DJ and his sidekick), several seconds of silence, then a bunch of
people laughing in the background, followed by the (struggling to
compose himself) DJ imploring my friend not to say that again, and her
demanding to know who this REALLY was (they never did cut the path
from her phone to the transmitter).

She tells me the DJ talked to her later off-the-air enough to make
sure she wasn't really angry with him.  As far as I know, nothing ever
came of it, and they continued making such calls.


Jeff Hibbard, Bradley University, Peoria IL


[Moderator's Note: About 30+ years ago, station WLS in Chicago had a
DJ by the name of Dick Biondi. He let some profanity go out over the
air and the FCC ordered the station to go off the air about ten
minutes later. They remained off the air for several hours, apparently
while their attorney argued with the FCC about it. And it was fairly
mild as those things go today.  Times and attitudes change.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (The Squire, Phish)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 04:20:06 GMT


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) recently informed us:

> I've also heard several calls that I don't think would get
> past the FCC, but the FCC generally works on a complaint basis.  For
> reference, you can check 47CFR73.1206, which says:

Yup. When I was working for KXFM, Santa Maria, we would routinely put
callers on the air during late-night. One night the tape machine
broke, so I just put them on live. Mistake. The word "masturbation"
actually generated complaints and got me a talking-to.

On the other hand, would the FCC ruling about having to notify callers
that they're being recorded for boradcast cover n-th caller contests?
It's obviously standard practice to put the screaming 16-year-old who
just won the Madonna tickets on the air, and to even make a promo that
will run for weeks. I've *never* asked a caller's permission to put
their win on the air.  I would THINK that this would be covered under
the "obviously intended for broadcast" clause.

Hey Harold, seems we're both poly-ites. We should meet for lunch and
swap radio war stories :-)


[e-mail] | Fubar Systems BBS
(805) 54-FUBAR   3/12/24, MNP5, 8N1   FSBBS 2.0, FSUUCP 1.2

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 16:36:49 GMT


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

> "Gee, who am I supposed to believe -- two AT&T engineers, a Pac*Bell
> senior switchman, about ten correspondents, MY own experience on three
> separate 5ESS switches, and the published feature description, OR Mr.
> Cook?"

Of the above I would believe the "published feature description" first,
the two AT&T engineers second and personal observations of the feature
actually working third.  Anything said by a telephone company employee
should be taken with a grain of salt as they are notoriously good at
equating their world (their company) with the world.  If you ask if a
feature is available their answer will be based more on company policy
toward feature provisioning.

The next-to-final word is always the official documentation.  The
final word is empirical testing on your own machine.

(The preceding was taken from a Unix manual and applies to everything :))

Everthing else is hearsay.  Of course once your testing has determined
that a feature operates a certain way you have only proven how YOUR
machine operates TODAY based on current configuration.


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

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

Subject: Re: Directory/*Dialer* Cards?
Date: Fri Oct 25 19:21:09 1991
From: astroatc!nicmad!madnix![e-mail] (Ron Bean)


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Nick Reid) writes:

> 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.

   I've seen a few here and there, but I've had a hard time finding
them. Most sources I've checked seem to only carry one or two models,
as if that's all there were. Is there any place to find a more
comprehensive selection? Or, can we compile a list of specs here?

> I use a calc-sized Sharp (EL-6250) and a Casio wrist watch (555
> DBA-80).  Around $50 each.

   By "calc-sized", I assume you mean roughly 2.5"x6", right?  How
many numbers can the watch store?


[e-mail] (Ron Bean)
{harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod

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

Subject: Re: Station Message Detail Recorder
Date: 26 Oct 91 23:01:03 PDT (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


tim gorman <[e-mail]> writes:

> SMDR is typically used with a Centrex service.

But when one talks about SMDR he is usually referring to a normal
function of a PBX. Virtually every PBX made provides call detail to a
printer or call accounting computer so that a customer has his own
local record of calls and who made them.

At home, my Panasonic feeds its SMDR output into a serial port of my
UNIX system where the data is captured for use later. This information
can be sorted to determine the effectiveness of my various lines and
calling plans.

BTW, in Pac*Bell territory, getting SMDR on Centrex is a very complex
and VERY expensive proposition. One might get the idea that PB is not
too keen on the customer really finding out where his money goes.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Life, the Universe and the Telephone
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 02:35:39 GMT


[e-mail] (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

> BTW, speaking of "smart phones", has any one put one of the smaller
> new ones in a shoe yet?

Yep.  Special order for Maxwell Smart, Agent 86 of CONTROL.  BTW, you
can get a recorded listing of CONTROL's 10-most-wanted KAOS agents by
calling 1-900-CONTROL ($1.95 for the first minute, 95 cents each
additional minute; all proceeds go to help CONTROL weather the latest
round of budget cuts.)

KAOS, of course, has their own retaliatory 900 number, 1-900-FORKAOS.
The price is huge, they don't tell you how much it is, and if you
complain to the phone company, Schtarker pays you a visit and gives
you his version of a "Modified Final Judgement ..."


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Streeter)
Subject: Re: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV?
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 02:13:45 GMT


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

> [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo) writes:

[excerpting an {NY Times} article]

>> "Until and unless the telco's monopoly in voice telephone is
>> ended, no level of Government safeguards against cross-subsidies will
>> be effective," said James P. Mahoney, president of the cable
>> association.

> This part of the article perhaps deserves extra note.  If this quote
> is to be believed, then the cable companies would not at all mind the
> telcos carrying video if they could in turn provide voice service.
> The possibility and possible lucrativeness of this are familiar topics
> to TELECOM Digest readers, but as an official policy of the cable
> companies it is something new.

Actually, it's really not so new -- things like this have been said
for at least the last two years (and probably longer).  It's just that
I think a large number of people have a hard time taking the concept
of a cable company providing *reliable* phone service seriously, and
so it's not seen much play in the press.  The NCTA has been on record
for some time as supporting the idea of cable entry into the telephone
business.


Tom Streeter | [e-mail] Dept. of Mass
Communication | 704-251-6227 University of North Carolina at Asheville
Opinions expressed here are Asheville, NC 28804 | mine alone.

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

Date: 27 Oct 91 22:41:27 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes:

> That is simply not true, at least not in the 906 area code of
> Michigan.  I can take you to step-by-step exchanges served by
> independent phone companies (obviously NOT FGD capable) and dial
> Sprint's 800 access number and it will go through.  I know of no place
> that around this area where it will NOT work now, and the majority of
> exchanges in my area (especially to the west of me) are either still
> not converted to equal access or are just being converted this year.

[e-mail] (John Higdon) replies in TELECOM Digest V11 #858:

> Just because an office does not offer the end user PIC or 10XXX
> dialing does not mean that the FGD mechanism is not in place. The
> equipment and protocols that make up the FGD capability are described
> in a book two inches thick. Did a switchman tell you that the office
> was not FGD capable or did you just assume that because it does not
> APPEAR to be fully implemented?

This all seems to be in reference to the ability to access Sprint (or
another carrier) via 800 from any office. Technically, this capability
is available anywhere. The carrier, however, must order it. A carrier
can order 800 FG B access, FG D access, both, or neither. This is why
there is such divergence of access ability in different areas of the
country for different carriers. It was my understanding that Sprint
had access available in most parts of the country from any office.
This may be a misunderstanding on my part. There are a few other
carriers that have pretty well established ubiquitous access, but
there are many that have not. I suspect this may be what causes some
of the confusion.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
* opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence*

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Date: 28 Oct 91 05:01:33 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


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

> Several years ago France introduced daylight savings time (or
> "Summertime").

Speaking of which, don't various countries go on/off savings time at
different dates in the year?  And is there any good reason why this
isn't synchronized?  (Seems it would make the most sense to me ...)

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


[Moderator's Note: We are not even standardized in the USA. There is
one town in Arizona (in an AP story the other day) which has two time
zones *in the same town*. And Indiana is a case of its own during the
summer also, with three different possibilities: Eastern Daylight in
the eastern part of the state where observed; Eastern Standard (aka
Central Daylight) in other areas, and Central Standard in the rest. PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone
Date: 28 Oct 91 04:33:15 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (J.
Philip Miller) writes:

> This was posted on RISKS.  It clearly is yet another reason to stay
> away from the MCI gimicks.

> [upon dialing 1-800-FRIENDS ...]
> 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.

Not sure I follow you here.  Are you (I realize the original post
wasn't yours but you seem to agree with it) complaining that people
can call this number and find out who's on your F&F list?

> 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.

They aren't making your monthly bill known to the general public.  It
so happens that anyone who knows your phone number and your zip code
can find out who's on your F&F list but this has nothing to do with
the contents of your monthly bill (beyond listing a few numbers which
are likely to show up on it). I also don't see what's so horrible
about someone POTENTIALLY finding out who's on your F&F list.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #861
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26589;
          28 Oct 91 23:54 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24628
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 28 Oct 1991 21:35:59 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22712
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 28 Oct 1991 21:35:45 -0600
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 21:35:45 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #862

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 28 Oct 91 21:35:30 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 862

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada [Peter Sleggs]
    Re: Switching System Model Numbers [Ronald T. Crocker]
    Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [S. Spencer Sun]
    Re: Switching System Model Numbers [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Rude Operators [S. Spencer Sun]
    Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Bill Martens]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Speaking of Telco Security ... [John Higdon]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 56 KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada
From: [e-mail] (Peter Sleggs)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 23:21:26 -0500
Organization: Bellatrix Systems Mississauga, ONT Canada


[e-mail] (Chuck Grandgent) writes:

> AT&T has ACCUNET switched-56 service, $10 - $20 per hour typically;
> MCI and Sprint have similar services ... ACCUNET gives you 700
> exchange numbers that you dial.

How well does this service cross the border? Anyone with experience?

> You'll need a CSU (like a modem), often with V.35 connectors.  There
> are V.35 boards for PC's.

Tell me more please.

What little I have been able to find out, [admittedly I haven't bugged
BELL CANADA yet] from those who claim to have some info locally.
[NOTE: toronto area! ] _implies_ that its a fixed cost for local service.

Also from the local toronto tor.general

> You can buy this now.  It costs $85/month for the telephone line plus another
> $30 or $40/month rental for the data unit.  The data units call themselves
> Datapath, or sometimes Datalink, one of these might be the name of the
> service as Bell knows it.  The 56 kbps units are synchronous only, with
> a V.35 interface.  It isn't clear to me whether these can be dialed from
> the computer or not (the manual mentions something called V.25bis, which
> might or might not be a protocol for dialing through the synchronous
> interface).

I'll mail the poster for further details on rates, can anyone
elaborate on the hardware?


peter

[e-mail] or torag!beltrix!peters

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Ronald T. Crocker)
Subject: Re: Switching System Model Numbers
Date: 28 Oct 91 15:10:01 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim
Haynes) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 847, Message 6 of 14

> 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.

No, I think it is totally coincidental that the 4ESS electronic
switching system is for toll, and the 5ESS electronic switching system
is for class 5 use. From my days at the labs, I seem to recall the
old-timers discussing 1ESS, 2ESS (and 2BESS) and 3ESS.

The numbers for AT&T switching equipment are allocated sequentially
from 1, with the 1ESS electronic switching system being the first, and
the 1AESS being its replacement. The 2ESS and 3ESS switches were built
for suburban and rural areas respectively and, I believe, there are
still some in service. I don't believe there is any active development
for either of those switches, since the 5ESS is intended to be a
replacement for all the prior systems, including the 4ESS. Of course,
since I don't think a 5ESS can handle 1,000,000 BHCA like the 4ESS, it
may not actually ever replace the 4ESS. This sequential numbering
trend includes the STP, NCP, and operations support systems that AT&T
builds.


Ron Crocker    Motorola Radio-Telephone Systems Group,
Cellular Infrastructure Group [phone] [FAX: [phone]]
[e-mail] or uunet!motcid!crocker

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!!
Date: 28 Oct 91 04:52:23 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


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

> [e-mail] writes:

>> [person mucking with phone in stupid way gets shocked]

> [Moderator's Note: ... And for an
> exciting display for a young friend who has little or no knowledge of
> the characteristics of electricity, let him watch while you 'innocently'
> touch one end of your screwdriver to the (still) juiced-up capacitors
> while another part of the metal touches the metal case on the unit or
> some other source of ground ... bang! bang! pop! flash! No harm done,
> of course, and always good for a laugh as you watch them jump out of
> the way ... plus, for safety's sake you've insured the device is
> drained and won't hurt anyone who tampers around inside the unit.  PAT]

Reminds me of a section from The Straight Dope by Cecil Adams (should
be the second book after the Bible that a family buys, and the third
book is More of the Straight Dope) where he explains the need for
polarized plugs ... the following is more or less a quote (I'm not in
my room when I read news so I can't type it exactly): Take a plug and
strip the ends off the wires leading from it and plug in the wire.
Now take an obnoxious little child and put him in a bathtub full of
water and tell him you're going to show him an experiment called
"Shaking hands with Jesus."  Show him how nothing happens when you
grab the dead/grounded wire, then hand him the wires, surreptitiously
substituting the live wire for the neutral one -- big laffs!


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

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

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 91 17:52:58 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: Switching System Model Numbers
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


> and don't forget the venerable No. 101 ESS ...

AAAARGH!  That one has to be the 'black sheep' of Ma Bell's ESS family!

When I first joined our department back in 1979, our Centrex came off
of one of these monsters.  It was quirky as heck.  It was supposed to
have all kinds of features such as call transfer (we referred to it as
'call cutoff') and conference calling, but they seldom if ever worked
properly.

What bugged me the most was the 'mickey mouse' ring tone.  As a
telephone 'buff' I was accustomed to either the 2-on/4-off or the
shorter 'pbx' ringing cadences, but this was ridiculous.  The first
ring was always long but never consistent, varying between two seconds
or so and about four or so.  It then settled down to a somewhat
regular 1-on/2-off cadence.  Sometimes the initial ring would blend in
to the first normal ring, giving a whopping six second or so ring.  I
used to speculate that the ring tone was generated with 555 timers,
but when I thought about it, I realized that 555 timers are far more
stable.  ;-)

(No, the ring cadence was not some type of special signalling.  I
asked  about that and was told that all of the 101's were like that.)

There was a low, but audible buzz during conversation (no, it was not
a ground hum -- definitely coming from the equipment) but it was not
really objectionable.

In '80 or '81 (I forget exactly when) they cut to a #1A ESS.  All of
the quirks suddenly disappeared.

Amazingly, there were no problems with data, but remember that in
these days, 110 bps was common and 300 was the 'new high-speed'.  ;-)


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] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Rude Operators
Date: 28 Oct 91 04:56:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton Class of '94


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

> [e-mail] (The Squire, Phish) writes:

>> 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

> Strategies to report such operators seem to escape me; in the former
> case, the second operator who told me about the real Bell policy said
> he couldn't trace down the operator. Perhaps in retrospect, the
> supervisor should be called back with all relevant information, or
> maybe a top level type in the business office. Or you could try again,
> and the next time get a better operator.

Presumably this is why operators announce their names before they go
on to ask if they can help you, but then again, when dialing
information, I have never had an operator speak slowly enough that I
could make out what his/her name was. :-)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Martens)
Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco
Date: 27 Oct 91 02:48:24 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Martens)
Organization: Info Connections @ Mt. Fuji


[e-mail] (Susan Haug) writes:

> Today, on the front page of the {Washington Post}, there is an article
> about Prodigy ... the title is _Computer Network to Ban 'Repugnant'
> Comments_.

Well, I have to wish them luck as I don't see how they are going to
check every single message which users send to each other using their
service.  I hardly think they would be willing to spend the kind of
money it would take to have someone read all of the messages.

> 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.

I think this one goes back to the age old question of whether the
Sysop is responsible for things which are posted on their bulletin
boards.  Having been around since the early days of modeming and BBSs,
I have found that everytime the authorities have tried to pin some
irresponsible person's comments on the SYSOP, it has back fired into a
fiasco on the part of the goverment trying to figure out how they are
going to try and slide the case under the government.  Or they turn it
into a case such as the 'Len Rose' case.

> 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".

I do believe the First Admendment "focuses on the broad issue of free
expression".  But of course we live in a time when people who
criticize the government or other authoritarian agencies are thrashed
by such agencies into submission.  The next thing you know, they will
try to limit what people can and can't say in public to each other.

> [Moderator's Note: 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]

I couldnt agree with you more Pat.  I had run a BBS in seattle for
many years that was free to all users.  But with this freedom also was
a disclaimer which stated to users that if they had connection with
any government agency, they must state so to the sysop in the login
process.  It also said that the sysop was in no way responsible for
the opinions expressed on the board.  But as we all know, nowadays,
you can be held responsible for almost anything according to the
government.  (Sounds like Russia to me.)

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 06:22:38 GMT


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

> KROQ, once the leading anarchist's radio station, used to do cute
> things

> The worst was a stunt they
> pulled on a call-in show once, where the subject of the show was "The
> Worst Thing You've Ever Done".  Naturally, somebody called in to
> confess a Murder.  Unsurprisingly, LAPD wanted to investigate.  After
> six months, the whole thing was found out to be a hoax, and the
> offending Disk Jerkeys were kicked off the air for some piddling
> period of time -- two weeks or so, as I recall.  Hey, I guess it's
> hard to beat good ratings.

    I think the FCC is still investigating this "fake murder"
announcement and another one where a DJ or newscaster announced that
one of the other station personnel had just been shot in the parking
lot.  The police and everyone showed up.  In each case, the station
may lose its license (we'll have to see what the FCC decides, but they
do not seem to be looking kindly on this).  An FM station in LA sells
for about $50,000,000, so the loss of license may discourage further
stunts.


Harold

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

Subject: Re: Speaking of Telco Security ...
Date: 27 Oct 91 22:47:49 PST (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


[e-mail] (The Squire, Phish) writes:

> They asked me his SSN and DLic, and that was all it took
> to make changes. I could just as well have used the SSN and DLic of
> someone I'm not too keen on and given them every COMSTAR feature (at
> $5+ a pop...), changed their DX carrier, or even disconnected their
> lines.

Pac*Bell would not have even asked you for that. You would merely have
given a phone number and after a pause the rep would have asked, "Mr.
Smith?" to which you would say, "Yes", if you had anything besides
rocks for brains. There is no verification or security WHATSOEVER!
There is nothing in the world to stop you from ordering, changing, or
cancelling anyone's service anywhere in Pac*Bell Land.

Except for one thing. A couple of years ago, a friend called on a line
that I had never given to anyone EVER. It turns out that he decided to
be cute and called the business office, impersonated me, and reviewed
my service. Every number billed under my main listed number was
obtained by him.

As a result of that maneuver, I had my accounts "passworded". This
means that before a Pac*Bell rep will discuss my accounts, the caller
must provide a "password". Pac*Bell will do this for anyone that asks,
but those that have taken advantage of this represent a tiny minority
to be sure.

> [Moderator's Note: The experience you describe is all too common, and
> its one reason I can't get too excited if MCI or others want to put
> all the data at your fingertips via touchtone buttons. Either secure
> the data however it may be transmitted, or leave it all open. People
> are either honest or they are dishonest.  PAT]

The world appears to be going crazy with these voice response systems.
In some regards, they are very useful (and even provide a portion of
my livelihood). But when Bank of America posts your bank account
information on the "restroom wall", Sprint tells the world what kind
of customer you are by revealing your account status, and MCI
broadcasts who all of your friends and relatives are -- all with no
security whatsoever, the what we have is technology outpacing our
ability to deal with it.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Date: 27 Oct 91 22:55:13 PST (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes:

> Unsurprisingly, LAPD wanted to investigate.  After
> six months, the whole thing was found out to be a hoax, and the
> offending Disk Jerkeys were kicked off the air for some piddling
> period of time -- two weeks or so, as I recall.  Hey, I guess it's
> hard to beat good ratings.

The three who committed the hoax did not get off quite that lightly,
according to R&R. In addition to whatever action the station took, the
three are each entitled to spend some community service time (around
150 hours each) working in "homeless" soup kitchens. In addition, they
are jointly and severally responsible for reimbursing the LA County
Sheriff's office for the $12,000 spent on investigating the "crime".


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #862
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04146;
          29 Oct 91 2:56 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00831
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 00:48:42 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10169
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 00:48:28 -0600
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 00:48:28 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #863

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 29 Oct 91 00:48:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 863

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Scott Dorsey]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [William Clare Stewart]
    Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone [John Higdon]
    Re: Speaking of Telco Security ... [Joel M. Hoffman]
    Re: The Oakland Fire [Sharon Lynne Fisher]
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [William Clare Stewart]
    Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs [Andrew M. Dunn]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
From: cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 06:46:02 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Dave Platt) writes:

> A few questions for the readership:
> Is this sort of yuck-it-up unsolicited phone call from a radio-station
> DJ a common practice in other parts of the country?

A radio station here in Minneapolis used to do it frequently.
Although they still play tapes of some of the calls, I don't think
they do them anymore.  I'm no longer in the radio biz, but I recall
this type of stunt being popular around the mid-70's.  Toward the late
70's, though, the FCC (if memory serves correctly) instituted
regulations that required gaining the callee's permission _before_
recording a telephone conversation for broadcast.

> Do you think that a single such call constitutes harrassment?

Perhaps, but I'm no expert.  I know that if I had been the recipient
of the famous "1200 hamburgers to go" call made by Don Imus, I would
have felt harrassed.  Imus was the morning DJ at WNBC for a number of
years, and while he may not have invented the bozo-call routine, he
certainly capitalized on it.  There was even an album of these calls
released.  (It's called "1200 Hamburgers To Go")

> To your knowledge, has any DJ, or radio station ever been disciplined
> for this sort of practice?

Imus got told off a few times, but he never seemed to listen to the
management much.  To my way of thinking, Howard Stern, et al, are
descendants of the Don Imus act who have gone to (yet further)
extremes.


Roy M. Silvernail |+|  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: What most of those guys need is for a listener a
day to slap them personally and their station with a lawsuit; after
their lawyers have tripped over their own feet going in and out of the
courthouse a few times they'll get the message and tell the bozos to
cut it out or find some other line of work (preferable solution).  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 14:17:25 GMT


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

> I've heard these sorts of "celebrity" phone calls on both AM and FM
> radio for many years (back to the '60s, certainly) ... they seem to be
> a staple gimmick for DJs on some talk-oriented shows and some rock
> stations.

   Oh, I hope not, because it's illegal.  There are FCC regulations
about broadcasting telephone conversations without obtaining the
permission of the other party.  I have seen a station fined for this.


scott


[Moderator's Note: Fines mean nothing to a large FM radio station.
They consider it part of the cost of doing business. What they need is
for someone from the FCC to walk into the transmitter site; show his
credentials and give them one minute to have an orderly powering down
of the facility with the usual 'sign off the air' announcement. Then
everyone would be ushered outside and the facility padlocked pending
FCC permission to return to the air.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 12:10:33 EST
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


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

> [Moderator's Note: About 30+ years ago, station WLS in Chicago had a
> DJ by the name of Dick Biondi. He let some profanity go out over the
> air and the FCC ordered the station to go off the air about ten
> minutes later. They remained off the air for several hours, apparently
> while their attorney argued with the FCC about it. And it was fairly
> mild as those things go today.  Times and attitudes change.  PAT]

Ah, you must be older than I, with more vivid memories.  I remember
that Biondi got fired and came back a couple of times.  One time I
remember he was alleged (in my grammer-school playground, anyway) to
have been fired for telling a lewd joke.

DISCLAIMER:  AT&T has a strong and very well established pre-Thomas
harassment policy.  Do not infer an uncomfortable workplace from the
harmless history cum urban legend lession.


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: That is exactly why they finally had to fire him.
The FCC kept a lot of pressure on them, especially while they were off
the air for several hours that night. A highly-placed honcho at the
FCC called the station GM at home that night along with another
station executive and told them 'get Biondi off the air NOW; then sign
off the air and maintain radio silence until we talk about it ... and
if you don't do as you are told, then tomorrow the United States
Marshall will serve you with legal process and bring a padlock with
him.'

Within five or maybe ten minutes the music stopped playing and a voice
other than Biondi's read the standard station-ID message used when
going off the air and they were gone.  Once back on, they were
required to read a statement once an hour for about a week saying in
effect 'on <date>, Dick Biondi aired a message which many deemed lewd
and offensive. The Federal Communications Commission required this
station to remain silent until remedial action was taken including Mr.
Biondi's dismissal as an employee of WLS. We apologize to our
listeners for remarks which may have been offensive, and request that
you send comments about WLS and our on-air personnel to the Federal
Communications Commission at <address>'.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
From: wabwrld![e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 11:04:20 EST
Organization: Wabworld, Atlanta, Georgia, USA


   I used to be one of these 'chosen few' who brighten up our days and
nights via the airwaves :-).  Here's my experience in the matter:
What seems like a live, cold call is usually made before you hear it
and taped for later airing.  During the course of the call (usually
toward the end, so it won't blow the surprise) permission would be
obtained from the call recipient to air the call.  No permission, no
airing of the call.  I was personally never refused permission.  For
all appearances, the call sounds "live" on the air but was probably
taped a few minutes before.

   The other group of calls that I remember were those that really did
go live on the air.  Some examples, people calling in for a contest
and "celebrities."  People who call in to us are generally always
assumed to have given permission -- after all, they called us!
Celebrities are either the real thing or impersonators.  The real
thing is asked permission, too.  This is sometimes done by a separate
call beforehand (Hey, one of our guys is gonna call you up on the air.
Is it okay to put you on the air when he does?)  or at the time of the
live call, before cutting in their audio path.  Impersonators are in
on the "gag" and of course know that they're being broadcast.

   I never participated in or knew of any calls from the station which
would be construed in any way as harrassment.  No "jokes" that a loved
one was hurt or dead, no calls which I knew or suspected would be
hurtful in any way.  There are plenty of ways to achieve the same
on-air effect using impersonators or others.  Personally, I don't see
the point in some of these gags that some on-air talent comes up with.
Maybe that's why I don't do that line of work any more.  'Course it
did help feed and clothe a starving student at the time!


                ---=== wabwrld Waffle BBS ===---

             If your mail bounces, try one of these:
         domain - [e-mail]
Best! --> bangpath - {emory,uupsi}!srchtec!wabwrld!bill

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

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 15:52:08 EST
From: [e-mail] (William Clare Stewart)
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?


In article <[e-mail]> well![e-mail]
(Robert Chao) writes:

> 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.

It's hard to do much, especially if they're infrequent.  The canonical
examples, such as 10-year-old kids calling up and asking if your
refrigerator is running ("Better go catch it"), are best handled by
using Caller-ID and calling their Mom, and are frankly a lot less
trouble than the salesdroids who want you to buy insurance, cemetary
plots, or politicians.

We had a rash of collect calls with immediate hangup, from what turned
out to be a pay phone at the local high school; getting the operator
to get the number before one of the kids had hung up turned out to do
the job, and if it hadn't then calling the principal probably would
have.  The tougher problem was all the calls for Lucille, who had had
our number before we did and changed it because SHE was getting crank
calls (and the people who DID seem to know her had no telephone
manners either) - there was no real way to stop it, since the calls
came different people, but they went away after a few years :-)

Calls that say the caller is watching or following you are clearly an
implied threat, and can be dealt with legally.


Bill Stewart [phone] erebus.att.com!wcs
AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ

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

Subject: Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone
Date: 28 Oct 91 10:46:58 PST (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


[e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun) writes:

> I also don't see what's so horrible
> about someone POTENTIALLY finding out who's on your F&F list.

Am I reading this right? You mean that you cannot immediately imagine
some embarassing implications here? There are some people in this
world that have associates that they would prefer not know about other
associates. Maybe you would prefer that your Uncle Fred not know that
you are still keeping in touch with Aunt Minnie. Or perhaps you might
not want Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, and McCormick to know
that you also consult with Larry, Darrel, and Darrel.

Frankly, I consider my toll statement to be one of my more private
documents. If Sprint insists on telling the world how I pay my bill
and MCI wants to tell everyone who I call ...


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Speaking of Telco Security ...
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 21:11:26 GMT


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

> all the data at your fingertips via touchtone buttons. Either secure
> the data however it may be transmitted, or leave it all open. People
> are either honest or they are dishonest.  PAT]               ^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Actually, I've always adhered to the ``keeping honest people honest''
theory.  That's why I lock my luggage.  I know that a theif will have
no problem breaking the mickey-mouse lock (or taking the whole
suitcase), but I want to deter ordinary, honest travelers.


Joel

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

From: well![e-mail] (Sharon Lynne Fisher)
Subject: Re: The Oakland Fire
Date: 28 Oct 91 15:11:23 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


> Estimated loss:                 5 billion+

They are now saying $1.5 billion, explaining that some figures were
trebled by mistake.

> 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.

Non-natural is not equivalent to arson, if I understand the term
correctly.  In other words, yes, the talk is that it was started by
workmen burning trash or brush, but not that someone *deliberately*
set the fire.

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

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 10:29:06 EST
From: [e-mail] (William Clare Stewart)
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Special Services Division.


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

> 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.

> 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.

A co-worker of mine used to run an Autovon switch out in Lyons
Nebraska.  Autovon was the military's private phone network,
supporting administrative traffic as well as "special" needs, and
generally had good backbone service, which was centrally funded, but
inadequate numbers of very long access lines going to antique PBXs at
military bases, generally funded on a base-by-base basis by people who
didn't work there and usually weren't affected by the service.

When Autovon was switching over from crossbar to 1AESS switches, they
went through much the same experience, and had real trouble connecting
calls in some places.  The adjustments on the ESS were set for the
specs the lines supposedly had, assuming the PBXs were set right.  The
problem was that many of the PBXs and base wiring really WEREN'T up to
spec, or anywhere close, and the Autovon techs had been adjusting
things from their end when they couldn't get the base people to fix
theirs.

    "Crossbars were great!  You could do anything you wanted with
a soldering iron and 15 minutes of tweaking."  Real ESSs had a more
limited range of adjustments, and it took a while to find out *how
far* beyond spec the crossbars had been pushed.


Bill Stewart [phone] erebus.att.com!wcs
AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ

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

From: mongrel![e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Subject: Re: Color Codes on Cable Pairs
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 13:34:04 GMT


> "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly.  Sometimes
> for Gold, sometimes for Silver, but usually for Nothing."

> Likewise my example, but I don't recall hearing a more politically
> correct version.  Anyone else have a "clean" mnemonic for resistor
> codes?

I was taught:

"Billy Bunter Relishes Of Your Gin, But Prefers Good Wine" (note
Purple instead of Violet).


Andy Dunn ([e-mail])  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #863
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06209;
          29 Oct 91 3:39 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22964
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 01:36:27 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28507
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 01:36:06 -0600
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 01:36:06 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #864

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 29 Oct 91 01:36:03 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 864

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Echo Cancellation on Digital Circuits?!? [Mikel Manitius]
    Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [John Hobson]
    Re: AT&T Ads Promote Hotel 6 [Henry Mensch]
    Re: 56KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada [Bud Couch]
    Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus [Bill DenBesten]
    Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV? [Dennis Pratt]
    Re: Radio Station DJ's Making Dubious Calls [Harold Hallikainen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 10:31:33 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)
Subject: Re: Echo Cancellation on Digital Circuits?!?


>> I've seen several articles here, posted in response to a previous
>> article about problems with Telebit modems over MCI circuits,
>> referring to the circuits not working properly because of interactions
>> between the modems and "echo cancellers on digital circuits."

> Funny you should mention that.  I was going to point out that the
> Telebit story had a large piece of crap in it.  Telebit tried to tell
> this guy that he didn't have the problem on AT&T because as an older
> company AT&T still had lots of analog circuits not needing echo
> cancellation. [ ... ]

I would like to point out that it was MCI who told me that AT&T's
network was "old", not TELEBIT. So take it with a grain of salt.
TELEBIT told me that AT&T's echo cancellation equipment came from a
different vendor (Western Electric?), and was "configured
differently".

What I infered from the latter is that MCI and Sprint weren't always
willing to work on configuring their echo cancellation equipment to
eliminate the problem, and that is one of the reasons TELEBIT went
forward with their "Sprint Fix".

Since my original posting we have had the opportunity to test TELEBIT
modems with the new firmware (versions 7.0 and higher) and have found
that that it does eliminate the re-train and loss of carrier problems
that were associated with echo cancellation (to the best of my
knowledge).

However John Higdon (the original posted of this poblem over a year
ago) has told me that he is now having problems over local lines. Dave
Buck also mentioned this problem. I'll leave it to them to elaborate.


Mikel Manitius        [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 13:55:05 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!!


In comp.dcom.telecom [e-mail] writes:

> 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.

> 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.

OMIGOD!!  Yes, we must certainly replace all the phone equipment
because this idiot got a shock because he was stripping live wires
with his teeth.  I'm amazed he didn't sue the telco.  "Yes, I've been
told not to crimp blasting caps with my teeth; but John Wayne did it
in a movie and so if he can do it without getting his mouth blown off,
why can't I?"

BTW, I noticed that he didn't sign his name to the message.  Ashamed?


John Hobson        Ameritech Services
225 W Randolph  HQ 17B    Chicago, IL 60606    312-727-3490
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 11:52:21 -0800
Subject: Re: AT&T Ads Promote Hotel 6
Reply-To: [e-mail]


   A recent posting complained about the TERRIBLE telephone policies
at fancy hotels (typically evidenced by very high prices for telephone
calls).

> So, does AT&T marketing read comp.dcom.telecom?

I dunno, but Marriott has been advertising that their hotels provide
AT&T Long Distance as the default on their in-house phones.


Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / <[e-mail]>

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: 56KBps Dial Up Wanted in Canada
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 20:50:42 GMT


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

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

>> Is there any 56 (or higher) Kbps dial up service available in Canada?

> There are two kinds of dial up services for 56-64 kbps use:

> (1) ISDN. Provided by your local exchange carrier. Extends the 64kbps

> (2) Switched 56 data service. In the US, this is offered by the
>    interexchange carriers as an option on their bypass services.
>    I don't think it is offered on anything but T1 access lines, so
>    at a minimum, your customer premises equipment must include a
>    T1 multiplexer, even if you only subscribe to one line. (The T1

Switched 56 service in the US is also offered by some LEC's,
specifically Pac*Bell and Southern Bell (not an exclusive list), and
is under consideration at others. In those situations, the access
charges for extension of the service is N/A, and the prices are
significantly lower.

The service *is* offered on other than T1 access lines, specifically:
4W Single Channel Direct Access (AT&T's name for the DDS extension),
Circuit Switched Digital C(onnection?) another AT&T invention; a
half-duplex ping-pong method, and, more to the point, Datapath,
Northern Telecom's ping-pong service. This should be available
anywhere that a DMS100 family switch is in service, i.e.: most of
Canada.

For a fairly complete view of the technical issues, refer to the
preliminary spec from the TR-41.4 committee PN-2023 "NCTE for PSDS".
This was out for final vote in September, so it may be an official
spec by now.

The original poster may wish to talk to his local operating company in
Canada, using the words "Datapath service on the DMS100" to ask about
Switched 56.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill DenBesten)
Subject: Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus
Date: 28 Oct 91 22:19:10 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University


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

> 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.

There are a few restrictions imposted by our DTMF registration system
that limit this problem:

1) A student can only register for something like 18 hours simultaneously.
2) You can not schedule conflicting classes.
3) You can only call in during your priority time or the full-open
time at the end.  In other words, a senior can not call in during the
junior priority time.

> 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.

The problem with this is that not all students have a computer with a
modem.  Further, not all students are comfortable using a computer.
Most of our students call from their apartment or their parent's house
during the summer.  Heck, it is even possible to call in while you are
on a European vacation.  Personally, I would like to see a system that
works through the campus computer system.  I really like to look at
eveything on a screen, rather than write it down as the computer
dicates it.


William C. DenBesten is [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Craig R. Watkins)
Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions
Date: 20 Oct 91 00:04:11 GMT
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 useproby 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 woulpn'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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Carroll)
Subject: Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones?
Date: 18 Oct 91 17:57:29 GMT
Reply-To: [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, anp 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] (Dennis Pratt)
Subject: Re: Video Dial Tone: Bell TV?
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 18:03:51 DST
Organization: GTE Labs


I smile when I hear doomsayers imaging worse-case monopoly scenarios
as the result of opening up the cable industry to telephone companies
and the telephone industry to cable companies.

Two large monopolies, complacent after decades of government-enforced
protection, facing each other in a truely competitive market?????

My guess is that neither of these industries are yet able to compete
head-to-head -- WHEN CUSTOMERS HAVE CHOICE AND THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT
RESTRICTION ON ENTRY.  They would both assume that they will quickly
re-achieve their monopoly and would try to operate business as normal.

We've all seen the mediocre products launched by telephone companies
when they've first ventured into a new "hot" competitive industry.
Talking yellow pages, videotext, public access kiosks, voice mail,
electronic messaging -- the list goes on and on.  The biggest problem
is these guys don't know how to design and develop products that meet
customers' real needs.  Their product entries into competitive
industries fail at a rate that greatly outpaces that of other
industries.

If the government really does remove all restrictions (which I'll bet
that they won't), my guess is that we'll see other players come in
before telephone and cable companies can alter their corporate
cultures enough to focus on their customers' needs, and to stop
focusing on lobbying governments.

The consumer suffers most from the government's refusal to open these
markets to competition.  But these costs are hidden -- we can't see
what new products and industries might arise given a free market.  The
government, cable, and telecom all have vested interests to keep the
industries closed.  (Makes me wonder why telephone companies would
even broach this subject.)

At my company, a small number of us are making a concerted effort to
alter the corporate culture to one that focuses more on the customer
than on the government regulatory bodies.  But after six years, I can
assure you that the type of change that would be required will not be
quickly forthcoming.  The culture is too strong.  The attitude of
"we're the phone company" has been ingrained into every level of the
company.

I hope some day such a change does take place.  It would make my job
much more important to the corporation!!  But, to tell you the truth,
I fear the prospects for the telephone companies, more than I think
it's obvious that they will blow away cable.


   Dennis Pratt
     New Service Modeling Techniques
      Service Concept Design Department
       GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA
    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 17:03:22 GMT


    Well, we seem to be drifting a little from the telecom
subject, but towards FCC regulation of radio, where I do a lot of
work.  Anyway, someone wanted to know the fine for broadcast of
indecent/obscene material.  The current FCC fine list (Policy
Statement 91-217) lists the "base fine" at $12,500. Base fines may be
adjusted upward up to 90% and downward up to 90%.  These relatively
new fines have not yet been imposed (to my knowledge), and the
National Association of Broadcasters has filed a petition (or similar)
asking they be rescinded until the FCC goes thru the normal rulemaking
process (these new fines are about ten times the previously imposed
ones).  However, since this is a "policy statement" instead of rules,
it probably does not have to go thru the normal rulemaking process.

    Further, the Supreme Court has struck down the FCC's
prohibition of indecent broadcasts on a 24 hour basis (Congress had
asked the FCC to make such a requirement).  Instead, the court said
the FCC should establish a "safe harbor" when the number of children
in the audience is low.  This has generally been assumed to be after
10 pm.  Also, in a recent case, the FCC had a very difficult time
determining what was obscene (as opposed to indecent, which is
permitted when children are not likely to hear/see).  They finally
decided to not press the case because they probably could not make a
strong case in court.

    I think the contest call in situations at radio stations would
fit under the "presumed to know" about the possibility of broadcast
situation.  Many stations run a short announcement several times a day
that calls to the contest/request line are subject to broadcast.  I
think it's the "call out" calls stations are making that can get them
into trouble, if the FCC receives a complaint.

    Well, back to telecom?  Anyone interested in FCC regulation of
broadcasting should see {Broadcasting Magazine}, which covers these
issues closely, and {Radio World} newspaper (where I write a column on
FCC regulation).


Harold


[Moderator's Note: Harold's right. As interesting as these little side
trips are, they get away from our chosen topic. I ran a cross
selection of replies in this thread tonight, but have to close it out
now with no printed.  Thanks.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #864
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07744;
          29 Oct 91 4:21 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25779
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 02:29:25 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02215
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 02:29:12 -0600
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 02:29:12 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #865

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 29 Oct 91 02:28:59 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 865

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Updating Bell System Jacks [Greg Bulman]
    AT&T's Family Reunion Sweepstakes [John Temples]
    Generics (was Interesting Pac*Bell Response) [David G. Lewis]
    Who is Right About Features? [Maxime Taksar]
    What Type of Switch is Required For Caller-ID? [Dave Niebuhr]
    IXO Protocol Update [Tom Limoncelli]
    X25 Networks With Outdial Service? [Harry A. Levinson]
    What's an RPOA? [Michael Lyman]
    Any SS#7 TCAP and SCCP Software Available For UNIX? [Al Nudo]
    Another Scam From a Hungry Carrier [John L. Shelton]
    Interesting Things in the Bellcore Area Code Directory [David Leibold]
    Off Line For a While; Please Hold Off on Any FAQs, etc [David Leibold]
    Interesting Article in _Discover_ [Michael H. Riddle]
    Still Another Version of the Resistor Color Code Thing [Randy Lambertus]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Greg Bulman)
Subject: Updating Bell System Jacks
Date: 28 Oct 91 18:43:38 GMT
Organization: Interphase West, Mountain View, CA


I have been trying to find out how to update one of the phone lines
into my house.  I have updated the old hard-wired "block" jacks many
times.  You can get the necessary hardware at OSH, etc.; just a
modular jack converter which some snap on and others screw on.  These
are very easy and straightforward.  There isn't even any wiring
necessary (not any "real wiring" anyway).

Anyway, what I've come across now is an old hard-wired "flush mount".
It did not have a face plate which covers the whole box in the wall.
It has an oval plate which covers 1/2 the box's area and the oval
flush mount phone jack attaches to the oval plate.  Connected to the
oval jack are three wires, each of which has black insulation.  The
three black wires are twisted but have no further outside shielding
other than each wires black insulator.  On the backside of the jack
there are four terminal screws (for four wires?) marked R B Y G.  On
the side of the ceraminc (or plastic?) jack housing above the B
terminal is an orange "I" stamped on it.  The terminal had no wire
attached to it when I disconnected it.

My questions are:

1) Where can I get the necessary converter to update this jack to a
modular jack?  Flush jack would be fine.  I've looked at the local
hardware stores and they just have the "block" type and new modular
jacks.  They are all also short on explanation and instructions to
allow insights into any other configuration.  I've looked at the
Sunset book "Basic Home Wiring" which has been expanded to include
telephone hookups.  They explain about the two different types of old
hard-wired jacks, give pictures of the two types of converters and I
cannot find anything which will seem to the the job for the flush
mount jacks.

2) What do I do with the three black wires coming out of the wall; do
I need to bring in modern four wire color coded telco cable or can I
use these existing three wires?


Please respond to [e-mail]

Greg Bulman                  [phone]   Phone
Interphase Corporation       [phone]   FAX
Santa Clara, CA              [e-mail]    E-Mail

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

From: jwt![e-mail] (John Temples)
Subject: AT&T's Family Reunion Sweepstakes
Organization: The Museum of Barnyard Oddities
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 04:26:59 GMT


Has anyone called to register for the AT&T Family Reunion Sweepstakes?
(800-641-2000) What a novelty; a contest you can call in and register
for on an 800 number, not a 900 number.

Anyway, the contest rules say you're limited to one entry per phone
number.  I called from my first line, and found it's an automated
voice-mail type system.  You key in your phone number on the
touch-tone pad, then it asks you for your name and address.  You have
to spell your last name and street name to the computer.  On my first
attempt, the computer couldn't understand me while I was spelling, and
asked me to try again.  On the second attempt, it still couldn't
understand me, and told me it was unable to continue and hung up.  I
called back, and the computer told me I was already registered!  So I
tried again using my second line, this time speaking and spelling more
slowly.  The computer understood me this time, as well as on my third
line.  Does anyone know what they're doing with this spoken
information?  Are they doing voice recognition on the words you're
spelling?

Then I tried my voice-mail number.  This, of course, is not a true
phone line, and can't place outgoing calls.  Here, I noticed the spiel
from the AT&T computer changed.  It added, "If you're not currently an
AT&T subscriber, there's never been a better time to switch" and some
other marketing hype.  It was able to tell that my other numbers were
AT&T subscribers; however, it wasn't sure that my voice mail number
*wasn't* an AT&T subscriber.  After registering, it went on to ask if
I wanted to switch to AT&T with a special offer.  I wonder if they'll
try to "slam" my voice mail number ...

Then I tried my RingMaster number, and it was also accepted.  I
thought it was interesting that my RingMaster number was recognized as
a subscriber's number by AT&T, even though I'd assume it wouldn't be
considered a "real" phone number by anyone other than Southern Bell.

One problem I see here is that anyone can call and register any phone
number.  Will AT&T check that the winning phone number even exists?
What if I register someone else's number with my name and address?
What if you register a number that's disconnected between now and the
time the prizes are awarded?  Why doesn't AT&T use ANI to get the
phone number you're calling from?


John W. Temples -- [e-mail]   (uunet!jwt!john)

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Generics (was Re: Interesting Pac*Bell Response)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 14:51:42 GMT


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

> hpubvwa![e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

>> My guess is that someone at PacBell is assuming that their version of
>> software is the same as on 5ESS switches everywhere.

> And is there some reason why it should be any different? As far as I
> know, AT&T is still responsible for all the generics.

All depends on how you mean "responsible for".  AT&T develops the
generics.  Customers purchase the generics.  If customers don't
purchase the generics, AT&T doesn't give them the generics.  Different
customers are more or less likely to purchase the latest generics.
(Note that by "customers" I'm referring to "customers of AT&T" -- i.e.
telcos.)

The latest 5ESS generic is 5E7.  (5E8 goes into First Office
Application in January, I believe.)  (But I'm sure someone in Indian
Hill will correct me if I'm wrong.)  However, there are switches out
there at 5E6, 5E5, and I'm sure at 5E4.2 and 5E3 as well.  Since the
external interfaces are clean and well-defined, they all "work"
together, although operations can be a pain when you have multiple
switches at different generics.


David G Lewis    AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej  ISDN Evolution Planning

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

Subject: Who is Right About Features?
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 07:51:31 -0800
From: [e-mail]


After reading the countless articles arguing back and forth about whom
to trust about the features of phone switches (in this case, the
5ESS), I was struck by the comment that the next-to-last word should
be the official documentation and the final word should be empirical
results.

I notice this happening quite a bit with Amateur Radio equipment (just
read rec.radio.* for a couple days).  It seems every amateur rig on
the market today has features which, not only aren't documented, but
of which the manufacturer has no record.  Granted, they *may* have
records of undocumented features somewhere in some developer's drawer,
but even if they knew, they probably wouldn't admit it.

I suspect that if something as relatively small as a ham radio can
have miriads of completely hidden features, that something as
relatively large and complex as a 5E can suffer from the same
difficulty (advantage?).


Maxime Taksar  KC6ZPS
PO Box 14322 Berkeley, CA 94701  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 16:07:51 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: What Type of Switch is Required for Caller-ID?


I found out from my local Telco (NYTel) that my exchange (516-281) and
three others served out of the same CO plus two others that I'm
compatible with (according to them).

A question comes to mind and its probably been discussed before but I
somehow missed it: What type of switch is necessary to be able to have
Caller-ID and some of the other features that go with it?

My family started receiving harrassing phone calls again and I
reported it to NYTel and intend to prosecute if the perpetrators can
be found.  Call Trace would be beneficial here, but I don't know if
its available but not advertised.  Call forwarding and three way
calling are available.

I know that NYTel is conducting a test of Caller-ID in the Pougheepsie,
NY area and it won't be generally available for some time.

Any info will be appreciated.


Thanks,

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


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

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 10:04:52 EST
From: [e-mail] (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: IXO Protocol Update
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I got a number of responses about my request for info about the IXO
protocol.  One person mailed me a copy of the actual spec and I was
able to implement the protocol in one night.

(This IXO protocols is what pager-terminals use to dial into pager
systems to queue up messages to be transmitted to people's pagers.
Since my pager-terminal has a 2400bps modem in it, I figured the
protocol couldn't be that difficult.  I could then have just about any
computer act as a pager-terminal if I could speak the same language.
Now my pager sends me messages like, "Backups are done.")

The IXO protocol is really two protocols in one.  The first is a
really well-designed (and *very* simple) scheme of sending packets of
data with checksums and getting acks or naks.  Just what you'd need,
right?  That's the "automatic protocol".

The second protocol is called the "manual protocol".  At an early
point in the automatic protocol, transmit a capitol M followed by a CR
and the system becomes a little BBS that asks you (in English) for the
pagerid and message and Y/N if you want to send more.  No checksums,
no muss, no fuss.

I've taken the easy way out and implemented the second protocol.  It
only needed a simple set of send/expect functions to be written.  I
could have even done it with "cu" or "tip".

Again, thanks for all the responses!


Tom

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

From: [e-mail] (Harry A Levinson)
Subject: X25 Networks With Outdial Service
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 18:32:18 GMT


I am using Sprintnet PC Business to dial in to a customer Unix site.
It allows me to dial in to SPrintnet with 9600 but only 2400 outbound.
Furthermore the outdial modem has no error-correction.

The cost for 9600 is $870/mo for a leased line plus any other hardware
required to place the site on the network.  Are there any other X.25
networks vendors that provide a 9600 baud "outdial" service? 2400 baud
MNP 5 or V.42 bis?


Thanks,

harry levinson,     [e-mail]

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Michael Lyman)
Subject: What's an RPOA?
Date: 28 Oct 91 18:36:02 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I've been trying to understand the term RPOA which, according to what
I've found so far is an acronym for "REGISTERED PUBLIC OPERATING
AGENCY". I have been assuming that this term is just another way of
saying "land line operator" and that this potential operator ( RPOA )
will need to abide by the licensing agreement with the local or
federal regulatory agencies. I'm wondering, though if there are rules
and regulations that go along with just being an RPOA, such as any
quality of service or special, mandatory features that an RPOA must
support in addition to those in the licensing agreements.

Does anyone have information on the implications of actually being an
RPOA? Any domestic or International information would be greatly
appreciated.


Michael Lyman, Motorola S.E.D (Iridium)
Chandler, Az.  ...uunet!motcid!lyman (for now..)

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Al Nudo)
Subject: Any SS#7 TCAP and SCCP Software Available for UNIX?
Date: 28 Oct 91 20:49:00 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Are there vendors who sell SS#7 TCAP and SCCP protocol software which
run under a UNIX platform, and that can be integrated with application
software?


Al Nudo                       Phone:  [phone]
Motorola, Inc. (IL-74)        e-mail: [e-mail]
1501 West Shure Drive         -or-   uunet!motcid!nudo
Arlington Heights, IL 60004

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

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 14:32:35 -0800
From: [e-mail] (John L. Shelton)
Subject: Another Scam From a Hungry Carrier


I just got an interesting call from a sales rep representing "ITT".
She claimed that they were the "international division of AT&T."  I
suppose I should have corrected her.

*sigh*


John

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

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 14:21:34 -0500
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Things in the Bellcore Area Code Directory


I recently received the TACD (Telephone Area Code Directory) from
Bellcore; it is an interesting reference work. Did you know that
Hyder, AK is actually listed with British Columbia's area code (604)?
Or that there are a number of Saskatchewan locations listed in
Alberta's area code (403 instead of 306 SK)? Wheeling WV has zones 6,
7, and 8 listed in (614) (S.E. Ohio).

The carrier identification codes section contains some good
information about 10xxx and 950.xxxx numbers. Domino's Pizza not only
has 950.1430, but 950.1730 and 950.1830 reserved. Cable companies also
reserve codes (Cox Cable has 10317, Continental Cablevision has
10386). Bellcore even has its own carrier code, 10034, as does IBM
10426 or 950.1426), Kodak (10356 or 950.0356) or how about Marylanders
Against Youth Suicide (10877 or 950.1877) or Las Vegas Convention and
Visitor's Authority (10711) or Pizza Hut (950.0905). I don't know if
the Unitel they list (10863) is the Canadian Unitel service attempting
to establish a competitive long distance service against Telecom
Canada or not.

Enough observations for now.

[e-mail]  [e-mail]
  *** please hold mail until 4th Nov ***

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

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 09:35:56 -0500
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Off Line For a While; Please Hold Off on Any FAQs, etc


I will be off the Internet for at least a week; any mail sent to me
through any of the usual haunts may be lost, especially regarding
anything to do with the FAQ list. I should be connected back (to some
extent) after 4th November. Please hold off any mailings to me during
this time.

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

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 21:00:15 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle)
Subject: Interesting Article in _Discover_
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Readers of _Discover_ magazine will be familiar with the "Lighter
Elements" column.  The December issue arrived in my mailbox today,
with a thoroughly delightful piece by Judith Stone titled "Dial S for
Science."

It's about two Bell Labs scientists and the psychology of distinctive
ringing in the office.

Additionally, frequent readers of the Digest should be amused at here
comments about people's reactions to answering machines, 976-WHIP, and
other telecom matters.


          <<<< 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: Mon, 28 Oct 91 04:05:43 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Randy Lambertus EUROPE)
Subject: Still Another Version of the Resistor Color Code Thing


I saw today that someone asked for a "clean" version of the resistor
color code. This is one we learned in Radar school at Keesler Air
Force Base in the early '70s:

Biloxi Beer Rots Our Young Guts, But Vodka Goes Well.


Later,

Randy     [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #865
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01230;
          29 Oct 91 22:16 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19631
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 20:01:50 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11908
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 20:01:32 -0600
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 20:01:32 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #866

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 29 Oct 91 20:01:21 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 866

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Phone Firms Test Systems for Cable TV [Wall St. Journal via Charlie Mingo]
    80286 Xenix FAS Port [Andrew J. Piziali]
    Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How [Jeffrey Mattox]
    Need Information on European Metering Pulses [David Moon]
    New AT&T Mail Rates (Ouch!) [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Information on E-Mail For U.S. Friend [David Rabson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 28 Oct 91 23:07:23
Subject: Phone Firms Test Systems for Cable TV


By John J. Keller, {Wall Street Journal}. October 28, 1991 at B1.

   Expanding the nation's telephone network into a vast television
broadcast system is going to cost tens of billions of dollars and
won't be finished before the end of the decade, say executives at some
of the largest phone companies.

   But the scale of the project isn't stopping the phone giants, such
as GTE Corp., Ameritech, Bell Atlantic Corp., and Pacific Telesis
Group, from methodically exploring how to implement such a system.

   The Baby Bells and GTE have spent several million dollars testing
new systems that carry cable TV shows into homes via the phone
network.  The phone companies will spend many million of dollars more
before they are satisfied that they have a service that matches the
current voice phone system and tops today's entrenched cable TV
monopolies.

FCC's Support

  Last week the phone companies were buoyed by a Federal
Communications Commission plan to support a new technology called
video dial tone, that would put the big phone companies into direct
competition with local cable-television monopolies.

    Phone subscribers could use such a system to dial up and order
video programs from an entertainment company through the same wire
that connects a typical phone call.  More important, allowing the
phone companies could generate enough traffic to fund "broadband"
super-capacity information highways that could someday carry TV,
medical information, and even FM stereo channels into a home through a
single wire, say the executives.

   However, big hurdles remain.  The FCC hasn't decided whether to let
the phone companies participate in the programming end of the cable TV
business.  The phone companies argue that's a financial necessity,
because cable TV companies would be reluctant to share the programs
they now support and run them over a rival's network.  In addition,
the 1984 Cable TV Act, which prohibits phone company participation in
the cable business, would have to be rewritten.

  "We're encouraged by the FCC action, but it's not as complete a step
as there needs to be made," said Larry J. Sparrow, vice president of
regulatory and governmental affairs at GTE Telephone Operations,
Irvine, Texas.  Adds Kathleen Ahren, Nynex Corp.'s director of federal
regulatory policy: "For us to build facilities without anyone to use
them would be irresponsible ... programming is essential."

   There are also technical issues such as whether TV service to the
home should be provided through a cable-TV-like coaxial cable or
advanced fiber-optic line. Either would require pulling out existing
"twisted pair" wiring that now binds the phones in homes and most
small businesses to the local phone network.  Moreover, the phone
industry must still hammer out technical standards for melding video
transmission, which requires tremendous transmission capacity, with
voice traffic, which uses far less.

   The system that is finally built will require mountains of capital
to transform the existing phone network into a high-capacity phone
network of systems that pump signals digitally through fiber-optic
transmission lines, which are glass wires.  "We've seen figures that
it would cost about $250 billion nationwide," says James R. Young,
vice president of regulatory and industry relations at Bell Atlantic.
Adds Ms. Ahern, "I don't think our plans would have us doing this in
less than 20 years and if we do you're talking billions of dollars."

   Pacific Bell, which spends about $1 billion a year on new network
equipment, would see that annual tab jump by two to three times in the
first several years of constructing a broadband network, says Michael
Bloom, customer premise, broadband applications at the San
Francisco-based unit of Pacific Telesis Group.  But he notices that as
equipment purchases grow and the technology is perfected the annual
cost should drop down to current levels after about four years.

   PacBell, like most other phone companies, already has installed
fiber-optic "trunking" lines to carry bulk traffic between its
switching centers.  It has also begun replacing copper facilities in
some neighborhoods, running optical fibers to the pedestal at the curb
and then connecting to the regular phone home wires.  Someday these
lines will carry cable TV, but for now regulation restricts the phone
company to voice and data transmission, says Mr. Bloom.

    Someday this will change, says the FCC, which envisions a service
where phone customers would turn on their TVs and find a listing of TV
shows, movies, news and other programs, supplied by the phone company
and other programmers and accessible via remote control.

    Several phone companies are already testing such services.  In
Cerritos, Calif., GTE has built an elaborate network of fiber-optic
and coaxial cables lines and advanced switching systems to deliver TV
services to several thousand customers.  One service, called "Main
Street," allows a customer with a remote control to shop via TV, check
a bank account and even seek information on colleges in the US.
Another service, dubbed "Center Screen," lets 3,900 residential
customers call for a movie or a TV show by dialling a special number.
A third service lets some customers talk to one another through a
videophone in the house.

    "We've found [from the Cerritos tests] that our customers like
full-motion video and not still pictures," which is all that's
possible over today's regular phone lines, Mr. Sparrow says.

    That's because regular conversation travels over phone lines at
the rate of 64,000 bits a second.  By contract, "reasonable quality"
video, such as the kind that appears from a VCR tape, requires
transmission capacity of at least 1.3 megabits to 1.5 megabits a
second.  High quality video will take capacity of 45 megabits to 90
megabits a second, he says.  A megabit equals 1 million bits.

   To save money and get as much capacity out of the existing
copper-based systems, Bell Communications Research, the Baby Bell's
research arm, has developed "video compression" technology which uses
existing copper wire to deliver TV to the home.  With video
compression, a microprocessor squashes video signals so they can be
sent through a regular phone line at the rate of 1.5 megabits a
second.  The little chip, which is in an electronic box attached to
the phone line, looks at an incoming video signal, and filters out the
parts of the moving image that are redundant.  The chip codes and
sends the parts of the signal that are different through the phone
line to a receiving box, which decodes and reconstructs the image
before projecting it onto the TV screen.

    The cable companies hope to retaliate by providing phone service
through their cable networks.  They are funding research to develop
switching systems that can pass phone calls from one cable subscriber
to another and out to customers using the regular phone system.

   But the blood between the industries isn't all bad.  Ameritech's
Indiana Bell subsidiary and Cardinal Communications, an Indiana cable
TV operator, are testing a fiber distribution system made by Broadband
Technologies Inc, of Raleigh, NC.  The system is being used to route
video and phone signals over backbone fiber-optic lines and finally
through coaxial and twisted pair lines attached to homes in Tipton
Lake, a Columbus, Ind. residential development. Bell Atlantic is
negotiating with Loudon Cablevision, a cable TV company in Loudon
County, Va., to test the transmission of TV signals through phone
company lines to 5,000-6,000 homes in The Cascades, a local housing
development.

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew J. Piziali)
Subject: 80286 Xenix FAS Port
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 16:08:32 GMT


I am looking for a port of FAS 2.09, the fast asynchronous serial
device driver, to an 80286 UNIX operating system, such as IBM Xenix
1.0 or SCO Xenix 286.  If you know of such a port please contact me or
post a reply in comp.unix.xenix.- misc.


Thank you.

Home:               [e-mail]
{convex,egsner,frontier,laczko}!piziali!andy
Office:                   [e-mail]
           {sun,texsun,uunet}!convex!piziali

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 13:47:03 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Mattox)
Subject: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How


A while back, somebody posted a brief article about CelluSoft
(Holland, MI, 616-399-6390 AM only).  CelluSoft claims to have a legal
way of getting two (or more) cellular telephones to share the same
telephone number, thus eliminating separate billings and two monthly
charges.

I called CelluSoft and found out the following:

        METHOD USED: They change the ESN on your second phone to match
that of your first phone.  The second phone masquerades as your first
phone.

        IMPLEMENTATION: CelluSoft reverse engineered a certain Novatel
phone.  You send CelluSoft the ESN of your first phone and of your
second (Novatel) phone.  CelluSoft returns a ROM to you that programs
the ESN of your first phone into the second phone.  There are
provisions allowing you to restore the original ESN later, should you
decide to sell your second phone.

        COST:  $300.00.

        PHONE RESTRICTION: Although your first phone can be of any
type, the second phone must be a Novatel.  Other phone types are
planned.

        USAGE RESTRICTION: You cannot use both phones at the same time
in the same cellular system.  Thus, you cannot call car-to-car in the
same area.  It might be fun to try, however.

        LEGALITY: CelluSoft talked to the FCC and various carriers
about this and clamins to have found nothing dictating that this
should not be done (other than the technical problem created if both
phones are used at the same time).  CelluSoft's literature even says
"Cellular phone companies recommend CelluSoft because of the
convenience to you, the consumer, with the hopes of more air time over
a second monthly charge."

        SECURITY: You must prove that you really are a cellular user
(by providing CelluSoft with a copy of your bill, but with the
telephone number blacked out).  CelluSoft makes a point of asking you
*not* to send them your cellular telephone number (to prevent your ESN
together with your telephone number from ever getting into the wrong
hands).  (They seemed genuinely interested in preventing and avoiding
any hint of fraud by others.)

My questions are:

1)  Does anybody know for sure about the legalities of this?

2)  Has anybody else done this?  Any details?

3) Is there any cellular telephone on the market that allows its ESN
to be field-programmed without having to use this method?  I would
think that there might be a backdoor ESN programming method, or do the
manufacturers painstakingly program a different control ROM for *each*
phone?


Jeff

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 12:18:24 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Need Information on European Metering Pulses


I am looking for information on the "metering pulses" that are used in
many European countries.  My primary source of info so far is the "NET
4" specification.  This is what I have gleaned so far:

Many European countries send metering pulses from the network to the
subscriber.  These are out-of-band tones, the most common frequencies
are 12 KHz and 16 KHz.  (Obviously, this only works on metallic
loops.) Apparently, the purpose is to drive a metering device that
indicates elapsed time, charges for the call, etc.

                  ___________________      ___________

        |         |                 |      | Phone,  |

Network |---------| Metering Device |------| Modem,  |

        |         |_________________|      | etc.    |

                                           ___________



My particular problem is determining the requirements for a modem in
this scenario, in particular, I need to know the maximum signal level
of the metering pulses at the modem's input.

There seem to be two different types of metering devices.  One type
presents a low impedance ( ~200 ohms) on the network side, and
attenuates the metering pulses on the downstream side.

The other type (Germany?) is supposed to be "transparent".

Have I understood this correctly?  Any info/suggestions will be
appreciated.


David Moon               Internet: [e-mail]
General Datacomm, Inc.   ATTMail:  !dmoon
Middlebury, CT 06762
[phone]           FAX: [phone]

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

Date: 29-OCT-1991 15:44:31.09
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New AT&T Mail Rates (Ouch!)


In proposed new AT&T Mail rates, to take effect 1 December 1991, and
announced to AT&T Mail customers in a postal mailing over the weekend,
there is a new Service Minimum requirement of $25.00 per month (listed
towards the middle of the sheet under Core Services).

If this charge will really be applied to all attmail accounts (and
several different voices at AT&T Mail and EasyLink CAC's assure me in
no uncertain terms that it most definitely WILL), I for one will have
to drop the service -- I tend to run up maybe $60.00 worth of usage in
a typical year, and don't fancy paying $300.00 a year for that
privilege.

Is there perhaps someone at AT&T whom I (and others in my shoes) can
contact for relief from this new requirement?


Fred E.J. Linton  Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.  649 Sci. Tower  Middletown, CT 06459
E-mail:  <[e-mail]>     ( or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com> )
Tel.:         + 1 203 776 2210 (home)      or     + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)


[Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I'll be giving up AT&T Mail when
this change goes into effect. I got some personal correspondence from
someone just a couple hours ago telling me about this for the first
time. I'm currently getting a bill for $4 - $5 per month from them
now; I have no intention of paying $25 per month -- PLUS a monthly
service fee of $3 I am told -- for the little use I make of the
system. I fully expect to see them lose a large number of their little
customers as a result of this. I've been with them several years and
am sorry it has come to this. I guess they are getting ready for their
complete merger with Easy Link, now scheduled for February, 1992. Your
message should probably be cross-posted to a couple other Usenet news
groups so that everyone with an AT&T Mail account is made aware and
will have plenty of time to turn in their resignation before getting
hit with the first bill under the new plan.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 13:36:39 GMT
From: davidra <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information on E-Mail For U.S. Friend


Esteemed Moderator:

Has there been a review of the different commercial e-mail services
available to light non-business users?  I know about MCI mail; in fact
I bought my father a subscription last year.  I am looking for
information about and a comparison of similar services for a friend of
mine in the United States.  Prodigy and other services not connected
to academic networks are out.

I would search the archives myself, but the U.K. still isn't on the
Internet.


David Rabson    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: We've touched on this at one time or another in the
past, but nothing too recently. For the 'academic connection', MCI
Mail and AT&T Mail are really where its at. But see the previous
message for the new deal at AT&T Mail starting in a month, which will
be pretty grim for their small customers. Sprintmail is another one
you should consider (703-689-6000); it also exchanges mail with the
Internet. Electronic services not specifically intended for email but
with email connections to the Internet include Compuserve and Portal
Communications of San Jose, CA. You should also investigate the many
public access Unix machines around the USA, such as Chinet,to name one
I am familiar with.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #866
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01824;
          30 Oct 91 0:37 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15656
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 22:25:34 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13338
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 22:25:04 -0600
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 22:25:04 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #867

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 29 Oct 91 22:25:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 867

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Loopback Points in ISDN Network [Russ Nelson]
    Question About CPC and Answering Machine [Craig Lemon]
    Phone Company Hassle [Dave Niebuhr]
    Voice Mail Cracking and alt.dcom.telecom [Dave Niebuhr]
    Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans [Gregg E. Woodcock]
    Public Cordless Phones [Vance Shipley]
    Free Calls to MCI Personal 800 Number on Halloween [Colin Tuttle]
    First ESS(tm) Retired [Andy Sherman]
    Telecomm Disaster Recovery Plan Information Wanted [Howard Pierpont]
    Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' [Gregg E. Woodcock]
    New Archives File: "Modem Tax" [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 07:27:15 EST
From: Russ Nelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Loopback Points in ISDN Network
Reply-To: "aka [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>


I had originally written:

> If anybody wants to know, I could type in the list of commands that
> you need to send to the switch.  Basically all you can do is perform
> bit error rate tests while looping back at various points.  Also, you
> can only test one of the B channels.  You need to test D or 2B+D from
> the switch console itself (otherwise how could the switch communicate
> with your set over the D channel?)

Then a response asked,

> Also on the subject of loopback, can you perform loopbacks at:

>  1. local NT2
>  2. local NT1
>  3. local LT
>  4. remote LT
>  5. remote NT1
>  6. remote NT2

"Remote"?  There is no remote -- you're talking directly to the switch.

Here's the list of BRITL commands.  On the switch I was using, the
BRITL was 1-300.  This, like everything else on the #5ESS, is probably
configurable.

*11x#    Run BER test on channel x with current parameters
    *111# uses B1
    *112# uses B2
*120#    Display Current Test Termination
*12x#    Set Test Termination
    *121# terminates at CPE (TE) [default]
    *122# terminates at NT1
    *123# terminates at Linecard (LT)
*130#    Display Current Test Duration
*13x#    Set Test Duration
    *131# 20 seconds [default]
    *132# 2 minutes
    *133# 20 minutes
*140#    Display Current Test Datarate
*14x#    Set Test Datarate
    *141# 64K Clear (including nulls)
    *142# 64K Restricted (excluding nulls) [default]
    *143# 56K clear
*2#    Send Alerting Signal to the CPE
*3#    Print LCEN (Line Card Equipment Number?) on CPE display
*4#    Print Primary DN/MLHG (Dialed Number) on CPE display
*0#    Repeat Previous Message (Display/Tone)

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 06:49:54 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Craig Lemon)
Subject: Question About CPC and Answering Machine


        I have purchased a Panasonic KX-T1622 answering machine used
and without a manual.  I borrowed a manual for a similar answering
machine (same except it uses a different size of tapes) so I know how
to use it already.  I noticed in the manual that it said to set the
CPC switch to 'A' if you did NOT have call waiting and to 'B' if you
did (or if you had calls interrupted).  The way I understand it, CPC
is merely the "flashing" of line power when I call is completed (am I
right)?  I set it to 'B' as I had just subscribed to call waiting.

This machine is one of the AUTO-LOGIC control units and I have been
very happy with it's performance in regards to giving up when you pick
up another phone and I've also noticed that if I unplugged the phone
line for a split second it would hang up and end the message as well
(this is like CPC yes?) in either the CPC 'A' or 'B' settings.

        Here's where the problem starts ... I ALWAYS have 10-20 second
blank periods after my messages that I feel shouldn't be there.  I
have two lines in the house.  LINE 1 is on a Crossbar switch.  LINE 2
is on a DMS switch and is equipped with Call Waiting and Three-Way
Calling (plus Forwarding and Speed Calling through a trial program).
LINE 2 has the answering machine on it.  I started to switch the
answering machine between the two lines and call myself with various
CPC settings etc ...

Calling Crossbar with DMS line :

      I noticed that when I put the machine on the Crossbar switch and
had CPC set to 'A' the machine would hang up the INSTANT I hung up
LINE 2 after leaving a message.  With CPC set to 'B' it would tape
about five seconds of a dial tone but it seemed to rewind and tape the
'beep' over the taped dial tone (so you don't hear it when you listen
to your messages.

Calling DMS with Crossbar line :

        When set to 'A' there is a 10-15 second tail and when set to
'B' there is the same.  The 'A' setting might have a slightly longer
delay.

        Why does the newer DMS switch not send the CPC correctly (BTW,
it exhibits the same behaviour when called by another DMS number) at
the end of each call?  Does it send the CPC properly but not to the
specs expected by Panasonic?  What do the A & B signify?  I ask this
because I noticed that the switch wasn't labelled "CPC Detect : ON or
OFF" as it's function would imply.  What does Call Waiting have to do
with CPC?  I would really love for the machine to work as it does on
the Crossbar switch and I know other people with different brands of
machines on DMS numbers have beeps right after their calling party
hangs up, why don't I?

        Mailing responses would be a good idea as I don't always get a
chance to read this rather sizable group.  Any help is appreciated.
If I have been unclear and you could help if you had more info, PLEASE
mail an inquiry instead if hitting 'n' or even worse : 'K'! :-)

        One more thing I forgot.  I have an Innova II+ phone (I
believe) that has a speakerphone that automatically disconnects when
the other person hangs up (I'm assuming it uses CPC as well).  When I
receive a call on the DMS line I'm pretty sure that it cancels
IMMEADIATLY after the call (unlike the machine).  It's very sensitive
though because often it hangs up when the Crossbar line goes (clunk
clunk) after you dial.  This is what makes me believe that the DMS and
Panasonic specs for CPC don't quite match.


Craig Lemon - Kitchener, Ontario. Amiga B2000 UUCPv1.13D.
[e-mail] lemsys![e-mail]
xenitec!lemsys![e-mail]
..!uunet!watmath!xenitec!lemsys!clemon

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 8:04:15 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Phone Company Hassle


John Higdon recently submitted an article about how a person's account
information could be changed by the telephone company quite easily
without any real security checking.

I ran into a situation the other day when I called the phone company
(NY Tel) to see what type of switch was in my CO.  The first person
found the information but wouldn't give it to me since I have an
unpublished number (I also have a published one but the other takes
precedence).

She said that she would call me back (some mumbo-jumbo about security
when it comes to non-published numbers -- BULL).  I told her to do it
on either number and that I'd be happy to have the info.  She also
wanted to know why I wanted it.  My answer was: "The type of switch is
public information in other companies and anyone can find out what it
is without too much trouble."

To make a long story short, she never called back so I called again
two hours later and in five minutes, I found out that my switch was
5ESS and that it is compatible with four others (two exchanges for my
community for a total of three and two exchanges for a neighboring
community).

What a hassle for a tiny bit of telco information.  I felt like giving
the first person a line about doing telecommunications consultation
and had to have the info for my client's business.


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

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 8:39:34 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Voice Mail Cracking and alt.dcom.telecom


Some person (he shall remain nameless) put out a post on
alt.dcom.telecom and misc.consumers about wanting to crack voice mail
systems.  Personally, he should be ... (insert favorite word).

I feel that alt.dcom.telecom should be taken off the air, but
free-speech issues arise and I don't want to get into that one.  Also,
I think that USENET should review their policies as to what newsgroups
get to use it for messaging.

Maybe I'm just a little old-fashioned, but I sure don't want to see my
privacy invaded or computer system damaged due to some cracker.

If anyone wants the message, I'll e-mail directly to them on request.


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


[Moderator's Note: The fact that it is 'alt.' means by definition it
is not Usenet. The 'alt' groups use the same transport mechanism, but
they are definitly not part of Usenet. All sites are free to originate
traffic to any newsgroup, and accept or decline those newsgroups they
do not want to see. I would not go so far as yourself and say that any
newsgroup should be taken 'off the air' (well, I *might* make an
exception for my Socially Responsible friends and their .talk group
 ... wink! wink! ... but then everyone has a blind spot or two). The
problem with phreak messages lies in the ignorance of people who don't
know how they got on *your* machine ... and that includes newspaper
writers as well as prosecutors. The smart thing to do is not allow
that sort of thing on your machine. Why open yourself up to a hassle
later on. Are some government prosecutors ignorant? Of course, but the
people with the guns are entitled to be as ignorant as they like.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 09:07:58 -0600
From: "Gregg E. Woodcock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans


I was watching some news show last night (Oct 27) and they were
talking about a government office called the RTA (I think that may not
be exactly right) that was created by FDR back in 1920/30's to help
small "rural" businesses stay in business or get started.  This agency
hands out government (taxpayer) subsidised 5% loans to businesses that
can *or already have at one time* qualified.

Because of the "already have" part many *huge* companies which have
bought up little companies which deserved the loans now qualify for
them.  Including many telcos which have 100s of millions of dollars of
liquid assets.  They have the gall to ask for them and the government
cannot refuse them.  I am appalled.  They are using these loans to run
fiberoptics to ritzy neighborhoods at our expense.  Many directors of
this office have tried to shut it down but they say it is impossible
and the government *will not allow them to stop wasting taxpayer
money* by closing the office or instituting qualification reforms.  I
just thought the readers of the Digest would want to be informed about
this additional telco sleaziness.

Please feel free to make corrections (I was flipping back and forth to
the World Series and the Giants/Redskins games so I missed a lot).

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Public Cordless Phones
Date: 20 Oct 91 07:15:32 GMT
Organization: SwitchView Inc.


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 can up 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 clnnected 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

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

Subject: Free Calls to MCI Personal 800 Numbers on Halloween
Date: 28 Oct 91 21:20:19 CST (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (Colin Tuttle)


I saw a notice in {USA Today} this morning that said MCI was offering
free calls to your personal 800 numbers on Halloween.  This is the
same promotion they ran on Father's Day earlier this year.

I know some people in this newsgroup are not impressed with the MCI
Personal 800 service, but for those of us who travel a bit, the $2
monthly charge when combined with the MCI Prime Time Plan it really
can keep the LD charges down.  You can also put your Personal 800
number into your Circle of Family and Friends and save an additional
20%.  I pay .08664 a minute after 5 PM to my Personal 800 number ...
it may be a hassle to have to punch in the extra four digits after the
800 number, but for my applications it has been a way to save a few
bucks ... plus on Halloween all the calls are free!


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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: First ESS(tm) Retired
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 16:56:42 EST


According to the latest Bell Labs News, the 1ESS(tm) switch in
Succasunna, NJ was replaced with a 5ESS(R) switch on September 28.
The Succasunna switch, installed in 1965, was the first commercial
electronic switching system.  AT&T Network Systems and New Jersey Bell
are considering donating part of the retired switch to the Smithsonian
Institution.


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!
(ESS and 1ESS are trademarks of AT&T.  5ESS is a registered trademark
of AT&T.  There, now the lawyers are satisfied.)

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 16:10:44 PST
From: Howard Pierpont Digital Equipment Corp. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecomm Disaster Recovery Plan Information Wanted


As part of an effort at two of our sites we have written a Disaster
Recovery plan to cover the voice and data sides of the business.

We are interested in obtaining/reviewing/discussing plans with others
in a similar setting. This could be done through Benchmarking,
information sharing or a PID.

Interested parties, please contact me directly.


Thanks,

Howard Pierpont           508.568.6165
Digital Equipment Corp.   77 Reed Road HLO2-2/C10   Hudson, MA 01749

They let me speak but do not always agree with my ideas.  Standard
disclaimer applies.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 08:55:40 -0600
From: "Gregg E. Woodcock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh'

This has bothered me for a long time, why does that stupid voice on
the treatment recordings say 'oh' instead of 'zero'?  That is just
plain wrong.  'Oh' to me means the '6' key (mno).  All the telcos
should rerecord their messages and fix this.  I am sure it confuses
"english-as-a-second-language" customers.  Slang is *very*
unprofessional.


[Moderator's Note: IBT has theirs fixed so that two zeros on the end
of a number are pronounced 'hundred' and three zeros on the end of a
number are pronounced 'thousand'. Four zeros however come out sounding
like 'oh, oh, oh!  oooooh!!!'.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 20:30:29 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: New Archives File: "Modem Tax"


 <[e-mail]> (Mike Riddle) has submitted a new file
for the Telecom Archives. This file presents recent FCC activities
regarding the so-called 'modem tax'. It is the basis of several
discussion threads on GEnie and other commercial electronic services
right now.

I'd have put it here, but this single file is fifty percent larger
than a typical issue of the Digest, so it had to go straight to the
archives where you will find it under the name "fcc.modem.tax.filing"
if interested.

My thanks to Mike Riddle for preparing this and sending it along to
the Digest.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #867
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02082;
          30 Oct 91 1:43 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09985
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 23:56:09 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15146
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 29 Oct 1991 23:55:53 -0600
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 23:55:53 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #868

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 29 Oct 91 23:55:48 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 868

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What's an RPOA? [Dick Rawson]
    Re: What's an RPOA? [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Re: What's an RPOA? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone [Robert Zabloudil]
    Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone [David Gast]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We Fall Behind [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: US 0800 From UK [Gordon Grant]
    Re: AT&T Foreign Visitor Pack [[e-mail]]
    Re: Speaking of Telco Security ... [Rob Knauerhase]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 08:51:23 PST
From: [e-mail] (Dick Rawson)
Subject: Re: What's an RPOA?


RPOA is CCITT jargon.  The CCITT is part of the ITU, which is part of
the UN (I wonder if I left out any steps).  Thus, the CCITT is an
organization of governments.  In fact, the US delegation to CCITT
Study Group meetings is lead by the US State Department.  CCITT
"recommendations" (in effect standards) usually have the viewpoint
that governments operate telecom services, and refer to the authority
that operates a telecom service as an "administration"; dealings
between services in different nations are usually regarded as between
their respective administrations.

When the telecom provider is not part of a government, the CCITT
doesn't call it an administration.  Instead, the provider can be an
RPOA, and a country may have several RPOAs; RPOA is Recognized Private
Operating Agency (see CCITT X.121).  RPOA status is granted by the
CCITT; I don't know the formalities, but it costs money.  As an
example, you can specify for an X.25 call the sequence of RPOA transit
networks through which the call is to be routed.

So, roughly, this is another way of saying data communication network
operator ... but not "land line operator" as I think you intended that
to mean voice telephone services (plus maybe others).


Dick Rawson, BT North America (an RPOA; we operate TYMNET).

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 19:52:39 EST
From: [e-mail] (Herman R Silbiger)
Subject: Re: What's an RPOA?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail]
(Michael Lyman) writes:

> Does anyone have information on the implications of actually being an
> RPOA? Any domestic or International information would be greatly
> appreciated.

RPOA is a CCITT defined term.  There are four types of membership in
CCITT, Administrations, RPOAs, SIOs and IOs.  Administrations are
Telephone Administrations (PTTs) in countries where they are
Government owned, otherwise some government agency.  In the US the
Department of State is the Administration.  RPOAs are Recognized
Private Operating Authorities, such as operating companies or
carriers.  Examples are AT&T, MCI, Bell Atlantic, COMSAT, British
Telecom etc.  SIOs are Scientific and Industrial Organizations.
Examples are IBM, Motorola, DEC, Siemens, Alcatel, Ricoh, etc.  IOs
are International Organizations, such as ISI, IEC, UPU, Intelsat.

The Recognized in RPOA is recognition by an authority in the country
of origin as being eligible by the rules.  It should be noted that all
members can participate in the standardization work, but only
Administartions and RPOAs have a vote.  This is really a meaningless
distinction, since the work is always agreed by consensus, and in my
12 years in CCITT I have never seen a vote taken.


Herman Silbiger
Chair CCITT Study Group VIII Working Party 4.

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's an RPOA?
Date: 29 Oct 91 18:59:04 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail]
(Michael Lyman) writes:

> I've been trying to understand the term RPOA which, according to what
> I've found so far is an acronym for "REGISTERED PUBLIC OPERATING
> AGENCY". [...speculation omitted...]

"RPOA" stands for Recognized Private Operating Agency. This is one of
the four classes of CCITT membership (remember, the International
Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee [CCITT] is the agency
of the United Nations that sets policy and standards for international
telecommunications including telegraph, telephone, telex, fax, data
networks, modems, etc.).  The other classes are "administration"
(which means the "government"), "scientific or industrial
organization" (mainly equipment manufacturers; Hayes is a CCITT
member in this category), and "liaison organizations" (other
international bodies like ISO).

In most countries, the phone company is owned by the government.  But
in the USA (and, increasingly, some other countries), the phone
companies are "private".  Those that carry international traffic are
RPOAs.  Only Administrations and RPOAS get to vote on CCITT issues,
although SIOs have a great deal of influence on technical issues.
RPOAs in the US include such companies as AT&T, MCI, US Sprint, etc.,
but not your local or regional phone companies (they don't have
connections directly to the phone systems of other countries).

By the way, even though we don't have a nationalized phone system in
the US, we still have an "Administration". This role is served by the
Department of State. The "US CCITT National Committee", which has
members from throughout government and industry, advises the State
Dept. on what USA positions should be on CCITT issues. Most technical
issues are handled by US national standards committees, like T1 for
ISDN and telephone systems and TR-30 for modems, before coming forward
to the US CCITT national committee (or its subcomittees) for
consideration.

[FYI, I'm a member of US CCITT Study Group D, a subcommittee of the
national committee which handles modems, fax, and data networks.  I'm
also Hayes' representative to the CCITT and US standards committees on
modems and fax.]


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] (Robert E. Zabloudil)
Subject: Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone
Date: 29 Oct 91 17:13:15 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J.
Philip Miller) writes:

X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 849, Message 8 of 10

> This was posted on RISKS.  It clearly is yet another reason to stay
> away from the MCI gimicks.

>> From: "Brian R. Krause" <[e-mail]>

>> 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.

This caught my eye since I was just last week contacted by MCI to join
the F&F; my months of reading telecom came in handy because I knew to
tell them NO in a firm voice.  I waited to snarl until after I had
hung up.

After reading the above, I dialed the number and discovered my sister
in TX had succumbed, they haven't reached my brother in FL yet, and I
"did not accept ..." the offer.  I wonder why they didn't give my
other two brothers and two sisters out of the house this fantastic
opportunity?

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 16:33:56 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone


John Higdon offers a rebuttal to the following comment:

[e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun) writes:

> I also don't see what's so horrible
> about someone POTENTIALLY finding out who's on your F&F list.

Agreeing with John, I can think of several companies, that I done
business with that I would not want to know of each others existence.
Additionally, by looking at my recent long distance calls one could
determine the following at least:

1) A DISA port on a PBX with minimal security.  I use this
extensively, to page people at the company in question, who are
seldom at their desks.

2) Several SCB and Auburn University numbers that they generally
don't give out. (ie: lines that are answered in the CO.)

3) At least one radio station transmitter dial-up, where the number
is kept very confidential, as many people have the access code, but
they must use the autodialer at the station to call the transmitter.
(Their idea of security and FCC compliance, not mine.)

4) Several unlisted modem lines, one of which isn't recognizable as
a modem by dialing it.

5) Numerous other numbers that I won't mention.


Patton Turner   [e-mail]    KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 14:18:53 -0800
From: [e-mail] (David Gast)
Subject: Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone


I believe that the primary purpose of MCI's Family and Friends program
is to create a database, which can then be sold or rented, about
people's family and friends.  It is part of the trend towards
personalized advertisements.  For example, rather than sending a piece
of junk mail about some product you don't need, they can now send you
a piece of junk mail about the same product, but include the fact that
your friend "Bob" just bought it.  The ad might even look as if it
came from "Bob."

What I am a little unsure about is the extent to which calls might be
considered confidential, but my "Family and Friends" might be
considered information which can be distributed without restrictions.


David

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 17:15:52 GMT


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

> Speaking of which, don't various countries go on/off savings time at
> different dates in the year?  And is there any good reason why this
> isn't synchronized?  (Seems it would make the most sense to me ...)

    Of course, countries in the southern hemisphere would have to
use different dates and go different directions than those in the
northern.  Anyone know if other northern hemisphere countries are
synchronized with US?  When US changed move from standard to DST from
last week of April to first week, did other countries follow along?
Also, I seem to recall this whole idea of messing with the clock was
Ben Franklin's idea.  Just rumor or true?  I'd prefer we not mess with
the clock.  Noon has an astronomical meaning, it's not just for
convenience.  If people want to get up earlier in the summer, can't
they just get up earlier?

    Making system software deal with DST was fun.  Our first
systems (about ten years ago) had a problem changing back to standard
time.  They would change back to standard time at 2am, but then it was
1am and not time to change yet, so it'd go back to DST.  Each change
was printed, so we got lots and lots of changes logged.  We finally
made the change based on the "unadjusted" or standard time.  Software
is fun!


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (gordon grant)
Subject: Re: US 0800 From UK
Organization: Joint European Torus
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 14:39:03 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Graham
Toal) writes:

> I read in some article here recently that you can call US 0800 numbers
> from the UK by going via AT&T if you have an AT&T credit card.  This

[more credeit card stuff deleted]

> [Moderator's Note: Actually, we call them '800' numbers rather than
> '0800' and you *will* pay for the call between the UK and the USA. It
> is only the second part of the connection -- from Pittsburgh in the
> USA to the place where the 800 subscriber is located that you will get
> without charge -- and then, only if the subscriber uses AT&T 800 ...

What second part ?

Calls from the UK to North America are all charged at the same rate
regardless as to the destination within that area. (True for BT,
Mercury have *very* small differences between Canada and the US).  So
what are they offering without charge?  Is the same not true in the
opposite direction?

I think the service Graham is refering to is a BT service called 'Home
Country Direct' this is available to many countries (Don't have the
list to hand but its about 20) where BT offer an 0800 number which
connects directly to an operator in the overseas country. The caller
then uses a credit or charge card to pay for the call at the remote
end.

It is aimed at visitors to the UK who can then settle the bill with
their usual phone company at home. Its also claimed to be useful for
non-English speakers, as I noted it was available to places like
Brazil.

To the US there were three or four numbers depending on which
company's operator you required.

I could dig out the list of countries with their access numbers if
anyone wanted them.


[e-mail]     Gordon Grant     Jet Abingdon OX14 3EA UK
Voice [phone] x4822     Fax [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I don't think he was talking about USA Direct
service as you imply. I think he was trying to reach 800 numbers in
the USA. Note in his message he wondered if he could have the card
without ever actually putting charges on it. Anyone would realize
there would be a charge to call the USA from the UK. The only reason
for a 'second part' to the call is because the 800 subscriber in this
country does not wish to receive calls from outside the USA. So the
caller pays for a call to the USA (admittedly, the same rate
regardless of where in the USA the call went) and the owner of the 800
number pays for the call between Pittsburgh, USA and the actual
destination point.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: AT&T Foreign Visitor Pack
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 12:54:32 -0500
From: [e-mail]


I called away for one of these, specifically requesting the one for
Europe; Germany in particular.  Last week they came -- one for South
America, one for Central America.  One in Spanish, one in Portugese.
So I'd really like to provide a short review, but those languages are
outside my domain!  All they send you is a little book, maybe 3x3",
that seems to tell about calling the USA.  There's not a whole lot
there.


Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
[e-mail]   /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg  301 405-2721 <standard disclaimers>

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

From: [e-mail] (Rob Knauerhase)
Subject: Re: Speaking of Telco Security ...
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 04:59:00 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (The Squire,
Phish) writes:

[telco employees do not follow secure procedures in changing service]

> [Moderator's Note: The experience you describe is all too common, and
> it's one reason I can't get too excited if MCI or others want to put
> all the data at your fingertips via touchtone buttons. Either secure
> the data however it may be transmitted, or leave it all open. People
> are either honest or they are dishonest.  PAT]

There is a difference between humans being insecure and computers
being insecure.  History is replete with examples of money,
smoothtalk, or blackmail being used to get information improperly.  As
long as human nature doesn't change, this will always be the case.

However, allowing easy access via phonepunch/computer is a whole
different ballpark.  There is no need to permit computers to have the
same holes as humans just because employees and current practices are
a weak link; indeed, building touchtone-access systems as safe as
possible is a good way to REMOVE the insecurity that smoothtalking the
front-line help allows.

The long-range concern is in the common man's position on "computers
in general" -- with current informaton-delivery systems in their
infancy, it would be nice to set good precedents for when they become
ubiquitous.


Rob Knauerhase           University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
[e-mail]       Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #868
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02378;
          30 Oct 91 2:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19843
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 30 Oct 1991 00:49:57 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17057
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 30 Oct 1991 00:49:45 -0600
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 00:49:45 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #869

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 Oct 91 00:49:42 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 869

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: IXO Protocol Update [J. Brad Hicks]
    Re: X25 Networks With Outdial Service [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Linc Madison]
    Re: Station Message Detail Recorder [Horacio T. Cadiz]
    Re: Charge on 800 Calls [Mikel Manitius]
    Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: AT&T Ads Promote Hotel 6 [David Lesher]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Dell H. Ellison]
    Re: IBT ISDN Pricing [Richard Zuccarini]
    Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing [William Degnan]
    Charging Business Rates For Modem Use [Jack Decker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 16:08 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IXO Protocol Update


> Since my pager-terminal has a 2400bps modem in it, ...

My desk is a mess, but if I remember correctly, the copy of the spec
that I have says that the dial-in must be 300 bps.  It wouldn't
surprise me if one or more companies exceeded that spec, though.

> The IXO protocol is really two protocols in one.  The first is a
> really well-designed (and *very* simple) scheme of sending packets of
> data with checksums and getting acks or naks.  Just what you'd need,
> right?  That's the "automatic protocol".
> The second protocol is called the "manual protocol".  At an early
> point in the automatic protocol, transmit a capitol M followed by a CR
> and the system becomes a little BBS that asks you (in English) for the
> pagerid and message and Y/N if you want to send more.  No checksums,
> no muss, no fuss.

> I've taken the easy way out and implemented the second protocol.  It
> only needed a simple set of send/expect functions to be written.  I
> could have even done it with "cu" or "tip".

CyberTel Paging, the company here in St. Louis which provides our
pager service, simply refused to turn over to me the modem phone
number until I had software capable of handling the automatic
protocol.  The reason is simple: they have found that once a customer
site has the phone number and knows about the manual mode, they tend
to give that combination to lots of people who dial in, and then
dither for a while over their phone message or looking up the number.
They have a relatively small number of modems on that rotary, and can
handle about three times as many requests via the automatic protocol
as they can through the manual protocol.  In fact, they told me that
they intend to disable the part of the system that handles manual
protocol before the end of the year.

In summary, I cannot stress strongly enough that you should not
attempt to implement your own code to perform IXO/TAP automatic paging
(or even try to implement other people's software) without the full
cooperation of the technical support department at your paging vendor.

My experience with CyberTel was that these were honest-to-Ghu
engineers who really wanted my product to work with their hardware; I
seldom get such prompt call-backs and quick, accurate answers from
just about anybody else in the computer or telecom industry.  Good
luck!

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

From: [e-mail] (Syd Weinstein)
Subject: Re: X25 Networks With Outdial Service
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 17:19:13 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Someone asked about outdial X.25, well, here is some scoop on a
service out there that offers V.32/V.42 ....

Quoting Terry Rossi,

Access ports are provided for 92% of the population of the US by dialing a
local phone call.  International Rates are also very competative (ie:
$18.00 an hour from London.)

The outdial supports it is over 12,000 exchanges.
the outdial modems are v32/v32bis/v42/v42bis.
modems and access ports support v.32/v.42 standards.

The fees for the service are flat rate 24 hours a day at any baud rate.

$20.00 Membership Fee.
$10.00 Monthly Acount Fee.
$ 4.00 hourly, no K charges.

Billing are handled thru Visa and Mastercard.

Further information can be obtained by Calling Paragon Communications @
1-800-945-7272 after November 1st.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 2.4 Release: Early 1992
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd      Voice: [phone], FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 00:08:20 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> [e-mail] (Susan Haug) writes:

>> {Washington Post}
>> _Computer Network [Prodigy] to Ban 'Repugnant' Comments_.

> Well, I have to wish them luck as I don't see how they are going to
> check every single message which users send to each other using their
> service.  I hardly think they would be willing to spend the kind of
> money it would take to have someone read all of the messages.

They run every message through a simple filter program that silently
kills any message containing an offensive word.  For example, the
dog-breeders SIG has expressed disgruntlement that any message
containing the word "bitch" goes into a black hole, irrespective of
context.  (No joke)


Linc Madison  =  GVHX00A @ Prodigy  =  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Station Message Detail Recorder
Date: 29 Oct 91 18:29:21 GMT
Organization: VPI&SU Computer Science Department, Blacksburg, VA


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

> .... when one talks about SMDR he is usually referring to a normal
> function of a PBX.

   This is also how I understand it. However I don't have the money
for a PBX.  I do have an ordinary computer and an ordinary phone. Can
one get SMDR or something equivalent to its functionality without
getting a PBX?  What can I attach to my ordinary phone so that my
ordinary computer can have the functionality of an SMDR?


Horacio T. Cadiz     cadizht@ csgrad.cs.vt.edu

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 11:47:42 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)
Subject: Re: Charge on 800 calls


In addition to the sleezy hotel PBX systems Lauren Weinstein mentioned
in his article, there is one other "public" source that does charge
(rather heavily) for 800 calls. That's AIRFONE.

AIRFONE (the in-flight telephone) charges as much as $2 per minute on
all domestic calls, including 800 numbers.

I think this is a subject of some interest. To some degree the AIRFONE
could be viewed as a "public" phone, perhaps even a COCOT. But I'm
sure it differs somewhere on paper.

Imagine what would happen if the FCC mandated that an 800 call from
such a number must be free. I could then place a call to, say 800
950-1022 and place calls using my MCI calling card with no AIRFONE
surcharge, thus using the system for free.

I wouldn't be surprised if AIRFONE were to block calls to such 800
numbers.


Mikel Manitius        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think all cellular companies charge for calls to
800 numbers also; or more specifically, they charge for the airtime
involved in making a call, regardless of destination, in addition to
whatever the local telco may charge them (or the receiver of the call
as the case may be.)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Syd Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 16:10:27 GMT


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

> Are there any cordless phones which use digital transmission
> between the handset and base.

>From the newest B. A. Pargh Catalog:

Tropez Digital  900DX cordless telephone
900 Mhz frequency band
20 channel automatic select
Fully digital communication between hand and base (listed as pat. pending)
16 bit digital security code (sounds like they 'encrypt the signal
as well'

Out of range indicator operates in 'on or off' position
Digital volume control
Unique Privacy Key Control
Programmable Memory includes four ringer tone options
1/2 mile range

Price? Wholesale 225, retail 350


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 2.4 Release: Early 1992
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd      Voice: [phone], FAX: [phone]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Ads Promote Hotel 6
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 19:13:12 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex

{hotel ripoff's}

>> So, does AT&T marketing read comp.dcom.telecom?

> I dunno, but Marriott has been advertising that their hotels provide
> AT&T Long Distance as the default on their in-house phones.

Note that Marriott's Residence Inn wants $0.75/call for all calls:
950, 10222, 1-800, you name it. I wrote Mr. Marriott to complain. He
could not bother to reply. The place I am staying instead has free
calls.

To parady Marriott's ads: What good is a fancy ad when the phone is
total ripoff?


[e-mail]

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Dell H. Ellison)
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card
Date: 29 Oct 91 16:56:18 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve
Baumgarten) writes:

> 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.

Actually, AT&T did cancel my card "for my own protection", just
because I hadn't used it for a few months.  The point of having it was
so I could use it when I was out of town.  (I didn't think that I
would have to worry about them cancelling it).

I use the FON card now.


Dell H. Ellison    ...!uunet!mcdchg!motcid!ellisond     Motorola, Inc.

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Zuccarini)
Subject: Re: IBT ISDN Pricing
Date: 29 Oct 91 00:55:29 GMT
Organization: Public Access Info Network  (818/776-1447)


rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes:

> David, I must admit I would like to be able to complain about GTE
> California screwing me on ISDN, but I can't.  Why?  Because ALL of the
> people there that I talked to couldn't even spell ISDN, nor did they
> even know what it was.  I sympathize with your plight, but at least
> you're getting ISDN into your home.  Out here, only business class
> lines running Centrex get ISDN (so far as I know).

At least you found someone that knew what it was.  The RBOC's have a
big training job on their hands.  I have been trying to get
residential ISDN for several weeks.  I live right on a major
boulevard, and am in one of those little residential pockets that
hasn't yet been swallowed up by commercial.  ISDN is available, just
not to me as a residential customer.  But then GTE has never been to
interested in the residential customer, even if my phone bills do
rival some small businesses.


usc.edu!celia!techsys!pain!dickz
[e-mail]  (broken at elroy.nasa.gov?)
Public Access Information Network  (818/776-1447)

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

From: [e-mail] (William Degnan)
Date: 28 Oct 91  00:08:17
Subject: Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing


On <Oct 25 13:35> UUCP ([e-mail] wrote:

> Recently new telephone books were distributed in my friend's
> neighborhood and yes -- you guessed it -- his name, address and phone
> number are in the book! Needless to say, he's upset over this and
> would like to take some action to correct this problem.

> quite upset about this and would like to take NET to task over this
> issue. Thanks in advance for any information.

Hmmm. Well, if they left him out, they might be forced into sending
out a notice telling folks to _add_ his number to the directory.
Perhaps they could send out some correction fluid to all directory
holders? No?

I suspect the general exchange tariff lets them off the hook for
errors or ommissions but if the directory is published by an
unregulated subsidiary, there might be some recourse someplace. Tell
him to have his consultant rattle their cage collective cage. 8-)


Origin: Private Line - Stealth Opus in Austin (1:382/39.0)
William Degnan,  Communications Network Solutions
-Independent Consultants in Telecommunications-
P.O. Drawer 9530       | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530  | ![e-mail]  | Voice [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 17:19:17 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Charging Business Rates For Modem Use


Quite some time ago this issue of charging business rates for
residential modem use came up, and I had a couple of
comments/questions at the time that may be worth repeating:

FAX transmissions are sent by modems, in the same manner as computer
data (facsimile transmissions are just binary-encoded representation
of a graphics image).  In fact, the use of FAX cards in computers has
blurred the distinction between "FAX data" and "computer data."
Therefore, any prohibitions against the transmission of computer data
on a residential telephone line could also be equally applied against
facsimile transmissions.

The question you should be asking the regulators is, do you really
want to deny the use of a FAX machine to residential customers?  As
the price of first-class postage continues to rise, and the price of
FAX machines continues to decline, it's reasonable to assume that a
much higher percentage of residential customers will start using FAX
machines (compare with the telephone answering machine, which
originally was found almost exclusively on business lines, but now is
a common item in homes).

The only way that the telephone company can be absolutely sure whether
a data transmission is computer data or FAX data is to actually
monitor (tap) the transmission and attempt to decode it in order to
determine the actual content.  Do we really want to give the phone
company the right to intercept our private FAX transmissions to
determine that they are really FAX transmissions, and not computer
data?  Should it even matter whether a data transmission is computer
data or FAX data?

The point I am making should be obvious: The mere presence of computer
or FAX data on a residential telephone line, or evidence that a
computer modem or a FAX machine is connected to a residential
telephone line, is not of itself sufficient to prove that the line is
being used for business activity.  Just because businesses use FAX
machines or computer modems does not mean that residential customers
do NOT use these devices.  And, as prices fall on these devices, we
can expect to see them put to even greater amounts of non-business-
related use.  The same FAX machine or computer modem that is used to
transmit a business contract can be used by a child to transmit
tomorrow's homework assignment to a friend who was absent from school.
The telephone itself was originally found primarily in businesses,
until the price of telephone service dropped to the place where people
could afford to have a telephone in their homes.

Perhaps someday the telephone companies and the state regulators will
stop trying to make a distinction between residential and business
service, and just offer one rate for basic telephone service.  But in
the meantime, the mere presence or absence of a modem or FAX machine
on a phone line does NOT mean it is being used for business purposes,
and should not be used as justification for charging business rates!


Jack Decker    : [e-mail]    : FidoNet 1:154/8

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #869
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02928;
          30 Oct 91 3:52 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30766
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 30 Oct 1991 01:56:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09575
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 30 Oct 1991 01:55:57 -0600
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 01:55:57 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #870

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 Oct 91 01:55:30 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 870

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Rob Stampfli]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Michael A. Covington]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Paul A. Houle]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Bob Izenberg]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Mark Brader]
    Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' [Jamie Mason]
    Re: Notice on GEnie About FCC Action [Michael A. Covington]
    Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing [Michael A. Covington]
    Re: Speaking of Telco Security ... [John Hood]
    Area Code Category on Jeopardy? [Henry Mensch]
    Pac*Bell's Two Cents (!) [Robert L. McMillin]
    Controlling Long Distance Access [Jeff Sicherman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: colnet![e-mail] (Rob Stampfli)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 06:15:14 GMT


> The morning clowns on this area's top-rated rock station used to call
> some unsuspecting local person every day, falsely identify themselves
> and give the callee a hard time about something, hoping for humorous
> reactions.

> [Moderator's Note: About 30+ years ago, station WLS in Chicago had a
> DJ by the name of Dick Biondi. He let some profanity go out over the
> air and the FCC ordered the station to go off the air about ten
> minutes later. They remained off the air for several hours, apparently
> while their attorney argued with the FCC about it. And it was fairly
> mild as those things go today.  Times and attitudes change.  PAT]

As I read this, the thought came to me that, wouldn't it be delightful
if someone were to call the offending station after one of these
episodes, demand to speak to the manager or chief engineer, and --
pretending to be the Engineer-In-Charge from the nearest FCC field
office -- quote chapter and verse from the Part-whatever broadcast
rules about notifying people prior to putting them on the air, allege
that a complaint was filed, slap them with a fine, and order them off
the air until they waded through some excessively complex amount of
government red-tape, etc.  And, if they didn't buy that ruse, the
caller could then claim to be from a competitor station, proclaiming
that it was all a humorous joke and "You're live on the air with me
right now -- tell us, how do *you* feel?"

I dunno, somehow I have my doubts that the station management would
find the same degree of humor in the situation with the rolls
reversed.


Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, [e-mail] (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: For obvious reasons, I cannot recommend or allow
the suggestion to appear unchallenged that one impersonate a federal
official over the telephone. That is another whole can of worms.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 06:42:01 GMT


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

> compose himself) DJ imploring my friend not to say that again, and her
> demanding to know who this REALLY was (they never did cut the path
> from her phone to the transmitter).

> She tells me the DJ talked to her later off-the-air enough to make
> sure she wasn't really angry with him.  As far as I know, nothing ever
> came of it, and they continued making such calls.

What if she _had_ been really angry?

If they had done it to me, I would have insisted on "being angry" on
the ground that, even if they didn't embarrass _me_ all that badly in
this particular case, they had overstepped all bounds of decency and
common sense, and ought to learn a lesson.  After all, the _next_
victim could easily be someone who suffers more harm and is less able
to defend him/herself.

I would call the FCC and a lawyer immediately.


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: Tue, 29 Oct 91 13:17:32 MST
From: [e-mail] (Paul A. Houle)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls


      Two DJ's in the Boston area also attempted some phone
shenanigans that backfired.  They called the DA operator in Hawaii and
asked for Tom Selleck's telephone number -- the DA operator figured
that these were a pair of starstruck fools calling, so she gave them
the number of the local morgue.

       The DJ's announced this phone number on the air, and a number
of listeners called it, flooding the city morgue with long distance
telephone calls from Boston.  The radio station was fined, as you'd
expect, and the DA operator was also reprimanded.


[Moderator's Note: How did they find out which DA operator did it? I'm
sure the foolish DJs did not get the operator's name.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 2:15:22 CST


In TELECOM Digest issue 863, PAT wrote:

(In reply to Scott Dorsey's comment about radio stations being fined)

> [Moderator's Note: Fines mean nothing to a large FM radio station.
> They consider it part of the cost of doing business. What they need is
> for someone from the FCC to walk into the transmitter site; show his
> credentials and give them one minute to have an orderly powering down
> of the facility with the usual 'sign off the air' announcement. Then
> everyone would be ushered outside and the facility padlocked pending
> FCC permission to return to the air.  PAT]

I don't think that the FCC needs any more encouragement to act like
real police ... not after working in the jurisdiction of the NY field
office.  People are sentenced to community service by judges fairly
frequently; How about increasing the station's public affairs
requirement, and re- quiring that it be done during waking hours
instead of buried on Sunday mornings?  Is this too much like a fine,
or will the threat of having to make programming changes be a
deterrent?


Bob

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 04:54:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


> Speaking of which, don't various countries go on/off savings time at
> different dates in the year?  And is there any good reason why this
> isn't synchronized?  (Seems it would make the most sense to me ...)

There is a good reason, but it's not the actual one.

The good reason is that the optimal dates for daylight saving time are
different for different places.  Roughly speaking, the idea is that
the clocks ought to be shifted when people are generally getting up
nearly an hour after sunrise, and shifted back when sunrise returns to
the same time again.  But the time of sunrise varies greatly by one's
latitude, and by the difference between one's longitude and the
longitude that one's clocks are set by (e.g. 75W for EST); also, there
are real differences from one place to another as to which hours
people use to sleep.

I have here a table of sunrise times (first contact) for different
latitudes.  Consider latitude 30N -- Houston (95W) or New Orleans
(90W).  These are on the same time zone, so their sunset times are 20
minutes apart.  If their residents' habits are such that the clock is
best changed when sunrise is at 5:30 am standard time, then the ideal
dates of daylight saving time for New Orleans are April 19 to August
19, but for Houston, only May 10 to July 18.  At latitude 40N,
assuming the same 5:30 am threshold, for Denver it's April 10 to
September 5, while Columbus would prefer May 3 to August 1.  In the
tropics the sunrise time changes so little it isn't worth changing the
clock at all -- for example, Hawaii doesn't.  Go far enough north, and
you get perpetual light in summer and it doesn't matter how you set
the clock.  (This doesn't stop them from observing daylight time
throughout Scandinavia, though -- presumably they all want to stay in
step with their less northerly neighbors.)

And finally, of course, in the southern hemisphere the seasons are
reversed and daylight saving time is used when it's winter up here.

The REAL reason, however, is that people in one country often don't like
following the standards of people in another country.  What else?


Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Have you ever been in northern Alaska? My friend
says it is positively eerie during parts of the winter when the sun is
up for only an hour or so each day ... popping up over the horizon for
awhile in the middle of the 'day', then dropping out of sight several
minutes later. Then finally it never shows up at all for a couple
months. And the reverse effect in the summer is also bizarre: There
will come a time in middle of the 'night' when twilight will arrive,
with bits of light lingering for several minutes, but never complete
darkness, then the rays of light will begin to shine again as morning
arrives.  PAT]

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh'
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 01:08:58 -0500


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Gregg E. Woodcock) writes:

> This has bothered me for a long time, why does that stupid voice on
> the treatment recordings say 'oh' instead of 'zero'?  That is just
> plain wrong.  'Oh' to me means the '6' key (mno).  All the telcos
> should rerecord their messages and fix this.  I am sure it confuses
> "english-as-a-second-language" customers.  Slang is *very*
> unprofessional.

> [Moderator's Note: IBT has theirs fixed so that two zeros on the end
> of a number are pronounced 'hundred' and three zeros on the end of a
> number are pronounced 'thousand'. Four zeros however come out sounding
> like 'oh, oh, oh!  oooooh!!!'.   PAT]

    Most of the recordings I have heard say "zero".  I just
checked the '*69' recording.  (It announces the last number to call
you, before giving you a chance to call it.)  The recording definitely
says zero.  The 'reference of calls' recording also says "zero".  I
have a zero in my phone number, so it is easy for me to check ...

    I can't find a Bell recording that says "oh" rather than
"zero" in my (very shallow) search.  What kinds of recordings are more
likely to say "oh" than "zero"?


Jamie

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: Notice on GEnie About FCC Action
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 06:22:36 GMT


I will _not_ write to the FCC about anything unless someone first
gives me the appropriate NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) number
and/or appropriate reference to the FCC Record.

It seems that about 2/3 of the time, when there is a fast-spreading
message about an unpleasant FCC action, it turns out to be
substantially misrepresented.

I don't know about this ONA action, which seems rather arcane, but I'd
advise everybody to check out the details before writing.


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


[Moderator's Note: Well then, I suggest you and other interested
readers pull the new file from the Telecom Archives which Mike Riddle
gave us. 'fcc.modem.tax.actions' describes in detail exactly what is
planned. I put the file up Tuesday evening. The archives can be
accessed with anonymous ftp from lcs.mit.edu. (cd telecom-archives). PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 06:35:44 GMT


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

> Never order service in your name.
> When you get service, demand an unlisted ADDRESS. This is
> typically free!

A local BBS is listed under the name of "P C Dos".  But they forgot to
leave the address unlisted.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (John Hood)
Subject: Re: Speaking of Telco Security ...
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 04:28:19 GMT


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

> As a result of that maneuver, I had my accounts "passworded". This
> means that before a Pac*Bell rep will discuss my accounts, the caller
> must provide a "password". Pac*Bell will do this for anyone that asks,
> but those that have taken advantage of this represent a tiny minority
> to be sure.

NY Tel has this in their regulations also.  When I ordered my three
lines a few months ago, I decided to ask for this.  I've called them
several times since (most recently to undo Sprint being the default LD
carrier on all three lines, instead of just one :) and they have never
asked me for my number.  Anybody else had this happen?


John Hood, CU student, CU employee, and sometime BananaOp
[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 20:52:33 PST
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


It's true ... tonight, on the game show _Jeopardy_, there was a
category called "area codes."  They would present a clue ...  "The
east side's up and the battery's down ... and they're both in this
area code". The contestant had to reply "What is 212?"

One wonders what they'll think of next ...


Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: I've an idea! Let's play it here in telecom. Who
wants to get the ball rolling with the first set of clues?   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 21:34:09 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Pac*Bell's Two Cents (!)


Last Wednesday the {Los Angeles Times} printed an editorial taking a
stand against allowing Pac*Bell, among others, from entering the
information services market, citing the natural conflict of interest
when the message is created by the messenger (my wording, not theirs).
Sunday's Times Opinion section had on its final page a full-page open
letter from Pac*Bell, signed by Sam Ginn, CEO.  The Times was rather
concerned that some of its fledgling information businesses would be
damaged by the entry of Pac*Bell into this market.  The points made by
Pac*Bell's letter:

- The currently leading IP's are large companies, so it makes for more
competition if a big company, such as Pac*Bell, gets into the fray.

- Several public interest groups support Pac*Bell's entry into this
market.

- Limiting IP competition is an antitrust issue relative to newspapers,
which are effectively a local monopoly in most markets.

- The Times' assertion that Pac*Bell will "'subsidize' [their]
information services with [their] guaranteed profits" is specious
since (a) their "profits have never been guaranteed", and (b) there
are laws in place to prevent such things from happening.  [It might
also be remembered that the dumping of television sets by the Japanese
TV cartel in the 1970's was also illegal, but none of the Japanese
perpetrators was ever seriously prosecuted. -- rlm]

- The Court of Appeals has upheld Pac*Bell's right to engage in IP
services even during the Times' appeal of this decision.


[Moderator's Note: In an issue of the Digest Wednesday overnight or
Thursday morning I'll print a lengthy article by David Gast based on
his testimony to the California PUC a few days ago.    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 22:46:47 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Controlling Long Distance Access
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  Is there any feature or service that any of the LD carriers have
that would prevent someone in your home (temporary employee) from
using your phone to make LD calls ? (of course removing a default
carrier would require them to use 10+ dialing but looking for
something more secure).


[Moderator's Note: Why don't you consider one of the inexpensive toll
restrictors sold by companies such as Hello Direct (1-800-HI-HELLO)?
They attach to the line in series with the phones which come behind
the unit, and can be programmed to disallow all toll calls.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #870
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07194;
          31 Oct 91 3:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00608
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 31 Oct 1991 01:49:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19636
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 31 Oct 1991 01:49:19 -0600
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 01:49:19 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #871

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 31 Oct 91 01:48:57 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 871

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Testimony to CA PUC Against the 60% Local Service Increase [David Gast]
    Extended Range Cordless Telephones [Ken Jongsma]
    PABX <-> Computer Standards [Andrew Tune]
    Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? [Steve Brack]
    Monopolies [Bob Ackley]
    Block Block Blocking in CID? [John R. Levine]
    What Basic Features Shouls ISDN BRI and PRI Provide? [Tim Gorman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 22:54:23 -0800
From: [e-mail] (David Gast)
Subject: Testimony to CA PUC Against the 60% Local Service Increase


Comments similar to those I gave before the California PUC yesterday
follow.  There was not one person in the audience who was even
remotely supportive of PacBell or GTE.  At the end of the hearing, the
judge mentioned he had ``learned something about the economics of Pac
Tel''.  I have included some Notes to provide some context for
non-California readers.  Believe it or not, I actually cut out a lot
of good evidence.

Also, I would like to point out that my residence is served by GTE.
GTE promised to send out details of their proposed rate increase
before the hearings began.  I have not yet received those details.
Many people who might voice an opinion will not because they don't
know that the proposed increase is 60%.  GTE did not mention that
there would be a small refund due to incentive pricing.  GTE did
manage last week to send out a letter reminding me of the upcoming 213
area code split.  It began, as I recall, "even thought the split is
months away"; the split, of course, happens in less than a week.  So
much for receiving excellent service.  It was also in a separate
envelop, not part of a bill, and so at additional expense.

Today I called GTE to find out the precise location for these
hearings.  GTE was unable to tell me.  The person gave me the number
of the PUC to call; that number was no longer working.  So much for
Telecommunications Excellence.  (Note: One of the GTE slogans).

Although I am served by GTE, I will direct most of my comments towards
PacBell for two primary reasons.

   1.  PacBell is much larger.
   2.  There is much better public information available.

I will note, however, that in 1990 GTE bought a local exchange carrier
and cellular carriers and that currently it is trying to divest itself
of its Electrical Property Group.  The only conclusion that I can draw
is that in spite of the so-called terrible regulatory climate, GTE
feels it is more profitable to be in the monopoly business of
providing local telephone service or the duopoly business of cellular
rather than a competitive business.

As I was walking into the room, I was able to obtain a copy of GTE's
proposed modifications.  I note that not only will monthly service go
up by 60%, but that local measured calls become more expensive,
discounts for evening and night calls gets smaller, and in some cases
increases.  So I should pay 60% more to pay more to call?  (Note: The
purpose of the hearings is consider whether intra-LATA competition
should be allowed.  The telco's argument is that competition should be
allowed; however, the mechanism will only be convenient for large
customers.  The telco's maintain that in order to compensate for the
lower intra-LATA long distance prices that a 60% increase in local
rates is needed.  I pointed out for residential callers, who probably
do not make a lot of long distance intra-LATA calls, the price of the
calls themselves can increase.)

GTE should not be allowed to charge more than PacBell.  Why should I
have to subsidize GTE's inefficiencies?  (Note: Another speaker
correctly identified that GTE is proposing to lower its prices on all
services on which it competes -- including pay phone calls -- and raise
the prices on all of its monopoly products.)

In preparing this testimony I studied several annual reports of
Pacific Telesis as well as other sources.  I must say I find it rather
amusing that Pac Bell has to come crying to the CPUC for regulatory
relief; their annual reports and their financial statements show a
company that is doing quite well.

Interesting enough, the 1984 annual report -- the first after the
breakup of AT&T -- mentions Pac Bell's strong commitment to universal
service and the "relationship with the California Public Utilities
Commission." Recent annual reports do not mention the first, and the
CPUC is criticised again and again in spite of the fact that the CPUC
promulgated the great telephone giveaway of 1989--incentive pricing.
As evidence that it was the great telephone giveaway, Pacific
Telesis's stock rose over 60% in 1989, a fact they are quite proud of.

Consider some facts about this so-called poor company that needs to
raise residential unlimited rates by 60%.  (Note: Many of these
figures go only up to December 31, 1989 because I was unable to get a
hard copy of a later annual report).

1. "Between Nov 21, 1983 and December 31, 1989 [PacBell] stock
appreciated 266%, compared to 199% over the same period for the other
six regional telephone holding companies and 113% for the Standard and
Poor's Composite."

2. The return on stockholder's equity increase from 13.5% to 15.4%.

3. Profit margins averaged about 14% for the 85-89% period compared to
about 6% for other (competitive) companies.  Thus, regulated Pac Bell
has a profit margin about double the average company.  Must be nice to
be regulated.

4. The average Treasury Bond (30 years) is now yielding less than 8%.
Pac Bell under the incentive scheme can earn as much as 14.75%.  That
is a 6.75% risk premium for a company that is most unlikely to go
bankrupt.  They can always get regulatory relief.  Even the minimum
return allowed 11.5% has a risk premium of 3.5% more than government
bonds.

5. Over the last two years, Pacific Telesis has spent about $1.5
Billion to buy back its stock.  In the words of Pacific Telesis, "The
corporation used its EXCESS funds to purchase this common stock."
(Emphasis added).  $1.5 Billion is a significant sum of money for a
corporation that wants to raise unlimited calling plan rates by 60%.

6. The 1991 President's letter says:  "As the world's governments
privatize telecommunications and issue new wireline licenses, Pacific
Telesis is one of the few companies with the size, telecommunications
expertise, and capital to pursue many of these historic opportunities.

Comment: Were have these resources come from?  The ratepayers.  Why
should we in CA pay more so Pacific Telesis can build new cellular and
cable systems on other continents?

7. Even during the recession -- when such Blue Chips as IBM see their
profits fall 85% -- Pacific Telesis does pretty well.  Sales were
up, gross profits were up, but overall profits were down slightly.

Consider these points:

  a. Selling, general, and administrative expense increased by $329 M.
  b. Interest expense was up by about $100 M even though
     interest rates declined.  Why?  Pacific Telesis borrowed $814 M
     which, perhaps just coincidentally, just happens to be about
     equal to the amount of stock repurchased.  That is, Pac Tel
     borrows money to repurchase its stock, the interest on which
     causes their earnings to decline so they come to the PUC seeking
     higher rates on residential service.
 c. They lost some money on a non-regulated subsidiary.  Comment:
    It's always nice to have the deep pockets of the rate payers
    to protect against unprofitable businesses in the competitive
    sector.  In the annual they mention three different figures
    for the loss, $60M, $75M, and $100M.

I would like to make a few suggestions:

1. Do not allow large executive salaries or perks to be put in the
rate base.  Also do not allow costs such as advertising for Centrex to
be included.

2. Reduce the allowed rate of return to reflect the lower cost of
capital today.

3. If the problem is that large corporations are not using Pac Bell's
network, then I have the following suggestions.

 a. Make it illegal to use an IEC instead of the LEC.  Include
    a large fine for violators.
 b. Require that these large companies pay a fee to a residence
    phone every time they call.  They have to use the LEC to contact
    a residence after all.
 c. Investigate thoroughly to see why even with the huge competitive
    advantage that the LECs have, other companies can build their
    own networks.  If there really is not a competitive advantage
    to having just one telco, then perhaps we should allow
    competition, but include the local loop.
 d. I am somewhat suspect that competition for intra-LATA calls
    will actually benefit the consumer.  AOSes, COCOTs, and the
    like have been negative, not positive.

4. Make those who want modernization pay for it.  For example, Pacific
Telesis says that it is modernizing its network and installing SS7.  I
and many other users of the phone system have no need for that.  Make
sure those who want those features pay for them.  Don't make everyone
else subsidize the users who want the latest technological gadgets.

5. If Pacific Telesis really thinks it cannot make money in the
regulated market without these additional increases, then ask them to
divest themselves of Pacific Telephone.  Of course, they won't because
Pacific Telephone provides the resources for all the other businesses
they want to get into.

In conclusion, the telcos seem more interested in providing anything
 -- information services, cable, cellular, etc -- except local exchange
service.  Keep things the same.  Don't give into the phone companies.
And a compromise of a 30% increase is not acceptable either.  (Note:
this 60% increase is called revenue neutral, the telcos also want to
raise rates in other proceedings.)

Perhaps it is time for the Phone Company equivalent of Prop 103.
(Note: Prop 103 was an anti-insurance company referendum passed by the
voters a few years back.  Telco would almost assuredly not want such a
proposition aimed at them, but with these rate hikes, a well-drawn
proposition might have an excellent chance of passage).


David Gast


[Moderator's Note: Could you please explain a little more about the
provisions of Proposition 103, and how it would affect the telcos?  PAT]

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

Subject: Extended Range Cordless Telephones
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 21:56:50 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


While traveling on business this week, I came across the following ad
in American Airlines' American Way in-flight magazine. I transcribe it
for your edification and make no recommendations.

[begin ad]

Up To 60 Mile Radius Cordless Phones*

Portable Models from 1 to 15 miles.

Mobile Models 30 and 50 miles.

Station to Station Models 25 and 60 miles.

NEW! High Performance non-cellular cordless extention phones.

Base easily connects to your phone lines anywhere in the world.

Custom and multilines available.

Phone Masters, Since 1969
1022 South La Cienega Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90035
[phone]    FAX [phone]

We Ship Worldwide - Visa, MasterCard, American Express
*Some Models may not be used in USA
[end ad]


Ken Jongsma               [e-mail]
Smiths Industries         [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan    73115,[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 17:40:45 DST
From: Andrew Tune <[e-mail]>
Subject: PABX <-> Computer Standards


I'm looking for any information which might be available about
standards in the area of _software_ interfaces to PABXs.  I'm aware of
the fact that a number of PABX vendors (some of whom are also general
purpose computer vendors) have products in this area, but I'm more
interested in the state of play of the efforts of standards bodies
(ANSI, IEEE (perhaps), ETSI, etc).

Feel free to respond by email if you'd rather not post.  I will submit
a summary of emailed responses unless asked not to.


Andrew Tune
TechNIX Consulting Services Pty Ltd           Phone: [phone]
Gnd Floor, 197-199 Riversdale Rd           Fax:   [phone]
Hawthorn, 3123, Australia                       Email: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brack)
Subject: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only?
Date: 30 Oct 91 19:42:02 GMT


I recently moved back home, and my parents are not pleased with my LD
bill.  Although I pay promptly, and use Call Manager, they don't want
my calls on their bill.  Calling cards are too expensive, and I don't
want to get a full-fledged second line, as my call volume makes it
uneconomical.

My question: is there any way to get a line put in that is strictly
for LD calling? i.e. no LEC access?  Would that be cheaper, if it's
possible?

Any other ideas/suggestions would be appreciated.


Steve


[Moderator's Note: You can get a variety of special lines from most
telcos, and one feature is to allow one plus LD calls only, rejecting
local calls, 0+ calls, etc. But you would save nothing, and might wind
up paying more. Just get a regular second line, with all measured
service if possible at the cheapest rate your telco offers, then use
it only for LD calls. You'll still be able to make the occassional
local calls you want with more flexibility than the plan you proposed.
Generally the specially treated lines are intended for security
reasons where the users possibly cannot be trusted to use the phone as
the owner intended; not as a way to save money for the owner.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 03:30:08 cst
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ackley)
Subject: Monopolies
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a message of <26 Oct 91 23:38:28>, John Higdon (11:30102/2) writes:

> A final point: if you are so concerned about monopolies, you need look
> no further than your local telco. The FCC, the congress, and the courts
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Also your cable TV supplier, power company, water provider, natural
gas supplier and sewer utility, all of which are usually monopolies in
their service areas.  Any or all of which may be owned by or provided
by your municipality.

IBM is not a monopoly; the Justice Department says so.  But IBM has a
bigger share of the mainframe computer industry than AT&T had of the
telephone industry BEFORE it was broken up.


Bob's Soapbox   , Plattsmouth  (1:285/666.7)

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

Subject: Block Block Blocking in CID?
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 22:36:33 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


Here's a technical Caller-ID question.  When a caller invokes C-ID
blocking, the caller's exchange still sends the calling phone number
but sets a status bit to block the display.  The number can still be
used for call trace, call block, call return, etc.

In areas such as New Jersey where there is no provision for callers
setting the block bit, what will happen when a blocked number arrives
from an SS7 long distance carrier? (I realize that nobody passes long
distance C-ID now, but they will in the next year or so.)  Will the
N.J. exchange still honor the block bit, even though it is set never
to generate it?

Assuming the answer is supposed to be that it will honor blocking, how
hard would it be for some dishonest employee to fiddle an exchange so
that putatively blocked numbers are displayed for his friends?


Regards,

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

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

Date: 30 Oct 91 09:38:06 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Basic Features Should ISDN BRI and PRI Provide?


I was in a conversation yesterday with some supposed ISDN guru's in
our company and was severely disappointed with the level of common
agreement on basic features ISDN BRI and PRI should provide.

So, in order to do some basic personal research on this I would like
to get some input from people on this forum as to what they consider
as the basic features that should be provided by BRI and PRI. This
should be along the lines of calling number delivery, 64KB data to
other ISDN lines, etc. I am not too concerned with what all of the
technical documents say ISDN should do (although I would be interested
in areas of disagreement between ISDN and SS7 as far as capabilities
provided). I am more concerned with what functionality is needed to
make the service attractive.

Replies via direct email or via the TELECOM Digest accepted. I will
try to summarize the results and post them if anyone is interested in
seeing them.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
* opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence*

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #871
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07287;
          31 Oct 91 4:10 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00207
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 31 Oct 1991 02:15:49 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25512
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 31 Oct 1991 02:15:31 -0600
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 02:15:31 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #872

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 31 Oct 91 02:15:08 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 872

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Jack Decker]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [John Higdon]
    Re: Notice on GEnie About FCC Action [Michael H. Riddle, Esq.]
    Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done [Randall L. Schwartz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 18:57:22 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card


In a message dated 26 Oct 91 23:38:28 GMT, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

>> That is simply not true, at least not in the 906 area code of
>> Michigan.  I can take you to step-by-step exchanges served by
>> independent phone companies (obviously NOT FGD capable) and dial
>> Sprint's 800 access number and it will go through.  I know of no place
>> that around this area where it will NOT work now, and the majority of
>> exchanges in my area (especially to the west of me) are either still
>> not converted to equal access or are just being converted this year.

> Just because an office does not offer the end user PIC or 10XXX
> dialing does not mean that the FGD mechanism is not in place. The
> equipment and protocols that make up the FGD capability are described
> in a book two inches thick. Did a switchman tell you that the office
> was not FGD capable or did you just assume that because it does not
> APPEAR to be fully implemented?

John ... the offices I am talking about are STEP-BY-STEP offices
operated by independent telephone companies.  I don't know why you
seem to think that you are always right and everyone else is wrong,
but I don't need a switchman to tell me that a step-by-step office on
a little independent phone company that is barely capable (some would
say "incapable") of providing reliable local exchange service is NOT
FGD capable.  If you don't want to believe that, fine, but I really
wish you'd quit assuming that the rest of the country's phone system
operates exactly like Pac*Bell in your neck of the woods ... er,
desert!

> AT&T is STILL the only long distance company in the country that can:

> 1. Provide the finest sounding international connections;

There are lots of us who never make international calls, or who don't
mind a small amount of added noise to save up to 30% on an
international call.  Granted that if you're pushing data across
international boundaries to some remote country, this might be a major
consideration, but relatively few of us are in that situation.

> 2. Reliably connect you with virtually any internal technical
> department in almost any telco in the nation;

Why do you need this capability?  YOU might, but again, this just
isn't a major consideration for MOST folks.

> 3. Correct a billing mistake with one call to a rep that takes
> less than one minute from dialing to hanging up;

Here I am willing to concede that you have a valid point, although I
think some of the OCC's are really working on this.  Still, most of
them have a long way to go.  Most OCC operators, for example, cannot
issue a credit for a misdialed Calling Card call.

> 4. Require fewer of those calls than any other company because its
>    billing is remarkably accurate;

Here I'm not willing to concede.  If you want to say that a specific
carrier seems more concerned with dropping pins than accurate billing,
I might concede the point, but I think that other carriers offer
billing as accurate as AT&T's.  In fact, with only one exception,
every mis-billed call I've ever had on my phone bill has been an AT&T
call that somehow got billed to my phone.  That may be in part because
the OCC's haven't had much penetration in this area (we're not
populated enough for their sales departments to worry about us), but I
would not call AT&T's billing error-free!

> 5. Reliably and quickly give a caller "route and rate" info as
> well as place name.

Again, you're looking at something that 99% of the population doesn't
give a hoot about.

You also didn't mention the big item:

6. AT&T's rates are higher than that of any other carrier except the
"sleazeball" OCC's that pick off 0+ traffic from coin phones and
PBX's, IF you compare "apples to apples" (i.e., you don't compare an
AT&T discount plan to another carrier's regular MTS rates).  And,
their rates would doubtless be MUCH MUCH higher if there was no
competition from the OCC's!

> We disagree here. Granted, AT&T had a major head start, but if the OCCs
> really provided such wonderful service with major savings all the
> advertising in the world would not help AT&T.

I don't think ANYONE can squeeze rates much below the current levels
and still be profitable.  But AT&T came into the game with several
major advantages, one of which was that their network was fully built
AND in many cases had superior central office connections to those
that the OCC's could obtain.  The playing field is more level now, but
I think there's still a decided tilt in favor of AT&T.

Furthermore, keep in mind that the classic example of anti-competitive
behavior for a large company is to cut prices so low that you drive
all your competition out of business (because they have neither the
financial backing nor the economies of scale to keep up with you),
then after the competition is gone you raise your prices to whatever
the market will bear (and if you offer an "essential" product or
service, that can be a pretty high figure).

> And furthermore, if AT&T's agency is so inept, why has this not
> hurt them even more?

I think it HAS hurt them, but not that much because frankly, I don't
think that the content of television advertising has all that much
influence over people's buying decisions.  Advertising mainly gives
you "name recognition" in the marketplace.  Still, people will
remember a very good or a very bad ad, and I think AT&T has had some
real turkeys!

> The truth of the matter is that the OCCs are simply "me too" players
> that would like to have the image of AT&T while appearing to be bargain
> priced. What do the OCCs offer that you cannot get with AT&T? In my
> experience, nothing on a consistent basis.

Except, perhaps, a lower price (except in those rare cases where AT&T
has just cut their rates and it takes the OCC's a few days to catch
up).

> For instance, not one of the major OCCs offer alternative billing
> (calling card, etc.) without a surcharge. Why? Because that is the way
> AT&T has always done it? If you recall, the historical reason for a
> surcharge was that such calls required operator assistance. That is no
> longer the case, and yet AT&T and all the rest still tack on that
> ridiculous charge. Why hasn't Sprint or MCI scooped AT&T on this?

Now on this one you have a VERY valid point.  I have wondered this
many times myself.  What really gets me is that some carriers will
offer "950-" access to customers in non-equal-access exchanges with no
per-call surcharge, but then turn around and use the same "950-"
number for their "calling card" service and tack a surcharge on every
call.  You are absolutely correct in saying that there is no valid
justification for this.  Some carriers (I believe that ITT/Metromedia
is one, along with some of the smaller independent carriers) DO offer
a no-surcharge calling card but you have to be careful because their
per-minute rates may be substantially higher (I don't think
ITT/Metromedia has exorbitantly higher rates, though).

> A final point: if you are so concerned about monopolies, you need look
> no further than your local telco. The FCC, the congress, and the courts
> seem hell-bent on giving telcos more and more power and influence over
> your life. They are now permitted to provide information and video
> services in addition to local dial tone. And just how do you think that
> they will finance these ventures? Hint: by draining those people
> served by the only monopoly left -- local exchange service. Just look
> what is happening in California.

Agreed again.  I am hoping that at very least congress and the FCC
will realize that turnabout is fair play, and give the cable TV
companies the right to offer local exchange service.  At least then
you'd have a duopoly situation, which is still a far cry from open
competition but at least there would be a choice.  I'd really prefer
to see some sort of openly competitive enviroment at the local
exchange level, and I do think it is coming, but not nearly as quickly
as I'd like to see it happen.

The other thing that could make a big difference along these lines is
if the FCC were to amend their rules to allow MORE that two cellular
providers to serve any given area, in effect throwing the cellular
market wide open to competition.  If this were to happen, I suspect
that cellular companies would start offering some service options that
would make them VERY competitive with the local exchange carriers.
This is something that the federal government could do without regard
to state regulators, so if the telephone companies think that their
monopoly on local exchange service is eternally assured, they may be
deluding themselves.


Jack Decker  : [e-mail]  : FidoNet 1:154/8

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

Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card
Date: 30 Oct 91 01:27:15 PST (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


motcid![e-mail]  (Dell H. Ellison) writes:

> Actually, AT&T did cancel my card "for my own protection", just
> because I hadn't used it for a few months.  The point of having it was
> so I could use it when I was out of town.  (I didn't think that I
> would have to worry about them cancelling it).

I am very surprised to hear this. I have about ten AT&T cards (half
keyed to working numbers and half with "random" numbers). I just tried
two that I have not used in at least two years. Worked fine.

> I use the FON card now.

I also have a FON card. It was issued a LONG time ago as a US Telecom
card number and was carried over through the US Telecom/GTE Sprint
merger. Sometimes I don't use it for months at a time, but it still
works. I am using it heavily this trip to southern California to burn
off some of the "apology credit" that I have accumulated over the
years because of the many major billing screwups that Sprint has
committed.  (In all fairness, Sprint was very nice about offering and
delivering credits over and above the amounts in question as a good
will gesture when the mistakes hit the fan. But my druthers would be a
continuously correct bill.)

I'm just waiting for Sprint to turn it off because of this sudden
"heavy use" to protect me from "fraud".


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
Subject: Re: Notice on GEnie About FCC Action
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 18:40:17 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Michael A.
Covington) says:

> I will _not_ write to the FCC about anything unless someone first
> gives me the appropriate NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) number
> and/or appropriate reference to the FCC Record.

> It seems that about 2/3 of the time, when there is a fast-spreading
> message about an unpleasant FCC action, it turns out to be
> substantially misrepresented.

> I don't know about this ONA action, which seems rather arcane, but I'd
> advise everybody to check out the details before writing.

I agree with Dr. Covington, and while many people have access to the
archives, many do not.

The NPRM is 89-79, FCC 89-105, and the Final Rule is issued at 56 Fed
Reg 33879-01.

And it is arcane.  It seems to do, by a roundabout way, what could not
be done in 1987.  If you remember the history, in 1983 the FCC created
the access charge structure.  It granted exemptions from usage-sensitive
access charges for Enhanced Service Providers (ESPs) for a number of
reasons.

In 1987, Docket 87-215, the FCC proposed to remove the exemptions.  We
all know what happened then.  The Commission and Congress received an
unprecedented public input on a telecommunications regulatory issue.
The plan to remove the exemptions was dropped.

While Rep. Markey, among others, thought the idea was dead, period,
the Commission appears to have merely gone into hiatus.

The current rule, if I have it analyzed correctly, attempts to do three
things:

    1.  Preserve ESP exemptions "in their current form."

    2.  Create incentives for new services, known as BSEs, under the ONA
        proposals.  ESPs would have to pay access charges to use these
        services.

    3.  Ultimately require the removal of the existing feature groups
        the BSEs would replace.

The result in the end, usage-sensitive access charges for ESPs, the
very concept thought killed in 1987.

This analysis, is of course my own, and I concur with Dr. Covington's
thesis that one needs to read it for themselves to completely
understand it.

One final note about the "posture" of the proceeding.  The NPRM seemed
to imply that the exemptions would continue, so no one got real upset.
This was, after all, only 18 months or so after the 87-215 fiasco.

When the final rule was released in July, effective in August, it took
people a while to figure out the probable impact.  As a result what
GEnie and others are asking is support for a petition to reconsider
the rule.

Hopefully this will help explain and understand the GEnie announcement,
released earlier in the Digest.


          <<<< 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


[Moderator's Note: Speaking of 87-215, the copy of this in the Telecom
Archives became corrupted and only 2/3's readable. I had earlier asked
for a replacement copy if someone had it, and am asking again.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 17:46:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, jeff%heurikon (Jeffrey
Mattox) writes:

> SECURITY: You must prove that you really are a cellular user
> (by providing CelluSoft with a copy of your bill, but with the
> telephone number blacked out).  CelluSoft makes a point of asking you
> *not* to send them your cellular telephone number (to prevent your ESN
> together with your telephone number from ever getting into the wrong
> hands).  (They seemed genuinely interested in preventing and avoiding
> any hint of fraud by others.)

> My questions are:

> 1)  Does anybody know for sure about the legalities of this?

> 2)  Has anybody else done this?  Any details?

> 3) Is there any cellular telephone on the market that allows its ESN
> to be field-programmed without having to use this method?  I would
> think that there might be a backdoor ESN programming method, or do the
> manufacturers painstakingly program a different control ROM for *each*
> phone?

How in the world are they going to verify that you indeed own a
*phone* with the ESN that you request?  This is an obvious track
towards cellphone fraud!

Nice to know that there are companies out there willing to provide the
technical means for the phreaks to get the tools of their trade.
(Sarcasm, in case you missed it.)

For Cell-phone naive people: the ESN is the *non*-changable part of
the phone, unique per phone, and provides half of the key to
cell-phone calling access.  The other half is what you would call the
"phone number", which is the number people would call to reach you.
It *is* programmable, although generally changed only by the cellphone
installer.

The ESN is supposed to be very difficult to change, to prevent fraud.
What this company is providing is a way to create an aribitrary ESN
phone.  Yuck!

Just another concerned cellphone user,


Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III
[e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #872
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19837;
          2 Nov 91 1:13 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25110
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 1 Nov 1991 23:02:14 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23431
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 1 Nov 1991 23:01:58 -0600
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 23:01:58 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #873

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 1 Nov 91 23:01:48 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 873

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Brett G. Person]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Robert L. McMillin]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Nicholas J. Simicich]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Scott Dorsey]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Robert Winchester]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Andrew C. Green]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Dennis Blyth]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Andrew M. Dunn]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Dennis Blyth]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Carl Moore]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Guy Finney]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: plains![e-mail] (Brett G Person )
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Date: 31 Oct 91 04:37:15 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND


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

> ... How about increasing the station's public affairs
> requirement, and requiring that it be done during waking hours
> instead of buried on Sunday mornings?  Is this too much like a fine,
> or will the threat of having to make programming changes be a
> deterrent?

This is a great idea! But, I bet the NAB whould fight it all the way.
Cutting into broadcast "sales time" could really hurt a station.
Imagine having to play PSA while your coompetition is raking in the
bucks fir the prime-time hours.

Gee, would this mean that a station would loose the ability to sell
expensive air-time?

Someone should suggest this to the FCC.


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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 09:36:42 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls


Paul A. Houle <[e-mail]> writes:

> Two DJ's in the Boston area also attempted some phone shenanigans that
> backfired.  They called the DA operator in Hawaii and asked for Tom
> Selleck's telephone number -- the DA operator figured that these were
> a pair of starstruck fools calling, so she gave them the number of the
> local morgue. The radio station was fined, as you'd expect, and
> the DA operator was also reprimanded.

> [Moderator's Note: How did they find out which DA operator did it? I'm
> sure the foolish DJs did not get the operator's name.  PAT]

If they had called information over the air, it's a pretty good bet
that the information operator had identified himself before asking
"May I help you?"  I know they do in Los Angeles.  If there was a tape
machine running during the broadcast, the operator was caught, um,
red-voiced.


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 12:38:49 EST
From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Reply-To: Nick Simicich <[e-mail]>


I have to say that I'm, well, frankly amazed that so many folks want
the government, in the guise of the FCC to step in and regulate
program content, just because they happen to disagree with it.  If you
don't like the content, turn your channel selector knob to someone you
do like.  If someone is damaged, let them sue.

The FCC should regulate technical issues, not program content.  The
less that they or any other government agency has to say regarding the
content of the airwaves, the better I feel about it.


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

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

From: [e-mail] ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 14:32:08 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: For obvious reasons, I cannot recommend or allow
> the suggestion to appear unchallenged that one impersonate a federal
> official over the telephone. That is another whole can of worms.  PAT]

   That would be a bad idea.  However, a quick telephone call to the
FCC would probably produce a federal officer willing to make such
statements himself, so why bother impersonating one?  Plus, he can
make the fines stick.

Disclaimer: I carpool with an FCC engineer so I tend to get better service
than most.

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Winchester)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Date: 30 Oct 91 22:01:28 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert Winchester)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA


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

> rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes:

>> ...  Hey, I guess it's hard to beat good ratings.

> The three who committed the hoax did not get off quite that lightly,
> according to R&R. In addition to whatever action the station took ...

> are jointly and severally responsible for reimbursing the LA County
> Sheriff's office for the $12,000 spent on investigating the "crime".

 I thought that there was a real murder (or, did I miss that post?)
and the DJ's used it as a publicity stunt.


Boston University, Boston? MA 02215
Rob Winchester ([e-mail])
91 Baystate Rd #1151

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 11:42:25 CST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls


[e-mail] (Dave Platt) writes:

> I recently heard a DJ on a local radio station urging people to tune
> in the next morning to another DJ's show.  He said something to the
> effect of "We're going to call Zaza Gabor ... we've got her phone
> number.  We know she likes to sleep late ... so we're going to call
> her as early as we can.  Tune in to hear the fun."

[stuff deleted]

> To your knowledge, has any DJ, or radio station ever been disciplined
> for this sort of practice?

Yes. The actress Shirley Jones sued and won a fairly large settlement
from some DJ and/or his radio station here in Chicago a few years
back, I believe. I don't recall many of the details, but the situation
was something along the lines of her being in Chicago with her
husband, comedian Marty Ingalls, who I think was quite sick at the
time. Some doofus from a radio station called her early in the morning
at her hotel and kept pestering her after it became clear that she was
not amused. He may also have neglected to tell her that the conversation
was being broadcast.

Perhaps someone else can add some more accurate details to this, but
if you're seriously researching the subject, this should give you a
start.


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

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

From: Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Date: 31 Oct 91 14:33:34 GMT
Reply-To: Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton


In Cincinnati a morning DJ named Jim Scott used to call various
people, including his wife, who lived with Jim on a farm in nearby
Indiana (possibly even within Cincinnati Bell's large local calling
zone).  He'd talk on the air with her for about 30 seconds, and then
say 'BTW, you're on the air' and you would almost always hear a sigh,
and then the conversation would continue.  Sometimes, he'd put his
kids on the air.  He used to always talk about a little one named
'Casey'.

It made the show sound so 'family oriented' But, my how things change,
now Jim Scott is on A DIFFERENT Cincinnati station (WLW, clear channel
700 am, you should be able to hear it almost everywhere East of the
Mississippi), and guess what, he's DIVORCED!

I used to be in radio, and my observation is that most broadcasters
would do anything to get ratings.  Today, I'm in another (more
ethical, IMHO) industry, thank goodness.  At least the telecom
industry orientation in the states seems to be 'good service to the
public'.

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 22:11:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> colnet![e-mail]-
state.edu (Rob Stampfli) writes:

> As I read this, the thought came to me that, wouldn't it be delightful
> if someone were to call the offending station after one of these
> episodes, demand to speak to the manager or chief engineer, and --
> pretending to be the Engineer-In-Charge from the nearest FCC field
> office --
> And, if they didn't buy that ruse, the ...

    Years and years ago, someone called a local station and talked
to the weekend announcer, who was relatively new at the station.  The
caller said something like "Hi, this is Joe.  I'm up here at the
transmitter site doing some work and we have to shut down the
transmitter for a while.  Could you go over to to the remote control
and hit two lower.  Thanks, I'll give you a call when I'm done."  This
was something like 2 AM.  He wasn't the engineer, and never called
back.

    Another caller did a good impersonation of the local newsman
("Peterson... ... ... ... and the news").  The caller said there was
danger of the Pozo Dam breaking, but don't announce anything yet.
Several calls were made.  Luckily, nothing was ever broadcast, even
though there IS no Pozo Dam.

    Finally, one Saturday morning, an emergency alert message came
over the wire service (someone in Colorado had put the wrong Teletype
punched paper tape in the reader).  Stations did not know what to do.
One station in Texas ripped open the envelope to check the message
authenticator word.  The envelope was empty.  When Colorado realized
the mistake, they immediately sent an emergency termination, BUT used
the wrong authenticator word.  Quite a mess.  This was some time in
the early 1970s.


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] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 11:14:26 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Have you ever been in northern Alaska? My friend
> says it is positively eerie during parts of the winter when the sun is
> up for only an hour or so each day ... popping up over the horizon for
> awhile in the middle of the 'day', then dropping out of sight several
> minutes later. Then finally it never shows up at all for a couple
> months. And the reverse effect in the summer is also bizarre: There
> will come a time in middle of the 'night' when twilight will arrive,
> with bits of light lingering for several minutes, but never complete
> darkness, then the rays of light will begin to shine again as morning
> arrives.  PAT]

Sounds like winter in Barrow, but summer in Anchorage.  Here in
Fairbanks it is four hours of twilight in the winter, and the sun
actually does go down, barely, in the summer but it doesn't get
anywhere near dark.  On June 21 they play a baseball game at midnight,
with no artificial lighting.

Daylight Savings Time is a joke.

Every time there is an argument here about Daylight Savings Time, my
stance is that we should just go on Eastern Time, period.  In the
summer it makes absolutely no difference at all, and in the winter the
sun would be coming up in the afternoon about the time everyone is
getting off work ... if you only have 4-5 hours of daylight it would
be nice if most people could see it!

Back to telecom:

Sprint is coming to Alaska and has filed with the APUC for rates that
are almost twice what Alascom and GCI are charging.  And they are not
asking for FGD equal access.  Perhaps they are interested in hotels
and tourists???


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: mongrel![e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 16:00:13 GMT


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

>    Making system software deal with DST was fun.  Our first
> systems (about ten years ago) had a problem changing back to standard
> time.  They would change back to standard time at 2am, but then it was
> 1am and not time to change yet, so it'd go back to DST.  Each change
> was printed, so we got lots and lots of changes logged.  We finally
> made the change based on the "unadjusted" or standard time.  Software
> is fun!

And SCO Unix still has it wrong!  SCO sent out a note about a month
ago warning that the 'cron' facility in SCO UNIX (and some XENIX
products, I think) was going to blow up as we came of DST this year.

Their bug was that all cron tasks would get queued up to execute
_twice_ once we went back to standard time.  Apparently, SCO didn't
fix it in time for this year's transition.

It certainly happened on my system.  The fix was easy (reboot it) but
somewhat annoying.  Folks have known about DST for many, many years
and some of the software is still broken!


Andy Dunn ([e-mail])  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn)

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

From: Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Date: 31 Oct 91 14:37:53 GMT
Reply-To: Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton


[previous reference that Hawaii does not change time]

Neither does Indianapolis, Indiana.  So during the summer time there
they are one hour behind Cincinnati but now they are on the same hour
as Cincinnati.

Beware: different communities in Indiana do different things with time.
'Your mileage may vary'! :-)

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 16:18:40 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"


In 1989, I heard that when the U.S. changed the start of Daylight time
from last Sunday of April to first Sunday of April, Canada followed
suit because there is so much commerce across U.S./Canada border.


[Moderator's Note: Actually we did not have War Time at all until 1942
when President Roosevelt thought it would be a good idea. After WW-2
ended, President Truman thought it would be nice to keep it during the
summer. As far as I am concerned, it is a silly exercise.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 09:12:40 -0700
From: uunet!uucs1![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Organization: UUCS inc., Phoenix, Az


>    Making system software deal with DST was fun.  Our first
> systems (about ten years ago) had a problem changing back to standard
> time.  They would change back to standard time at 2 AM, but then it was
> 1 AM and not time to change yet, so it'd go back to DST.  Each change
> was printed, so we got lots and lots of changes logged.  We finally
> made the change based on the "unadjusted" or standard time.  Software
> is fun!

Here's another fun twist to dealing with DST: Try writing code for a
system which frequently crosses time zones.  Sometimes you cross from
a daylight-savings zone to a standard-time zone.  You might even
cross between zones using different "spring ahead" values.

What sort of beast is this?  An alarm clock program which wakes up
passengers on a cruise ship!  The human-factors considerations are
daunting indeed.  When you set your alarm for 7:00 AM tomorrow
morning, are you doing it thinking it will or won't take the zone
change into account?  It's even money you'll get it wrong, and we
always had some passengers complaining that they'd missed breakfast
because they had outwitted the alarm program.


Guy Finney    UUCS inc.   Phoenix, Az
 ...!ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!uucs1!gaf
 ...!sun!sunburn!gtx!uucs1!gaf

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #873
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20964;
          2 Nov 91 2:03 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14346
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 00:12:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29573
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 00:11:57 -0600
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 00:11:57 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #874

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Nov 91 00:11:51 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 874

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: US 0800 From UK [Graham Toal]
    Re: US 0800 From UK [Scott Dorsey]
    Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans [Andrew Adler]
    Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans [Tom Olin]
    Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans [Michael F. Eastman]
    Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' [S. E. Williams]
    Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' [John Boteler]
    Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' [Carl Moore]
    Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh' [Nick Sayer]
    Re: IBT ISDN Pricing [Nick Reid]
    Re: Station Message Detail Recorder [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Station Message Detail Recorder [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Station Message Detail Recorder [John Boteler]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We Fall Behind [Mark Cheeseman]
    Re: Radio Station DJ's Making Dubious Calls [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Block Block Blocking in CID? [John McHarry]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: US 0800 From UK
Date: 30 Oct 91 23:28:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


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

> [Moderator's Note: I don't think he was talking about USA Direct
> service as you imply. I think he was trying to reach 800 numbers in
> the USA. Note in his message he wondered if he could have the card
> without ever actually putting charges on it. Anyone would realize
> there would be a charge to call the USA from the UK.

Anyone except me that is, he says rather sheepishly.  Yes, I did think
the 800 call would be free from end to end! What a chump, eh?

The service I was referring to wasn't the BT call-home or whatever; it
was a standard AT&T credit card.  You call an 0800 (correct!) number
in Britain which connects you to an AT&T operator in the US.  From
there you can call whoever you like, including 800 numbers if you
wish.  Fortunately the AT&T information pack makes it very clear that
you do pay the transatlantic rate for those calls, so between them and
PAT I'll avoid running up embarrasing bills! (Thanks, BTW)

AT&T also offer a translation service online if you're in a fix
abroad; no hint of the charge scale though.

Calls on the AT&T card are charged directly to VISA, Mastercard, or
Amex.  Interestingly, the UK application form doesn't mention Amex,
although the the US-printed info sheet does.  I added a new "[] Amex"
part to their form :-) (hope the AT&T penpushers(*) can hack it!)


Graham

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

From: [e-mail] ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: US 0800 From UK
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 14:24:15 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Actually, we call them '800' numbers rather than
> '0800' and you *will* pay for the call between the UK and the USA. It
> is only the second part of the connection -- from Pittsburgh in the
> USA to the place where the 800 subscriber is located that you will get
> without charge -- and then, only if the subscriber uses AT&T 800 ...

   This implies that a number which is set up for zone 1 WATS service
in Pennsylvania, meaning that it can be called only from within PA,
could also be called from Britain, even if not from New Jersey, say.
(Pardon if my terminology is incorrect).  This is interesting.  If I
need to call a number which is not accessible from my calling area, but
is callable from Pittsburgh, could I call a friend in London and have
him forward me?


[Moderator's Note: I think the IOC operators in Pittsburgh can
override the 'zone' parameters, but I am not sure. They *cannot*
override the requirement that the 800 number be serviced by AT&T. So I
suppose if the in-state PA place was served by AT&T then you could
spend a few dollars to call the UK; have that person spend a few
dollars to call back to the USA and save yourself a few cents by
not calling the regular 412/215 version of the number. I cannot
vouch for the quality of the transmission with a trip over and back
across the ocean plus the patched-in connection via Pittsburgh. Why
not just be a good sport and call the number you are authorized to
call from your location instead?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Adler)
Subject: Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 03:54:37 GMT


The report you mention was on this past Sunday's (10/27) edition of
"60 Minutes." My cockles were raised as well.  :-)

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 11:52:03 EST
From: adiron![e-mail] (Tom Olin)
Subject: Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gregg
E.  Woodcock) writes:

   I was watching some news show last night (Oct 27) ...

60 Minutes.

   ... and they were talking about a government office called the RTA ...

REA - Rural Electrification Administration.

And, yes, the report was rather troubling.


   Tom Olin    [e-mail]    uunet!adiron!tro    [phone] Ext 638
 PAR Technology Corporation * 220 Seneca Turnpike * New Hartford NY 13413-1191

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 12:32:38 EST
From: [e-mail] (Michael F Eastman)
Subject: Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Gregg E. Woodcock) writes:

> I was watching some news show last night (Oct 27) and they were
> talking about a government office called the RTA (I think that may not
> be exactly right) that was created by FDR back in 1920/30's to help

That is the REA, the Rural Electrification Administration.


Mike Eastman    att!ihlpy!mfe    [phone]
AT&T Bell Laboratories  Rm. 4F-328  Naperville, IL 60566


[Moderator's Note: One major job of the REA was to provide telephone
service during the 1930's to rural areas because AT&T wanted to do
exactly what they accused their competitors of doing ten years ago:
skim the cream. President Roosevelt was not a big fan of AT&T; he
wanted to see them chopped into little pieces way back then. And then
in the 1950-60 period, when the rural, tiny little telephone
cooperative societies got their mortgage paid off, guess who was eager
to go in and buy them out, exerting all sorts of pressure as needed
to do so ...  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (S.E. Williams )
Subject: Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh'
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 03:39:30 GMT


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

>    I can't find a Bell recording that says "oh" rather than
> "zero" in my (very shallow) search.  What kinds of recordings are more
> likely to say "oh" than "zero"?

I have noticed that Bell's CLASS features recordings use zero, while
the intercept recordings use "oh".  Directory Assistance seems to
always use the 'hundred' 'thousand' (etc) method.


Sean E. Williams                      ([e-mail])
Rochester Institute of Technology  -  Telecommunications Technology (ITFT)

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

Subject: Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh'
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 1:45:23 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


The intercept recordings comprised of the sniglets of Jane Barbe's
incomparable speech say 'Oh' instead of 'Zero'. She was just following
orders.

Does anybody have her phone number? I sure would like to get her voice
before it's too late.


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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 16:22:37 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh'


Well, phone-company references no longer use letters as part of a
phone number (you only see letters as part of phone numbers in
advertisements), so when one of their recordings says "oh", there is
no confusion with the letter -- "zero" is understood instead.

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh'
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA
Date: 1 Nov 1991 05:32:20 UTC


[e-mail] (Jamie Mason) writes:

>    I can't find a Bell recording that says "oh" rather than
> "zero" in my (very shallow) search.  What kinds of recordings are more
> likely to say "oh" than "zero"?

Just call 209-952-5347:

"The number you have reached, nine-five-two-five-three-four-seven, has
been changed. The new number is area code four-oh-eight-two-
four-nine-nine-six-three-oh...."

If you're wondering, 408-249-9630 is the number of The Duck Pond
public unix, which just moved (my unix box).


Nick Sayer    [e-mail]
N6QQQ @ K3MC  [phone] (modem)

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Reid)
Subject: Re: IBT ISDN Pricing
Organization: Oregon State University, CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 21:35:12 GMT


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

> rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes:

>> David, I must admit I would like to be able to complain about GTE
>> California screwing me on ISDN, but I can't.  Why?  Because ALL of the
>> people there that I talked to couldn't even spell ISDN, nor did they
>> even know what it was.  I sympathize with your plight, but at least

> At least you found someone that knew what it was.  The RBOC's have a
> big training job on their hands.  I have been trying to get
> residential ISDN for several weeks.  I live right on a major

You are lucky.  An associate of mine in London was invited by British
Telecom to an ISDN launch in August 1990 -- finger food and jocularity
in profusion.  He put his name down for a sales representative to call
him in the next few weeks.  By January this year he had still not
heard from them, so called.  The Sales Department knew nothing of
ISDN.  He eventually found the department responsible for the launch.
"What happened to the ISDN sales rep?"  "ISDN?, !!  How do you know
about ISDN??"  "Your department invited me to a launch last August."
"Oh - er - well, um - er - that was all a bit - um - er - a bit - ah -
premature."


('S'truth, 100% verbatim #|)

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Station Message Detail Recorder
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 21:37:59 GMT


    Our long distance carrier uses a Mitel Smart-1 dialer to route
our calls into their 950 number, send our account number and
destination number.  This two line dialer has an RS232 port for
programming, cascading dialers, and Call Detail Recording.  The CDR
includes the date, time, duration, number, call completion (yes/no),
speed dial (yes/no), trunk number used, route number used, account
number, and system ID for each call.

    This may meet your needs as an SMDR.


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

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 23:28:32 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Station Message Detail Recorder
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

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

>> .... when one talks about SMDR he is usually referring to a normal
>> function of a PBX.

>   This is also how I understand it. However I don't have the money
> for a PBX.  I do have an ordinary computer and an ordinary phone. Can
> one get SMDR or something equivalent to its functionality without
> getting a PBX?  What can I attach to my ordinary phone so that my
> ordinary computer can have the functionality of an SMDR?

  Radio Shack has/had a device, # 43-152 that hooked into the line and
PRINTED the incoming and outgoing call traffic: date-time, length of
call, number dialed (outgoing), daily summaries, etc. I have no idea
if it could be modified to send the data though. I haven't seen them
on display lately or in the latest catalog I have so probably
discontinued. You might call around to stores near you and look for
clearance stores to see if one still has them in stock.  Perhaps
someone on the net has one s/he doesnt want anymore.

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

Subject: Re: Station Message Detail Recorder
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 1:56:00 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Horacio T. Cadiz asks how to implement SMDR functionality without
buying a PBX. (Good question.)

One answer is the Radio $hack unit which prints out the offhook time
and phone number dialed, then the onhook time on calculator-sized
paper. Just plug it into your telephone line.

It may be discontinued by now knowing Radio Shack, but if you find one
at a store or a hamfest it might be worth your while.


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

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

From: Mark Cheeseman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Organization: Your Computer Magazine, Sydney, Australia
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 09:49:39 GMT


On the subject of daylight saving time cut-over dates, I thought it
interesting that we in Australia started daylight saving on the same
weekend as the US finished. At least, that is, those states that
actually have it. Western Australia won't have it without a
referendum, Tasmania is starting a bit later than the rest of us, and
Queensland is trying it out on a trial basis to see if it really
*does* fade the curtains (sorry, bit of an in-joke there).


Mark Cheeseman VK2XGK           ACSnet: [e-mail]
Technical Editor                Fido:   3:712/[e-mail]
Your Computer Magazine          Packet: VK2XGK@VK2OP
Sydney, Australia               Phone:  [phone]  Fax:[phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 22:23:40 GMT


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

> How about increasing the station's public affairs
> requirement, and requiring that it be done during waking hours
> instead of buried on Sunday mornings?

    The trend has been to extend First Amendment rights to the
electronic media, which keeps the government out of programming
decisions.  Instead of having the governement tell stations what to
program for the public (because it's good for them), they're letting
the public decide what to watch or listen to.  This is a sort of
economic democracy where people vote with their tuning dials.

    As the "print model" is extended further to broadcast, I think
the industry will have a difficult time defending the lack of spectrum
fees.  So far, they have argued that the public service commitment
should exempt them from such fees, though people are fully willing to
pay such fees to purchase an existing license or construction permit
(here, the fee goes to the previous owner, instead of the government).
I think eventually we'll have 20 ro 25 year leases on spectrum open to
competitive bid.


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] (John McHarry)
Subject: Re: Block Block Blocking in CID?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: 31 Oct 91 12:39:27 GMT


[e-mail] (John R. Levine) writes:

> (I realize that nobody passes long distance C-ID now, but they will
> in the next year or so.)

Really?  The last I knew the problems with this were not technical so
much as financial.  How much, if anything, is the LEC going to pay the
IXC for the information?  Or will they charge less for incoming trunks
that provide it?


John McHarry  ([e-mail])

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #874
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02471;
          2 Nov 91 12:30 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13444
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 10:38:09 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15865
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 10:37:59 -0600
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 10:37:59 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #875

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Nov 91 10:37:44 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 875

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real! [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, OR [Michael P. Deignan)
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [John Higdon]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Color Codes on Cable [Larry Rachman]
    Re: Speaking About Telco Security [Larry Rachman]
    Re: Oakland Fire Question [Sharon Lynne Fisher]
    Re: Information on E-Mail For U.S. Friend [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Nick Reid]
    Re: Sexist Mnemonics [Damon Schaefer]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Stewart Clamen]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Roy Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 13:05 GMT
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real!


On 24th October, I wrote:

>> [...] 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).

The reply from Duncan A. MacGregor:

> Ouch.  From previous articles in this newsgroup, as well as other sources,
> I know that you do NOT want to have "Call Waiting" supported on a line used
> by a modem.  If a call-waiting signal occurs while the modem is operating,
> the line will be hung up (by either the modem or the telephone system
> itself) and the connection ended.

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it as a modem feature, but I have
actually used it with a modem.  It depends on how important is the
call I'm expecting. If I'm not expecting anything important, I might
append my calls with *70 to turn it off.  If I *am* expecting a call,
but I want to use the modem anyway, I'll leave it on.  Then when the
line disconnects, that's fine -- even desirable in this instance.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, OR
Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 13:52:54 GMT


hpubvwa![e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

> 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.

I support this policy of the Baby Bells. There are many local
"hobbiest" BBS's here which charge upwards of $100+ per year for
"access" to message bases and shareware files.

Not that I dislike such a policy, but don't try to hide it under the
guise of being a "hobby". Whenever you log into this particular
system, you're deludged with messages of how it cost $x thousands for
the seven new 9600 baud modems, another $y thousand for those new 386sx
motherboards, ad naeseaum. The Sysop is constantly "reminding" people
that his chequebook is "$5,000 in the red".


Michael P. Deignan    Domain: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd   Telebit: [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card
Date: 31 Oct 91 11:18:36 PST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes:

> John ... the offices I am talking about are STEP-BY-STEP offices
> operated by independent telephone companies.  I don't know why you
> seem to think that you are always right and everyone else is wrong,
> but I don't need a switchman to tell me that a step-by-step office on
> a little independent phone company that is barely capable (some would
> say "incapable") of providing reliable local exchange service is NOT
> FGD capable.

Jack ... facts are facts. There is no right or wrong about it. Facts
are verifiable and confirmable. I am not always right, but in this
case my facts happen to be correct.

Why? Any office, including the most vile, disgusting, incapable,
primative, rural, backwoods XY can hand ANY (and I mean ANY) call off
to a FGD-capable tandem. And this is precisely how any call you make
to an OCC 800 number would have to be completed. This also applies to
950.

Now if the office can hand those calls off, please explain to me why
it cannot hand off 10XXX calls, etc., to that same tandem?

> There are lots of us who never make international calls, or who don't
> mind a small amount of added noise to save up to 30% on an
> international call.  Granted that if you're pushing data across
> international boundaries to some remote country, this might be a major
> consideration, but relatively few of us are in that situation.

Let me turn this around. You have repeatedly accused me of
parochialism in my Pac*Bell orientation, so what makes you think that
just because YOU have no need for decent international service (and
yes, I do push high speed data to Japan) that some of the rest of us
might not be so small-time? Some of us do more than call Aunt Edna
every week.

>> 2. Reliably connect you with virtually any internal technical
>> department in almost any telco in the nation;

> Why do you need this capability?  YOU might, but again, this just
> isn't a major consideration for MOST folks.

In any situation where one has multiple offices around the country, or
is involved with WANs, or has a multipoint distribution requirement,
the ability to reach distant repair services is a gawdsend. Once
again, I turn it around: just because your requirements are so light
that you have never found this necessary is no reason to decree that
it does not constitute a valid benchmark for carrier satisfaction.

And I have a problem with your term "MOST folks". One of the major
causes for the decline of goods and services in this country is the
concept of marketing to the lowest common denominator. If it is
mass-marketable, then fine. If it is vertical, then scrap it. AT&T is
the ONLY FULL-SERVICE long distance company in the country. Yes, the
OCCs can fill the needs of MOST of the people MOST of the time. So
does Chevrolet. But do you fault Mercedes for selling expensive cars
just because YOU find no need for one?

If your requirements are thin enough, then use the weeniest carrier
that can fulfill them. You MIGHT even save some money (if your time is
not worth anything). But please do not fault AT&T for continuing to
provide its vast assortment of excellent services just because you do
not need any of them. Some of us are willing to pay a little more to
get a lot more.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 01:58:52 GMT


[e-mail] (Jack Decker) writes:

> In a message dated 26 Oct 91 23:38:28 GMT, [e-mail] (John
> Higdon) writes:

>> AT&T is STILL the only long distance company in the country that can:
>> 1. Provide the finest sounding international connections;

> There are lots of us who never make international calls, or who don't
> mind a small amount of added noise to save up to 30% on an
> international call.

Just as an outside point of reference, living here in Japan I have
been on the recieving end of many international phone calls, carried
by most of the carriers.  Without exception, when someone in the USA
calls me, the line has detectable noise; when the connection is via
Comsat, I just sit back and listen to the bouncing AT&T "Death Star"
echo.  There seems to be little or no difference between AT&T and
other carriers.

On the other hand, when I call the USA, using IDC, one of Japan's
"OCCs", the link is 100% digital all the way and you can hear a grain
of rice drop.  I often call companies in the USA and start off with
"Call from Japan for Ms. Z" in order to avoid the dread "Can you
hold?"  More than once, the receptionist has refused to believe me
because of the quality of the connection.

IDC also lets you connect to them two ways; 0061 + number is the
normal one, and 0062 + number results in a post-call callback that
tells you the number you dialed, the length of the call, and the cost.
They also give you a nice bill at the end of the month (which you can
direct pay, or pay off at any convenience store) and they have never,
ever made a mistake in my experience.


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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 11:26:52 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes:

> The other thing that could make a big difference along these lines is
> if the FCC were to amend their rules to allow MORE that two cellular
> providers to serve any given area.

It would require more than a rulemaking, I think the current cellular
carriers get about 5 Mhz apiece.  This bandwidth would have to come
from somewhere near the current cellular bands.  Additionally, the
cellular phone currently in use are designed for only two carriers.
While some might accept a firmware upgrade, the RF stages might not be
as forgiving.


Patton Turner   [e-mail]    KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM

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

Date: 30 Oct 91 08:46:18 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Color Codes on Cable


 From an old issue of {QST}:

       Better be right, or your great big venture goes west!

Clean, but its the only time I've ever come across the expression
"going west" in this context.


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX    Reply to [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Oct 91 08:46:35 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speaking About Telco Security


When I called to disconnect one of my lines the other day, the
representative was glad to take my order, without asking for the
password. I commented "Isn't this account supposed to be password
protected?" I heard a few key clicks, and then she said "Oh, you mean
<my password omitted>? We don't use those any more, because they only
come up on the first page, and sometimes we pull up the records
beginning on other pages. If you'd like, you can give me a three-digit
code number, and that will work for all the pages."

Well, of course I took her up on the offer, but I wonder just how
secure it really is. Also, it seems you could really foul up somebody
who didn't have a password or code by getting him one that only you
knew, before doing your dastardly deeds.


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX      Reply to  [e-mail]

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

From: well![e-mail] (Sharon Lynne Fisher)
Subject: Re: Oakland Fire Question
Date: 30 Oct 91 16:04:13 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA



When I called a friend whose home had been destroyed, I got a busy
signal.


[Moderator's Note: This was in all probability due to the fire having
melted the insulation on the wires, allowing them to touch each other
and short the line -- essentially a receiver off-hook.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: Information on E-Mail For U.S. Friend
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 18:01:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Patrick writes in response to
[e-mail] (davidra):

> For the 'academic connection', MCI Mail and AT&T Mail are really where
> its at. ... Sprintmail is another one you should consider (703-689-6000);
> it also exchanges mail with the Internet.

> Electronic services not specifically intended for email but
> with email connections to the Internet include Compuserve and Portal
> Communications of San Jose, CA. You should also investigate the many
> public access Unix machines around the USA, such as Chinet,to name one
> I am familiar with.  PAT]

In the last year or so, several of the mid-level network operators in
the NSFnet conglomerate have "gone commercial". As a result, you can
now get accounts on mailhosts with full Internet connectivity at
competitive rates. PSI (New England based, but with POPs on the left
coast, too) and UUNET (available nationwide through their ALTERnet
service) are the largest.

Our local mid-level is CERFnet, and they too now allow commercial
access. Since I have a current rate sheet on my desk, these are the
prices I will quote, but PSI is probably cheaper, because they have
specific "hobbyist rates" under service names such as "After Dark".

CERFnet is a non-profit, whose purpose is "to advance research and
education ... by assisting in the interchange of information among
research, educational and commercial institutions ...". They have
applied a very liberal interpretation to this purpose. The rates are:

    One time installation fee per organization: $250
    (waived thru the end of 1991)
    Monthly fee per userid:                     $20
    Connect time per hour:                      $5

    19.2 kbps SLIP lines are available for $250/month flat rate

    POP's in San Diego, Pasadena, Irvine, Los Angeles and Oakland.

Since the mailhost carries a full USENET news feed, this is quite
competitive with CompuServe or the "new ATTmail" rates.


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


[Moderator's Note: Did you ever get the feeling that within the next
two or three years, Internet will be the default standard for email?
That is, any email service worth anything will use Internet for
connections to the others. The question asked of any service before
signing up should be do they have Internet access.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Reid)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Organization: Oregon State University, CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1991 11:03:49 GMT


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

> In 1989, I heard that when the U.S. changed the start of Daylight time
<etc, deleted>.  And the Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Actually we did not have War Time at all until 1942
<etc, deleted>
> As far as I am concerned, it is a silly exercise.   PAT]

So thought the Japanese, who had it forced on them at the end of the
war.  So they got rid of it a.s.a.p.  However, they have now
calculated that because of the shift of commuting to work from dark to
daylight hours that would follow its re-introduction they would save
up to 3% of their national fuel expenditure by having it back.  Times
change (all senses).

I grew up where/when it was in effect all year around (in fact, as
well as in "ah, childhood: always summer!" #|)

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

From: [e-mail] (Damon Schaefer)
Subject: Re: Sexist Mnemonics
Date: 1 Nov 91 01:59:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA


> ... as awful as the code is, given our present sensibilities, ...

Oh gawd!  Save us from politically correct mnemonics!

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

From: [e-mail] (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 18:33:56 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University


Here's a $1000 clue:

            This area code
            spans the largest
            north-south distance.


Stewart M. Clamen        Internet:    [e-mail]
School of Computer Science    UUCP:          uunet!"[e-mail]"
Carnegie Mellon University    Phone:          [phone]
5000 Forbes Avenue        Fax:         [phone]
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 10:53:33 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York)


In article <[e-mail]> Henry wrote:

> It's true ... tonight, on the game show _Jeopardy_, there was a
> category called "area codes."  They would present a clue ...  "The
> east side's up and the battery's down ... and they're both in this
> area code". The contestant had to reply "What is 212?"

    Was that really the clue, verbatim?  If so, it's wrong!  It's
not the "east side" that's up, it's The Bronx.  The proper quote (from
some old Broadway show tune, I think) is:

    The Bronx is up, and The Battery's down.
    The people ride in a hole in the ground.
    New York, New Yo-o-o-ork...
    It's a heck (hell?) of a town!

    In any case, if I've been following the upcoming area code
splits properly, that's not going to be true much longer.


[e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #875
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04447;
          2 Nov 91 14:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17701
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 11:53:32 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23799
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 11:53:20 -0600
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 11:53:20 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #876

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Nov 91 11:53:19 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 876

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Jack Decker]
    Re: Sprint FONCARD vrs. AT&T Calling Card [Jack Decker]
    Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems [[e-mail] ]
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Voice Mail Cracking and alt.dcom.telecom [John R. Levine]
    Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 18:56:25 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco


In a message dated 25 Oct 91 18:41:12 GMT, [e-mail] (Larry
Appleman) wrote:

> Here is the text of Prodigy's press release responding to the recent
> controversy about anti-Semitic messages:

> "PRODIGY DID NOT PUBLISH OFFENSIVE MESSAGE CITED BY MEDIA;
> AFFIRMS STANDARDS AND FREE EXPRESSION ON BULLETIN BOARDS

I'm not sure how appropriate this topic is to comp.dcom.telecom, but
since the Prodigy press release was printed, I thought that perhaps
readers might be interested in an opposing viewpoint that was
published in FidoNews Vol. 8 No.  43 (28 October 1991).  Fidonews is
"The newsletter of the FidoNet BBS community."  My apologies to the
Moderator if someone else has submitted this already.

(Please note, I neither endorse nor condemn the following article, I
am only sending it because it might be of interest to those who saw
the original message.  I will say up front that there are portions of
this article that I disagree with, but will withhold comment for now.)


PRODIGY STUMBLES AS A FORUM ... AGAIN

By Mike Godwin/EFF

On some days, Prodigy representatives tell us they're running "the
Disney Channel of online services." On other days the service is
touted as a forum for "the free expression of ideas." But management
has missed the conflict between these two missions. And it is just
this unperceived conflict that has led the B'nai B'rith's
Anti-Defamation League to launch a protest against the online
service ...

On one level, the controversy stems from Prodigy's decision to censor
messages responding to claims that, among other things, the Holocaust
never took place. These messages -- which included such statements as
"Hitler had some valid points" and that "wherever Jews exercise
influence and power, misery, warfare and economic exploitation ...
follow" -- were the sort likely to stir up indignant responses among
Jews and non-Jews alike.  But some Prodigy members have complained to
the ADL that when they tried to respond to both the overt content of
these messages and their implicit anti-Semitism, their responses were
rejected by Prodigy's staff of censors.

The rationale for the censorship? Prodigy has a policy of barring
messages directed at other members, but allows messages that condemn a
group. The result of this policy, mechanically applied, is that one
member can post a message saying that "pogroms, 'persecutions,' and
the mythical holocaust" are things that Jews "so very richly deserve"
(this was an actual message). But another member might be barred from
posting some like "Member A's comments are viciously anti-Semitic." It
is no wonder that the Anti-Defamation League is upset at what looks
very much like unequal treatment.

But the problem exposed by this controversy is broader than simply a
badly crafted policy. The problem is that Prodigy, while insisting on
its Disney Channel metaphor, also gives lip service to the notion of a
public forum.  Henry Heilbrunn, a senior vice president of Prodigy,
refers in the {Wall Street Journal} to the service's "policy of free
expression," while Bruce Thurlby, Prodigy's manager of editorial
business and operations, invokes in a letter to ADL "the right of
individuals to express opinions that are contrary to personal
standards or individual beliefs."

Yet it is impossible for any free-expression policy to explain both
the allowing of those anti-Semitic postings and the barring of
responses to those postings from outraged and offended members.
Historically, this country has embraced the principle that best cure
for offensive or disturbing speech is more speech. No regime of
censorship -- even of the most neutral and well-meaning kind -- can
avoid the kind of result that appears in this case: some people get to
speak while others get no chance to reply. So long as a board of
censors is in place, Prodigy is no public forum.

Thus, the service is left in a double bind. If Prodigy really means to
be taken as a computer-network version of "the Disney Channel" -- with
all the content control that this metaphor implies -- then it's taking
responsibility for (and, to some members, even seeming to endorse) the
anti-Semitic messages that were posted. On the other hand, if Prodigy
really regards itself as a forum for free expression, it has no
business refusing to allow members to respond to what they saw as
lies, distortions, and hate. A true free-speech forum would allow not
only the original messages but also the responses to them.

So, what's the fix for Prodigy? The answer may lie in replacing the
service's censors with a system of "conference hosts" of the sort one
sees on CompuServe or on the WELL. As WELL manager Cliff Figallo
conceives of his service, the management is like an apartment manager
who normally allows tenants to do what they want, but who steps in if
they do something outrageously disruptive. Hosts on the WELL normally
steer discussions rather than censoring them, and merely offensive
speech is almost never censored.

But even if Prodigy doesn't adopt a "conference host" system, it
ultimately will satisfy its members better if it does allow a true
forum for free expression. And the service may be moving in that
direction already: Heilbrunn is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as
saying that Prodigy has been loosening its content restrictions over
the past month.  Good news, but not good enough -- merely easing some
content restrictions is likely to be no more successful at solving
Prodigy's problems than Gorbachev's easing market restrictions was at
solving the Soviet Union's problems. The best solution is to allow
what Oliver Wendell Holmes called "the marketplace of ideas" to
flourish -- to get out of the censorship business.


Jack Decker  : [e-mail]  : FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint FONCARD vrs. AT&T Calling Card
Date: Sat 02 Nov 1991


[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, the first part of this message got
trashed in transit to me. He is discussing the surcharges levied on
calling card use. Here is the portion I received.  PAT]

> calling card, etc.) without a surcharge. Why? Because that is the way
> AT&T has always done it? If you recall, the historical reason for a
> surcharge was that such calls required operator assistance. That is no
> longer the case, and yet AT&T and all the rest still tack on that
> ridiculous charge. Why hasn't Sprint or MCI scooped AT&T on this?

Now on this one you have a VERY valid point.  I have wondered this
many times myself.  What really gets me is that some carriers will
offer "950-" access to customers in non-equal-access exchanges with no
per-call surcharge, but then turn around and use the same "950-"
number for their "calling card" service and tack a surcharge on every
call.  You are absolutely correct in saying that there is no valid
justification for this.  Some carriers (I believe that ITT/Metromedia
is one, along with some of the smaller independent carriers) DO offer
a no-surcharge calling card but you have to be careful because their
per-minute rates may be substantially higher (I don't think
ITT/Metromedia has exorbitantly higher rates, though).

> A final point: if you are so concerned about monopolies, you need look
> no further than your local telco. The FCC, the congress, and the courts
> seem hell-bent on giving telcos more and more power and influence over
> your life. They are now permitted to provide information and video
> services in addition to local dial tone. And just how do you think that
> they will finance these ventures? Hint: by draining those people
> served by the only monopoly left -- local exchange service. Just look
> what is happening in California.

Agreed again.  I am hoping that at very least congress and the FCC
will realize that turnabout is fair play, and give the cable TV
companies the right to offer local exchange service.  At least then
you'd have a duopoly situation, which is still a far cry from open
competition but at least there would be a choice.  I'd really prefer
to see some sort of openly competitive enviroment at the local
exchange level, and I do think it is coming, but not nearly as quickly
as I'd like to see it happen.

The other thing that could make a big difference along these lines is
if the FCC were to amend their rules to allow MORE that two cellular
providers to serve any given area, in effect throwing the cellular
market wide open to competition.  If this were to happen, I suspect
that cellular companies would start offering some service options that
would make them VERY competitive with the local exchange carriers.
This is something that the federal government could do without regard
to state regulators, so if the telephone companies think that their
monopoly on local exchange service is eternally assured, they may be
deluding themselves.


Jack Decker  : [e-mail]   : FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: [e-mail] (Brack)
Subject: Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems
Date: 31 Oct 91 01:38:52 GMT


The Toledo Fire Dept. uses/used much the same system, but the boxes
were more complex.  They provided for five or six categories of emergency
and a test feature.

Question 1: Would seperate lines be used for each type of alarm?

Question 2: I once saw one of these boxes on the side of a fire
        station.  Any clue as to why?


Steve


[Moderator's Note: Haven't you ever heard of fire stations catching on
fire while the firemen were away at a fire somewhere else?  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 9:12:52 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (KATH MULLHOLAND)
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?


A few weeks ago, I was asked to investigate how to report obscene
phone calls for action by TPC.  This is the information I was given by
New England Telephone, for New Hampshire, to give out to a customer of
mine who made the request for information.  I suppose the policies
could vary from BOC to BOC.

ACTION FOR HARASSING PHONE CALLS

Step One:  Report to police.  TPC will do nothing until a police report has
           been filed.

Step Two:  Call New England Telephone residence office and request a trap
           on the line.  (The subscriber must do this, not the police.  The
           representative implied that this was due to privacy laws.  I was
           glad to hear that the police couldn't request a tap on my line.)

Step Three:The subscriber will be required to sign a release form
           authorizing release of any information found to authorities.
           Information will be released **to the police** and *not* to the
           subscriber.  Chances are good the subscriber will not ever
           see the information that is obtained.

The rep stressed that once the release is signed, it is TPC's choice
to prosecute, not the subscriber.  If it is found that the person
making the calls is "Aunt Joan" or "Nephew Tom" the subscriber cannot
decide not to prosecute.  The rep said that in her experience, the
caller will be someone known to the subscriber at least 75% of the
time.

She also said that TPC understands the feelings of the subscriber who
is getting such calls, and wants subscribers to know that they take
these things very seriously, but they have priorities which they
follow to determine which requests for traps will be done first.  In
order, they are: Bomb threats, Kidnapping, Threat to Life and Limb,
Obscene, Annoying (Calling and hanging up, etc.)  The phone company
can only place a discrete number of traps in any given CO.  The
subscriber may get put off for a couple of days due to these other
priorities.


Kath Mullholand    University of NH, Durham, NH

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Hinckley)
Subject: Re: Registration/Test by Phone on Campus
Date: 31 Oct 91 14:17:38 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> 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.

This is almost an exact description of the system used at the Georgia
Institute of Technology. In addition, their system will allow you do
do things such as:

  1) List all Math courses of a certain level that fit your schedule
  2) Check for prerequisites
  3) check for permissions for overloads/special classes on an
     individual student basis
  AND MUCH MUCH MORE!  (only $19.95 and we'll throw in these knives...)

It is far superior to the mail in your schedule request and wait to
see what you get method they use here at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville. It also had the advantage of accessibility no moatter
where you were located (all you needed was computer, modem, tty or
better emulation, phone line).


Scott Hinckley    [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Voice Mail Cracking and alt.dcom.telecom
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 31 Oct 91 11:37:53 EST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


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

> Some person (he shall remain nameless) put out a post on
> alt.dcom.telecom and misc.consumers about wanting to crack voice mail
> systems.  Personally, he should be ... (insert favorite word).

 ... commended for going out of his way to make voice mail systems
resistant to attack.  It was Richard Karasik, who works for Octel, a
major vendor of voice mail systems.  As his note said:

> (no need to wonder why -look at the org)

Sheesh.

Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 18:32:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
utoledo.edu (Brack) writes:

> I recently moved back home, and my parents are not pleased with my LD
> bill.  Although I pay promptly, and use Call Manager, they don't want
> my calls on their bill.  Calling cards are too expensive, and I don't
> want to get a full-fledged second line, as my call volume makes it
> uneconomical.

    How about signing up with another LD company that has 950
access?  Here, we have AT&T on 1+ and have a dialer that routes all
our calls thru the local LD reseller (Call America), unless we bypass
the dialer (by dialing 111).  When I go to the company next door to
use their fax machine, I just dial our 950 access number so my fax
calls do not show up on their phone bill.

    It appears that all that is required is to sign up with an LD
company with 950 access (instead of 1+) and that does not use the
local telco for billing.


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] (Brack)
Subject: Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only?
Date: 1 Nov 91 02:47:38 GMT


How do measured-rate charges work for LD calls?

Also, would using 10XXX0+10D generate a seperate billing statement?
Does it depend whether I use the same 10XXX0 carrier as my parents'
default carrier?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #876
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01463;
          2 Nov 91 18:36 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01665
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 16:40:14 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29826
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 16:40:02 -0600
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 16:40:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #877

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Nov 91 16:39:55 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 877

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pac*Bell's Two Cents (!) [John Higdon]
    Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone [S. Spencer Sun]
    Re: Digital Cordless Telephones and B. A. Pargh [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: Telecom Frequently Asked Questions [Warren Burstein]
    Re: Controlling Long Distance Access [Andrew C. Green]
    Re: Rude Operators [Norman R. Solis]
    Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero' Not 'Oh' [Jarom Hagen]
    Re: US 0800 From UK [Nick Reid]
    Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real [Michael Bender]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Albert Pang]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Pac*Bell's Two Cents (!)
Date: 31 Oct 91 13:27:46 PST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes:

> Sunday's Times Opinion section had on its final page a full-page open
> letter from Pac*Bell, signed by Sam Ginn, CEO.

Whose remarks were mostly rubbish, as one might expect. However, a few
of his points deserve special refutation:

> - The currently leading IP's are large companies, so it makes for more
> competition if a big company, such as Pac*Bell, gets into the fray.

Where did he dream this one up? MOST 900 providers are small, Ma and
Pa operations who can scarcely afford to have to fight with a behemoth
such as Pac*Bell, especially when PB starts its tariff manipulations
in its favor as a provider.

> - Several public interest groups support Pac*Bell's entry into this
> market.

Really? Which ones?

> - The Times' assertion that Pac*Bell will "'subsidize' [their]
> information services with [their] guaranteed profits" is specious
> since (a) their "profits have never been guaranteed", and (b) there
> are laws in place to prevent such things from happening.

Two strikes in one statement. Yes, the regulated profits ARE
guaranteed -- period. Maybe Mr. Ginn should go back and find out what
a regulated monopoly is so that (a) he can avoid stupid statements
such as these, and (b) so that his regulated monopoly could behave a
little more in the public interest.

As far as the laws that are "in place to prevent such things from
happening", perhaps Mr. Ginn would do well to have a reality check.

> - The Court of Appeals has upheld Pac*Bell's right to engage in IP
> services even during the Times' appeal of this decision.

That may address the legality of the issue but not the practicality or
the reality.

If Pacific Telesis (through its subsidiary Pacific Bell) would pursue
the responsibilities of providing service as a monopoly with the same
energy and furvor that it does in trying to put the rest of the world
out of business, telephone service in California would be world-class.

One more point: it is now obvious as to where the wretched attitude
that permeates Pac*Bell comes from. It is as I have always indicated:
a top down problem. The employees (techs, reps, etc.) of Pac*Bell are
the finest to be found anywhere in telephony. My official contact with
representatives of PB has always been most satisfactory. But Mr. Ginn
has given us the proof that the problem with Pac*Bell lies not in that
domain which actually provides product, but in the executive suites
where the greedy suit-types are concerned with nothing but bottom
lines in THEIR OWN bank accounts.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: MCI Friends & Family & Anyone Else With a TT Phone
Organization: Princeton Class of '94
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 23:23:47 GMT


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

> John Higdon offers a rebuttal to the following comment:

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

>> I also don't see what's so horrible
>> about someone POTENTIALLY finding out who's on your F&F list.

> Agreeing with John, I can think of several companies, that I done
> business with that I would not want to know of each others existence.
> Additionally, by looking at my recent long distance calls one could
> determine the following at least:

Well, after thinking about it some more, I can understand the
motivation both of you expressed, however, in my current mental state*
I am unable to think of any reason why someone wouldn't want each of
two or more companies finding out that he/she is communicating with
any of the other companies, without any sort of deception or shady
ethical/moral situation ... could you provide an example? (In mail if
you like.)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Syd Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Digital Cordless Telephones and B. A. Pargh
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 15:30:25 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


There seems to be some questions re who is B. A. Pargh, and that
is understandable.

B. A. Pargh is a Wholesale distributor of things for office supply
style stores, and they happen to list an awful lot of telephones (even
the Panasonic E-Key systems we hear so much about in this forum) ...

Their number is 1-800-BAP-1000, but they deal with resellers only.
(Note, any reseller is fine with them.)  They do not sell at retail.

Find some store near you that is willing to order the item from them
and go to it if you want it.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 2.4 Release: Early 1992
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd      Voice: [phone], FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Telecom Frequently Asked Questions - Revised 10/13/91
Date: 31 Oct 91 17:49:07 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


 From the FAQ posting:

> 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...

>   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.

How does someone get call supervision?  Is it something that you have
to order from the BOC?  What sort of hardware is needed on your end?
What can make it "unavailable or inconvenient"?  The former, I would
guess, would be a BOC that didn't make it available, the latter
probably means "expensive"?

I would guess that if you wanted to automatically monitor your own
phone so you could check the accuracy of your phone bill, you would
need call supervision to do it right.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1991 10:48:06 CST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Controlling Long Distance Access


[e-mail] (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

> Is there any feature or service that any of the LD carriers have
> that would prevent someone in your home (temporary employee) from
> using your phone to make LD calls?

and our Moderator notes:

> [Why don't you consider one of the inexpensive toll restrictors
> sold by companies such as Hello Direct (1-800-HI-HELLO)? They
> attach to the line in series with the phones which come behind
> the unit, and can be programmed to disallow all toll calls.  PAT]

I came across another option, which is not the height of security, but
does address the problem. I bought a reproduction payphone back around
1985 from some really-off-brand outfit ("Tele-Concepts", perhaps),
basically because it looked cute: lots of chrome, working coin slots,
coinbox with key, a bell that goes ding when you drop a quarter in;
you get the picture. Turned out that it was actually quite smart. You
could disable dialout with a switch in the back to require the user to
actually drop a quarter in first; after clanging the bell, the quarter
would whack a microswitch that turned on power to the handset.
(Cheating was prohibited; nickels and dimes were not heavy enough to
activate it.)  The phone's microchip was somehow capable of detecting
an incoming call and turning on the handset without requiring a
quarter first.

The LD restriction was particularly clever. The owner could program
the phone with a three-digit code to restrict the number of digits you
could dial. Typically you'd program a limit of seven digits to prevent
LD access, and after the seventh number was pressed, the keypad just
went dead. To dial a longer number, you'd begin by pressing a Recall
button and entering your three-digit code on the keypad. As a final
touch, you could elect to block ALL functioning of the "0" key by
programming an access code that included a 0; this was intended to
defeat someone trying to get LD access on your phone via the operator.

Granted, it's not a totally foolproof LD blocker (you could always use
the phone in our basement instead :-), but it worked well enough
during raucous parties that we didn't have to remove it beforehand to
preserve our phone bill. The only glitch I found was that it did not
always detect incoming calls properly, so if you had set on coin mode
and the phone rang, you'd need an emergency quarter nearby to kick the
handset on in case the phone didn't notice. Oh, well. It makes a nice
conversation piece, by the way.

I believe the company that made it is still around; if there is
sufficient interest, I'll ransack our basement and get the details off
the box.

Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with this product, other than as
a moderately-satisfied user.


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

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

From: Norman R. Solis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rude Operators
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 10:35:48 EST


I actually had an operator fall asleep after she answered the line!

Imagine my surpise when after explaining my problem I could hear very
faint snoring on the line.

'Hello?....Hellllllooooo?.....HELLOHELLOHELLOHELLO.....<click>'


N Richard Solis        [e-mail]        GO NAVY!
USNA 2nd Company    [e-mail]        BEAT ARMY!
Annapolis, MD 21412
[phone]        United States Naval Academy - Class of 1993



[Moderator's Note: I had something like that several years ago. I was
calling directory assistance somewhere. (This was long before they
started answering with the voice-chip of their name). She took my
request, and was looking for it and talking to me. Presently she quit
talking and I assumed she was still looking ... but after twenty
seconds or so a different operator came on and said 'hold on a second
and I'll get to you ...' and maybe twenty seconds after that the other
operator took my request all over again. I asked what happened to the
original operator and the second one replied she was not free to
discuss the matter. But judging from the conversation I heard in the
background while the second operator was assisting me ("call the Fire
Department; help her sit down over here") I assume the first operator
had a heart attack or a stroke while we were talking.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jarom Hagen)
Subject: Re: Recording Should Say 'Zero', Not 'Oh'
Date: 1 Nov 91 18:05:39 GMT
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA


[e-mail] (Jamie Mason) writes:


> I can't find a Bell recording that says "oh" rather than
> "zero" in my (very shallow) search.  What kinds of recordings are more
> likely to say "oh" than "zero"?

When I moved, my old line had a recording about the number being
disconnected and gave the new number with 0 as "oh".  This is a
Bell Atlantic recording.

I Brazil, the number 6 is called "seis" or "meia".  Which translates
to "six" or "half".  Someone told my it had something to do with a
half dozen.  But no one could tell me why.  To make things more
confusing, "meia" also means "stocking".

It wasn't tough to figure out what someone was saying once I knew what
to listen for.  I don't see why saying "oh" instead of "zero" is going
to cause problems for anyone.


Jarom

Not paid for and/or endorsed by NPRI.  602 Cameron St, Alexandria VA 22314
(UUCP: ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!jhagen)       (Internet: [e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Reid)
Subject: Re: US 0800 From UK
Organization: Oregon State University, CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1991 11:49:03 GMT


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

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

>> [Moderator's Note: I don't think he was talking about USA Direct
>> service as you imply. I think he was trying to reach 800 numbers in
>> the USA. Note in his message he wondered if he could have the card
>> without ever actually putting charges on it. Anyone would realize
>> there would be a charge to call the USA from the UK.

True, but now that AT&T, Sprint, etc, are available via an 0800 number
in the UK (equivalent of a 1-800 number in the USA) it provides the
_only_ way to contact folks, typically magazine advertisers, etc, for
whom a Briton has _only_ an 800 number (a surprisingly frequent
occurrence for UK dwellers: US advertisers, etc, should always
remember to quote a regular number as well as their 800 number, as 800
numbers are inaccessible from most parts of the world outside of the
USA and a great many ads, etc, particularly of the glossier kind from
advertisers who have many outlets in the US, don't even provide an
address that could be quoted to directory service).

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

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 13:28:58 PST
From: [e-mail] (W7EGX)
Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real


Duncan A. MacGregor writes:

> Ouch.  From previous articles in this newsgroup, as well as other sources,
> I know that you do NOT want to have "Call Waiting" supported on a line used
> by a modem.  If a call-waiting signal occurs while the modem is operating,
> the line will be hung up (by either the modem or the telephone system
> itself) and the connection ended.

Not necessarily true for all modems.  For example, my Telebit
Trailblazer operating in PEP mode will not drop the line if a call
waiting tone is detected; rather it will cause a retrain to occur
between both modems.  I won't see any spurious characters on my screen
either.  I suspect that most higher-speed modems that use a
non-trivial data transfer protocol over the phone lines can be
configured to react the same way to a call waiting tone, as well as to
make line noise transparent to the user (albeit with a a loss of
throughput while both modems are renegotiating the connection).

An interesting feature that I haven't seen on a modem is the ability
to detect a call waiting tone, and somehow send a message to the DTE;
this would probably require a communications program (when using the
modem for interactive use) that could detect this message and act on
it appropriately.

A few other interesting features of the newer modem chipsets that will
have an impact on telecom:

    - decode the CID data and present it to the DTE.
    - decode DTMF tones.
    - provide a path between the DTE and the modem's analog section
      (A/D and D/A) to allow the DTE to send/receive digitized
      audio to the phone line.


mike bender

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

From: [e-mail] (Albert Pang)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Organization: INSL, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 08:41:10 GMT


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

>    Making system software deal with DST was fun.

    While on the same subject, I have to mention this since it is
telecom related.

    I am a subscriber of Call Display (caller id) from Bell
Canada.  My exchange is (514)289-xxxx which is a Northern Telecom
DMS-100 switch.  I have rented a much to be desired Northern Telecom
Maestro phone with has a small LCD display.  It shows the time of day
and tells you if there is a new call.  Montreal (or Canada) has
switched to EST last Sunday.  However, as of today, the little display
on my phone still works on EDT.  I don't think it is my problem since
the clock will be set by any incoming Caller-ID information.  That
means the clock on the DMS switch is still working on EDT.

    Pretty anoying.  Anybody outside of Bell Canada area has the same
problem?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #877
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07336;
          2 Nov 91 19:35 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25276
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 17:45:43 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32153
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 17:45:33 -0600
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 17:45:33 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #878

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Nov 91 17:45:21 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 878

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Extended Range Cordless Telephones [Michael A. Covington]
    Re: Extended Range Cordless Telephones [James Parkyn]
    Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done [Wilson Mohr]
    Re: How Does the Law Handle Crank Calls? [Dave Niebuhr]
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [John Higdon]
    Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems [Jacob R. Deglopper]
    Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems [Marvin K. Hoffman]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Harold Hallikainen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: Extended Range Cordless Telephones
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 04:41:11 GMT


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

> While traveling on business this week, I came across the following ad
> in American Airlines' American Way in-flight magazine. I transcribe it
> for your edification and make no recommendations.

> [begin ad]

> Up To 60 Mile Radius Cordless Phones*
> Portable Models from 1 to 15 miles.
> Mobile Models 30 and 50 miles.
> Station to Station Models 25 and 60 miles.
> NEW! High Performance non-cellular cordless extention phones.

> *Some Models may not be used in USA

I think the last line sums it up, but change "some" to "all" and
change "USA" to "all ITU signatories" (i.e., the entire world).

Any transmitter with a 50-mile radius is going to have to have a license,
simply because it can interfere with anything else on the same frequency
in a 50-mile radius.


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


[Moderator's Note: I am reminded of the RF linear amplifiers sold for
use in the eleven-meter (CB) band. Totally illegal for *use* in the
USA, one is always required to sign the merchant's disclaimer saying
the unit is 'being sold for export outside the USA only'. Ten-four!  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (James Parkyn)
Subject: Re: Extended Range Cordless Telephones
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 23:40:52 GMT


Most, if not all of these models operate in unauthorized frequency
ranges (for the USA) and the sellers make no effort to alert customers
to the licensing problems. The local FCC office here hunts these units
down as they cause interference to legitimate commercial and amateur
radio communications.  The units are sometimes sold with a disclaimer
that they are not to be operated in the US (nudge-nudge, wink-wink)
and the person who answered the phone when I called was very evasive
when questioned about licensing. One recent bust by the FCC involved a
unit that was transmitting on the VHF downlink for the Transit
satellite!

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Wilson Mohr)
Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How
Date: 1 Nov 91 19:16:11 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]>, jeff%heurikon.UUCP@cs.
wisc.edu (Jeffrey Mattox) writes:

> I called CelluSoft and found out the following:

> METHOD USED: They change the ESN on your second phone to match
> that of your first phone.  The second phone masquerades as your first
> phone.

Not recommended, but can be done. (obviously :^) !)

>         USAGE RESTRICTION: You cannot use both phones at the same time
> in the same cellular system.  Thus, you cannot call car-to-car in the
> same area.  It might be fun to try, however.

This really depends on the carrier and there poilcy/programming of the
system to handle "live" bandit mobiles. For the most part these
mobiles are generallly denied service though.

> LEGALITY: CelluSoft talked to the FCC and various carriers
> about this and clamins to have found nothing dictating that this
> should not be done (other than the technical problem created if both
> phones are used at the same time).

What I want to know is how far did they research this with the FCC?
There are set parameters as to what information makes up an ESN and
this is DEPENDENT upon the MANUFACTURER of the phone. (Here's one for
you privacy folks. The manufacturer of the phone you are using is
identified in the ESN! Granted, only representatives authorized by you
have access to this information, but ...)

> Is there any cellular telephone on the market that allows its ESN
> to be field-programmed without having to use this method?

None that I know of.

> I would think that there might be a backdoor ESN programming method,
> or do the manufacturers painstakingly program a different control ROM
> for *each* phone?

As demonstrated by the Novatel example, manufacturer's do
"painstakingly program a different control ROM for *each* phone". This
is not difficult to do via our friend Mr. Computer. Most manufacturers
also track the FINAL end user who purchases the phone for security
reasons.  i.e. say you had a phone with the CelluSoft modification and
it got stolen. You would definitely report it to your carrier AND get
your phone number changed. *WELL* (now comes the twist) Your carrier
then supplies the ESN to Postive Validation Service to deny it
NATIONWIDE as well as its independent resellers to watch for this
phone if it shows up. (Receiving stolen property, etc.)

Stolen phones are tracked by their ESN since the thief will either:

a) Fence  the phone ASAP (w/o reprogramming it).
b) Have a "friend" reprogram it for his own use.
c) Reprogram and sell it.
d) Mount it in concrete and use it for a paperweight :^) ! (doubtful)

Since there would be no sense in stealing a phone if you could not use
it, our local friend the thief (or other uninformned person who purchases
said phone) will now call up a carrier and ask for a number. Being a
responsible carrier they will ask for the *ESN*. They then will look
this up on a "Hot Sheet" to determine if it has been reported stolen.
Then the flit hits the shan.

Ok. No problem you say. Now you take in your phone to get it
reprogrammed with your new number BUT the *SAME* *ESN*. Can you say
oops! After a LOOOONG explanation with a multitude of officials you
may get home in time for dinner.  The other fun part to this is that
any reputable carrier would not let the original phone to continue
having service since they could be defrauded big time by roaming
charges. How you say? They could not deny the ESN without cutting you
off also. Intercarrier agreements work on Blocks of Mobile ID's using
a Positive Validation Service to make sure the right ESN works on ONLY
the right phone. A work around for this is to immediately reassign the
number, but we all know the repercussions of that.

You can do this modification (for now), but it obviously could lead to
a lot of wasted time as well as losing BOTH phones if ONE got
misplaced. (you wouldn't want to NOT have the ESN denied ... would
you?) Toodles!


Wilson Mohr - Motorola CIG    ...!uunet!motcid!mohr


[Moderator's Note: Security wise, what solutions are there against
people who program their telephone number to one of the demo numbers
every carrier hands out to their dealers for testing and sales use?
For example, the RS dealer here has a number on which every cell phone
in his display case will function. On that particular phone number,
the cell carrier does not bother to check the ESN -- how could they
while still letting the dealer demo all his phones?  Likewise, the
internal phone numbers used by the cell carrier are not ESN validated.
What prevents a typical user from programming his stolen phone to one
of those numbers so the ESN is no longer a concern?   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 14:28:03 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: How Does the Law Handle Crank Calls?


[e-mail] (KATH MULLHOLAND) in <telecom11.876.4@
eecs.nwu.edu> writes:

> Step Three:The subscriber will be required to sign a release form
>           authorizing release of any information found to authorities.
>           Information will be released **to the police** and *not* to the
>           subscriber.  Chances are good the subscriber will not ever
>           see the information that is obtained.

> The rep stressed that once the release is signed, it is TPC's choice
> to prosecute, not the subscriber.  If it is found that the person
> making the calls is "Aunt Joan" or "Nephew Tom" the subscriber cannot

New York Telephone works in the same way when it comes to finding out
who is making harrassing calls.  I just went through it.

My wife is also required to sign the complaint form.


Dave


[Moderator's Note: You really can't blame telco for the stand they
take on this. They are not going to waste their time adjudicating
domestic disputes between family members, in-laws and the like. If you
want to prosecute the trouble-maker, that's fine. If not, that's fine
also, but don't involve telco in your personal disputes.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Date: 2 Nov 91 12:16:50 PST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


[e-mail] (KATH MULLHOLAND) writes:

> A few weeks ago, I was asked to investigate how to report obscene
> phone calls for action by TPC.  This is the information I was given by
> New England Telephone, for New Hampshire, to give out to a customer of
> mine who made the request for information.  I suppose the policies
> could vary from BOC to BOC.

[Lengthy and complex description of procedure, deleted.]

Currently, it appears that there is someone attempting to hack my
DISA.  In the middle of the night, call after call appears with
unsuccessful attempts made to enter the system. While my DISA is very
secure, it IS possible that this person could get lucky.

My choices are:

1. Do nothing and hope this turd gives up before striking it rich.

2. Turn off all trunk access (and thus deprive myself of some the
system's usefulness).

There are no other choices. Pac*Bell could not care less, since
nothing has yet happened. The authorities could not be bothered, since
no crime has yet been perpetrated. What is my point?

With Caller-ID (and DISA denial if Caller-ID is blocked) this could be
handled quickly and easily. If I knew that the DISA would not put out
on blocked ID, it would be easier to sleep at night. And if the slime
that is working on the line was stupid enough to allow his CPID to be
sent, then we would have "case closed".


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)


[Moderator's Note: If you have some way of seeing the passwords he is
trying, you might stay a jump ahead of him by changing the password
more or less daily for awhile always picking passwords he has already
tested and eliminated. Someone at this site changes their password
daily using chron to run a script *at another site* which telnets over
here, runs a couple of commands to change the password based on some
formula he uses, then exits.  The passwords are lengthy non-words,
full of punctuation symbols, etc. When it exits, it writes the
password to some obsure file on the other site read/writeable by
himself only, just in case he forgets how his own formula goes.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Subject: Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 19:57:44 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Brack) says:

> The Toledo Fire Dept. uses/used much the same system, but the boxes
> were more complex.  They provided for five or six categories of emergency
> and a test feature.

> Question 1: Would seperate lines be used for each type of alarm?
> Question 2: I once saw one of these boxes on the side of a fire
>             station.  Any clue as to why?

> [Moderator's Note: Haven't you ever heard of fire stations catching on
> fire while the firemen were away at a fire somewhere else?  PAT]

I believe the different alarm buttons transmit different codes over
the same line.  This is just a guess, but it might transmit something
like the following if box, say, 5-4-2 has the "police" button pushed:
5-4-2-pause-2 or 5-4-2-pause-1 for fire and so forth.

As for having call boxes on the sides of fire stations ... we don't
use call boxes, but all our stations have things labelled "Emergency
Phone" on the outside where the public can get at them.  We already
have leased lines from each station to the communications center (two
of them in fact, one voice, one data, but that's irrelevant), and the
"Emergency Phone" is on this direct line.  It's fairly common for
someone to come to the station with medical problems or occasionally
to report an emergency somewhere else.  There are times when everyone
in the station is out on calls, although these times are rare, and the
phone provides an alternative.  In addition, there's no guarantee that
someone will be awake at 3am when someone knocks on the door.  There
usually is, but not always.


   _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad
   [e-mail] -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve
   Opinions my own...

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems
Date: 2 Nov 91 15:21:28 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (Brack) writes:

> Question 2: I once saw one of these boxes on the side of a fire
>             station.  Any clue as to why?

  People often behave in odd ways during an emergency. One of the more
common, when faced with a fire, is to run to the fire station (if it's
nearby). If the crew there is out dealing with another fire, there's
no-one there to help.  Thus, there's a call box clearly located
outside the fire station. I used to live six houses away from one and
saw this quite often.


    Terry Kennedy           Operations Manager, Academic Computing
    [e-mail]     St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
    [e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems
Date: 2 Nov 91 15:14:12 EDT
Organization: Appalachian State University


Fire alarm boxes on buildings were generally referred to as "Master
Boxes" and were connected to internal sprinkler or smoke detector
systems.  When the smoke detector or sprinkler activated, it sent a
signal to the master box to activate and transmit the box number to
fire alarm headquarters.  Such boxes were typical of schools,
hospitals, nursing homes, some factories, courthouses and I guess some
fire stations.


Marvin K. Hoffman
Appalachian State University
Political Science/Criminal Justice

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

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 14:57:08 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


> I am a subscriber of Call Display (Caller ID) from Bell
> Canada.  My exchange is (514)289-xxxx which is a Northern Telecom
> DMS-100 switch.  I have rented a much to be desired Northern Telecom
> Maestro phone with has a small LCD display.  It shows the time of day
> and tells you if there is a new call.  Montreal (or Canada) has
> switched to EST last Sunday.  However, as of today, the little display
> on my phone still works on EDT.  I don't think it is my problem since
> the clock will be set by any incoming Caller-ID information.  That
> means the clock on the DMS switch is still working on EDT.

    I wonder about the clock on the billing system?  Is it the
same one, perhaps billing at the wrong rate for measured calls?


Harold


[Moderator's Note: Are you sure telco is sending the time, or does
telco send just the Caller-ID and the box provides the time for each
call?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #878
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19810;
          2 Nov 91 21:18 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06278
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 19:32:10 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04558
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 19:31:59 -0600
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 19:31:59 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #879

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Nov 91 19:31:49 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 879

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: IXO Protocol Update [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: New England Tel Messes Up Non-Pub Listing [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Dave Harvey]
    Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: First ESS(tm) Retired [Tom Lowe]
    Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires [Bell Labs News via Maurice R. Baker]
    Early ESSs? [John Boteler]
    5ESS Switch [Dave Niebuhr]
    Internet to EARN? [Peter Petto]
    Working Assets as an IEC? [Scott Brim]
    California Prop 103 and Telcos [Linc Madison]
    Prop 103 Style Reforms (Moderator's Note on PUC Testimony) [Arun Baheti]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Roger Fajman]
    Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines [Bob Izenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: IXO Protocol Update
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 21:05:14 GMT


    By the way ... a TSR program for calling pagers (including
alphanumeric, I believe) is available for $19.95.  It's called Pop
Page.  You can get it from Statistical Control Systems, 3430 27th
Parkway, Sarasota, FL 34235. Phone [phone].


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] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: New England Tel Messes up Non-Pub Listing
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1991 21:58:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> William.Degnan@p0.f39.
n382.z1.FidoNet.Org (William Degnan) writes:

> Hmmm. Well, if they left him out, they might be forced into sending
> out a notice telling folks to _add_ his number to the directory.
> Perhaps they could send out some correction fluid to all directory
> holders? No?

    Garison Keilor of A Prarie Home Companion and American Radio
Theatre was once giving Reader's Digest a hard time about condensing
the Bible, since most people don't read all of it.  He said something
like, "Next thing you know, they'll condense the phone book.  After
all, you don't call most of the people in there."


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] (Dave Harvey)
Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1991 08:17:05 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Martens) writes:

> I couldn't agree with you more Pat.  I had run a BBS in seattle for
> many years that was free to all users.  But with this freedom also was
> a disclaimer which stated to users that if they had connection with
> any government agency, they must state so to the sysop in the login
> process.  It also said that the sysop was in no way responsible for
> the opinions expressed on the board.  But as we all know, nowadays,
> you can be held responsible for almost anything according to the
> government.  (Sounds like Russia to me.)

To add confusion to the issue, the October 31 edition of the
{Washington Post} reports the ruling of U.S. District Judge Peter
Leisure that says Compuserve cannot be held liable for defamatory
statements contained in a newsletter available through its electronic
library.  A rep for the ACLU was quoted as saying that it was one of
the first decisions by the First District Court ruling on the status of
electronic bulletin boards, holding that they have limited liability
and that without knowledge of the act they are not liable.


proline: pro-novapple!daveharv
uucp: crash!pnet01!pro-novapple!daveharv
arpa: crash!pnet01!pro-novapple![e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well whatever happened to the last part of 'knew or
should have known'? If it were *that easy* to avoid liability -- by
just shaking your head and claiming you knew nothing of it -- then why
can't everyone pull that off all the time?   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 12:38:33 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telcos Abuse Cheap Government Loans


I have been told by an operations manager for Altel that there is a
push from their corporate headquarters to reduce their dependence on
REA loans.  My experience with several REA sub'd telco's has been that
REA loans can sometimes be more trouble than they are worth.  They
regulate every aspect of the installations that they finance.  There
have been several instances where, after finishing a ten hour day
installing cable, I would be up til midnight documenting every 'unit'
of construction.  For example a construction of a single span of line
might involve the following units:

PM1 Pole Lightning Protection Assembly
PM2 Pole Ground Assembly
PE1-2 Down Guy of 6M Strand
PF1-3 Patent Anchor
PM11 Guy Guard
PM52-1 Pole Marking
C50-24P(6M)  50 Pair, 24 ga. PIC cable lashed to 6M strand
25-7  25', class 7 Pole

[These units are from a few years old copy of "Specifications and
Drawings for Construction of Pole Lines, Aerial Cables, and Wires",
and may have changed recently.]

Every one of these units has accompanying specifications.  Rather than
insure the quality of the provided telephone service, they seem to
encourage corruption among contractors and employes of the telephone
companies.


Patton Turner   [e-mail]    KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Oct 30 09:23:54 EST 1991
Subject: Re:  First ESS(tm) Retired


> According to the latest Bell Labs News, the 1ESS(tm) switch in
> Succasunna, NJ was replaced with a 5ESS(R) switch on September 28.
> The Succasunna switch, installed in 1965, was the first commercial
> electronic switching system.  AT&T Network Systems and New Jersey Bell
> are considering donating part of the retired switch to the
> Smithsonian Institution.

You should have mentioned the headline and picture that appears with
the story.  The headline is "What Are You Doing, Dave?" (a reference,
of course, to HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey) and the picture is that of
four New Jersey Bell technicians standing in front of a frame, each
holding a large cable cutter.  They are in the process of cutting all
the lines connected to the 1ESS.  The 5ESS was connected in parallel
to the 1ESS, and at 1:00 am, the 1ESS lines were cut then the new
switch turned on.  The whole operation took only a few minutes.

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 16:23:04 EST
From: [e-mail] (Maurice R Baker)
Subject: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From {Bell Labs News} of 10/28/91:

    ----Picture of a row of craftpersons with bolt cutters severing
        many multi-pair cables---

      These New Jersey Bell technicians are actually in the process of
taking a very well-behaved -- and the nation's oldest -- 1ESS(tm) out
of service.  The switch became the world's first commercial electronic
switching system when it was installed in Succasunna, NJ in 1965.  It
was replaced with a 5ESS(tm) on September 28th.

      The cutover was accomplished in three steps.  First, the new
5ESS was installed and hooked up to the incoming lines -- which were
also still going to the old switch -- but not powered up.  Then, at
1:00 AM, when there is relatively little traffic on the old switch,
the cables coming in to the 1ESS were quickly cut.  Once all the lines
were cut, the new switch was turned on.  The whole operation took only
a few minutes, and agencies involved in emergency services were
notified in advance of the brief service outage.

      The 1ESS design project, which was conducted at Whippany in the
early 60's, was the largest single development effort undertaken by
the Bell System up to that point, occupying more than 300 engineers
and technicians.

       AT&T Network Systems and New Jersey Bell are considering
donating part of the retired switch to the Smithsonian Institution.

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

Subject: Early ESSs?
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 1:41:59 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Sicho said that Columbia, Maryland had the first ESS#1 ... well, he is
a crossbar kind of guy, after all.

Since Succasunna, NJ was THE first ESS, where does Columbia stack up
in the list? It makes sense that it was one of the first, being a
'planned' community.


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


[Moderator's Note: Wait a minute. What about Morris, IL? I thought
they were first or nearly first back in the sixties.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 10:51:52 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: 5ESS Switch


I recently found out that my switch is a 55-5ESS.  I understand what
the 5ESS is, but what is the 55?

Thanks,


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


[Moderator's Note: Maybe the person who told you this was stuttering
as they were speaking ... :)    PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 08:58:14 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Peter Petto)
Subject: Internet to EARN?
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)


I'm having some trouble sending a piece of Internet mail to a location
that does not have a domain name (of which I am aware).  I'm hoping
someone can help me.

I want to send a message to "LISTSERV@TAUNIVM" -- my system does not
recognize that address.  TAUNIVM is in Tel Aviv.  The reference
material I have at hand indicates that TAUNIVM is connected to the
EARN network and that the EARN network is connected to the City
University of New York (CUNY).

Can anyone help me with an address that can get from here (ncoast.org)
to there?  I'd really appreciate it.


Peter Petto        |     [e-mail]
Bay Village, Ohio  |  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Have you tried '[e-mail]'?  In
other words, hand it to CUNY and let them figure it out ... or perhaps
'cuny.edu!taunivm!listserv' might work. Or '[e-mail]' might
be able to tell you how they connect with taunivm.    PAT]

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

From: Scott Brim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Working Assets as an IEC?
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date:    Fri, 25 Oct 1991 16:14:26 -0400


I just got something in the mail from Working Assets.  They seem to be
claiming that *they* are an inter-exchange carrier (and that 1% of
what they charge you goes to Good Causes, just like with their Visa
card).  Can anyone tell me more?  What are their rates like?  I
thought they were just a Sprint remarketer -- certainly they don't
have their own physical plant(??).


Thanks much ...

Scott

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 00:46:02 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: California Prop 103 and Telcos
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> Perhaps it is time for the Phone Company equivalent of Prop 103.
> (Note: Prop 103 was an anti-insurance company referendum passed by the
> voters a few years back.  Telco would almost assuredly not want such a
> proposition aimed at them, but with these rate hikes, a well-drawn
> proposition might have an excellent chance of passage).

> [Moderator's Note: Could you please explain a little more about the
> provisions of Proposition 103, and how it would affect the telcos?  PAT]

Prop. 103 was one of several insurance reform initiatives placed on
the ballot last year, and I believe was the only one that passed.  Its
provisions included providing an ELECTED (rather than appointed) state
insurance commissioner, rolling back insurance rates to those in
effect on some arbitrary date, and providing additional legal hurdles
to raising rates.  It further provided that rate differentials between
different insured individuals had to be justified more thoroughly.
Prop. 103 itself has minimal effect on the telcos (unless they decide
to diversify into the insurance business ...), but a similar
initiative could be written that would roll back rates and place caps
on future increases and maybe even provide for an elected CPUC.


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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 11:41 CDT
From: Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Prop 103 Style Reforms (Moderator's Note on PUC Testimony)


Prop. 103 was the insurance intiative placed on the California ballot
in 1988 under California's referendum laws.  It called for, among
other things, the halting of many of the more insulting practices of
the regulated (but hugely profitable) insurance industry in the state,
including the end of redlining districts and basing insurance premiums
solely on previous history rather than statistical tendencies.  And
most importantly called for an automatic 20% roll-back in rates with
refunds for consumers -and- allows banks and other firms to enter the
currently uncompetitive insurance industry.

A version directed at the telecom industry could be effective, but I
doubt that the public has the same sense of outrage against the phone
company as their insurance provider.  The new increases could change
that however ... particularly of note is that insurance (phone service)
could now be provided by banks or other companies that are run much
more efficiently than insurance companies (phone companies) and want
a piece of the huge profit margins ...

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

From: "Roger Fajman" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 91  19:53:38 EST
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"


> [Moderator's Note: Actually we did not have War Time at all until 1942
> when President Roosevelt thought it would be a good idea. After WW-2

According to my mother, War Time was two hours ahead of standard time.
I'm too young to remember, although I was born while War Time was in
effect.  :-) Must have been dark pretty late in the morning in some
places.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 6:27:36 CST


    A friend told me of a co-worker that brought up using a
"dial-out only" phone line for a computer system at work.  I
questioned the economics and maybe even the existence of such a thing,
but a Digest reader in SWBT turf may know better.

    If this type of service exists, what are the economics of it?
Not just to the customer, but also for the telco to provide?  Is there
(of course there is!) any particular terminology to run past the clerk
when ordering this line?

    Additionally, armchair quarterbacking about whether a dial-out
only line, if there is such a beast, does anything real for the
security of their computer system is welcome.


Bob   DOMAIN-WISE: [e-mail]
      BANG-WISE: ...cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei


[Moderator's Note: Yes, incoming/outgoing only lines are available
from telco, along with lines which don't allow local (or) toll
dialing.  There is no economic advantage, since they generally cost
the same as lines which have not been so treated, and it may wind up
costing more since you need a second, regular line as well if you
expect to have the types of calls the specially treated line is
prohibiting.  Specially treated lines of this nature which restrict
one or more types of calls from taking place are intended as a
security precaution, where you have people around who can't keep their
hands off the phone, ie, jail inmates or delinquent children. It is
basically the same thing as a phone which denies 900/976 numbers. For
instance, my phones all deny inbound collect calls and third-number
billings. I have no need of such services. If all you are concerned
about is your own use of the phone, then just get a regular line. Why
inconvenience yourself when you may need a certain type of call?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #879
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07327;
          2 Nov 91 23:38 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11258
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 22:00:40 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01424
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 22:00:30 -0600
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 22:00:30 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #880

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Nov 91 22:00:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 880

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    GTE's Latest Scam [Alan Gilbertson via Keith Dickinson]
    Line Testing Voltage: Summary [Jon Sreekanth]
    Hurricane Grace Backlash on Long Island [Dave Niebuhr]
    Calling Card Fraud: It Happens [John Parsons]
    Area Code 410 in Present Tense Already? [Carl Moore]
    OSI Management Registry Info Needed [Allen Pellnat]
    Relaynet Phones Conference [Nigel Allen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 01 Nov 91 21:32:45 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Keith Dickinson)
Subject: GTE's Latest Scam


 From: [e-mail] (Alan Gilbertson)
 Date: Sat, 02 Nov 91 07:51:00 PDT
 Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/230 - CSFSO Telecomm, Clearwater FL

Generally I'm a placid sort of fellow.  I put up with GTE because
they're the only game in town, and because I have very good working
relationships with the (generally friendly and very competent)
engineering and technical staff at most levels locally, so I'm served
reasonably well.

Once in a while, and this is one of those times, GTE will do something
that is so outrageous, so flagrantly opportunist, that I refuse to
remain cool, calm, and collected.

Today, I received an item in the mail that has to be last word in
sleaze, capping anything that the "Alternative Operator Services" ever
did, in sheer effrontery.  I have not been able to verify whether this
"service" is tariffed in Florida, but I will be checking on it on
Monday, and will follow up with some form of communication to the
Florida PUC.

The mailing piece adds insult upon insult by offering to "increase" my
typical V.32 and V.32bis modem data rates on our private E-mail system
and data links to 4,800 bps.  The fact that it's targeted at
residential (who are generally quite ignorant about telecom
technology), as well as business customers (only some of whom might be
expected to know better), simply exacerbates it's bogus nature.  It is
predicated on the public ignorance; that same ignorance on which all
the confidence tricksters of history have relied in order to pull off
their scams.

Here's what the accompanying letter (there is also a four-color glossy
which says essentially the same thing) "offers":

                       **** Begin Quote ****
Dear GTE Customer:

Ever feel like the data you're sending is stuck in a traffic jam?
Want to make your modem really move and your fax machine fly?  Now is
your chance to add Dial DataLink(r) from GTE and rev up your
transmission performance.

Your current phone line was created with only voice communications in
mind.  But because your data communications needs are ever growing,
GTE now offers you Dial DataLink.

With Dial DataLink your current phone line is conditioned to better
hand data transmissions from today's state of the art fax machines,
modems and credit card authorization equipment.  And it's a difference
you may appreciate almost immediately!  The data you're sending will
get where it's going fast -- and with less [sic] errors.  You can have
all of this speed and accuracy by calling GTE at 1-800-334-2000! (ext.
80 please)

Because Dial DataLink strengthens the typically weakest link in the
communications chain -- from your home or office to the nearest GTE
central switching office -- it enhances your transmission and protects
your data, even at rates of up to 4800 bps*.

You'll be happily surprised when you receive your phone and computer
service bills.  Because Dial DataLink improves the speed of data
transmissions and helps you to complete them on the first attempt, you
can reduce your long distance and computer connection service charges.
In addition to monthly local line charges, you'll pay JUST $5.00 PER
MONTH plus a $25.00 one-time connection charge and a $14.00 secondary
service order charge.  If you order before October 31, 1991 we'll
waive the one-time secondary service order charge -- a savings of
$14.00!

Look over the attached brochure and race to your phone today!  Order
Dial DataLink then fax to the max tomorrow.  Simply call
1-800-334-2000 (etxt. 80)!

Sincerely, (sic)

Julia K. Glover
Product Manager -- Dial DataLink

P.S.  Order now and you only pay $5.00 per month, plus a one-time
connection fee of $25.00. (In addition to local line charges.) And
there will be no secondary service order charge if you order before
October 31, 1991!!

*GTE does not ensure the transmission level over the entire
circuit.

                        **** End Quote ****

Comments and suggestions for further action with regulatory bodies
welcome in E-mail.

Alan.

Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!230!Alan.Gilbertson

Note: psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root.
--- InterMail 2.01b
Origin: CSFSO Telecom [f230.n3603.z1.fidonet.org] (1:3603/230)

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Sreekanth)
Subject: Line Testing Voltage: Summary
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 16:01:36 GMT


This is a summary of email responses to my question in the Digest, 19
Oct 91. Thanks again to everyone who replied.

My original question was: a commercial fax switch I used in Hudson,
MA, would ring all by itself late at night. I suspected it was
tripping because of automatic line test voltages. (I also discovered
it would trip because of a parallel connected pulse phone.) I needed
the line test specs in order to do reliable ring detection for my own
circuits.

JM writes ...

What you have here is bell tap. Cheap and sleezy devices bell tap.
for an electronic ringer, or ring detector that doesn't bell tap and
also looks like a real bell to telco test gear, get the Motorola
Ringer IC.  The MC34017 should do the job.

JD writes...

I had the same problem with my ASAP TP555 switch.  Additionally, when
I talk to ----------- on the phone, his voice would always set the
thing off ringing while we were on line (too much trouble to explain
exactly how this manifested, but it was a drag).  All I did to get rid
of the occasional late night ringing sessions and the false triggering
on -----'s voice was to dump the remaining default two digit security
numbers and make them all more complex four digit codes.  This stopped
all the problems -- not a one since.

JD writes ...

Don't worry about what the line voltage is, you should _NOT_ detect
square waves of any reasonable voltage (yes I know some cheap
equipment generates square waves, you will NEVER get anything but a
sine wave from the CO or a decent PBX or KSU).  In all my circuits, I
basicly low-pass the ring detect signal so if the dv/dt is too high,
it's ignored.

JD writes...

My filter consists of a properly selected RC on the input side of an
AC opto isolator and a pull-up and cap to ground on the computer side
(use a schmidt trigger input).  ...

> Both criteria (cost and speed of detecting ring) weigh against analog
> filtering. What I'm doing now is filtering the ring in software, to
> only allow 17Hz - 68Hz as valid ring waveforms. I trip after 4 such
> edges. I've verified that this can very nicely filter out a 10 pps
> pulse phone, so bell tap has not been a problem.

Good, the testing voltage is a high-level DC voltage applied to the
line.  The spike this creates will cause a non-filtered input to
detect one or two ring pulses.  We had to make some custom boards for
Hawai`ian Tel and they were very sensitive to this spike.  Every
midnight when they would do their automated line test, the boards
would go off hook and the line would fail testing due to the load.
Every morning their technician had to reset all the lines to active
service.  They decided they didn't need a ring circuit that sensitive.

JM writes ...

    The usual frequency of old style line testers was 10 Hz, so
you should be safe.

GM writes ...

You are seeing a problem with the effects of a ALIT test performed at
the CO. This is an automatic line insulation test.  We had problems
with the first revision of a security device our company manufactured
until we figured this out.  The fax switch you are using must wait for
at least one on to off to on transition of the ring detector.  The
test will not generate this on to off to on only on to off for a brief
duration.  This duration is shorter than a normal ring interval and
shouldnt be detected as ring condition.  Any device which picks up too
soon also runs the risk of screwing up centrex loops, the caller will
hear the ringback signal for a brief interval and then the signal will
change to busy.  All this is documented in a Bellcore document on how
not to answer the phone!

TG writes ...

Line test voltages are below the demarcation voltages of 125 volts.
They are typically 100 volt signals applied tip to ring, tip to
ground, ring to ground and tip and ring to ground.

You can find descriptions of the No 14 test desk, the No 3 CL tester
and the like in the literature.

                            -------

For the most part, I think I have a handle on the problem now, but
if there are further followups, please email and I'll summarize.


Thanks,

Jon Sreekanth
Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc.           |  Fax and PC products
5 Walden St #3, Cambridge, MA 02140         |  [phone]
[e-mail]                      |

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 8:59:10 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Hurricane Grace Backlash on Long Island


These are sketchy reports of the problems caused by the backlash
Hurricane Grace as it went by Long Island:

I'm gong to summarize them and insert comments where appropriate.

- Severe Coastal Flooding.

- Fire Island Barrier Beaches sustained heavy damage.

- Flooding as far as 1 1/2 miles from the barrier beaches.

- An estimated 22,000 homes lost electricity.

- Homes on the barrier beach destroyed (6) [I would comment on this but its
  a very political issue on Long Island].

- Ferry service between Long Island and Connecticut stopped.

- Rescue helicopter down trying to save someone who's boat capsized.  Four
  of five on helicopter saved by NY Air National Guard 106 Air Rescue
  Group (also detailed to space shuttle launches).  Hopes high for last
  person who had survival gear and oxygen.

- My hometown (Mastic Beach, NY) hit hard (its on a peninsula and gets
  it from two sides with East/NE winds).  I was lucky.  Water stopped
  about one mile from my home.

- Continued flood watch until this afternoon.

- Gilgo Beach (a major beach) flattened.

- Many sand dunes on Fire Island destroyed (potentially serious winter
  flooding due to storms) (Fire Island separates the Atlantic Ocean from
  a bay on the southern side of Long Island.)

- Parts of the North Shore of Western Long Island sustained some damage
  (Nothing more on that since it was the first that I've heard).  The
  North Shore of Eastern Long Island was hit fairly hard since it was
  closer to the hurricane.

- Telephones stayed operational (at least from my point of view since I'm
  doing this from home via landline).

- This comes on the heels of Hurricane Bob in August.

There were other reports yesterday but the information above is the
latest according to the local news program and is more factual.

So far, thankfully, there have been no reports of loss of life.
Property damage is the only thing so far and there haven't been any
reports of that except for the six homes on Fire Island.

Only good thing: The leaves that were to be raked this weekend are
gone from my front yard.


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


[Moderator's Note: Gracious ... our country has certainly been hit
with disasters aplenty the past few months, what with fires and
floods. I sit here in my crummy apartment and complain about the heat
in the winter ... while people on either coast wish they had a home to
go to tonight ... :(  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 09:07:42 mst
From: John Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Card Fraud: It Happens


I've seen the warnings in this Digest about calling card fraud, and
passed the info to my wife.  But, like most people, "I never thought
it would happen to me."

My wife's business has an 800 number through Telecom USA.  She
received a call yesterday from someone claiming to be from Telecom
USA, and asking for info about her account.  She refused to give it,
and passed the call to me.  The conversation went like this:

Scum: "My name is [forgotten], i.d. number D4819, and I'm calling
about $700 worth of overseas calls charged to your calling card
between Oct. 26 and 28.  Did you authorize these calls?"

Me: "No."

Scum: "Have you authorized anyone to use your Telecom USA calling card?"

Me: "No.  We do not have a Telecom USA calling card.  We have a Sprint
card."  [Oops, probably shouldn't have told him that!]

Scum: "Sir, Telecom USA and Sprint are related."

Me: "I understand Telecom USA is a subsidiary of MCI."

Click! Mr. Scum hangs up.

I reported this to Telecom USA, so they might use the ANI information
to help track Mr. Scum.  They thanked me, and said "This sort of thing
happens all the time."

I've noted the time of the call, so when the next bill comes, I'll
send you Mr. Scum's number.  Any bets that it's a coin station?

Thanks to TELECOM Digest for the prior warning.  It DOES happen!


John Parsons  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note:  You did not specifically say so, but I assume the
call arrived on the 800 number, in which case yes there will be ANI on
your bill next month. I get ANI on my Telecom 800 numbers. So by all
means send the number along. Let's see who the creature is, and what
he is about. And I'll bet you it was NOT a pay station.  Hmmm ... :) PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 13:27:52 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code 410 in Present Tense Already?


The message at tollfree 800-477-4704 has been changed to indicate that
area code 410 is now in the present tense.  The end of the grace
period is now indicated as "next November" -- meaning 1992, even
though it is not yet November 1991 at this writing.

A radio ad received from Baltimore earlier this week used
410-792-xxxx.  And earlier I received a copy of outgoing electronic
mail in which the sender: --used area code 410 --added footnote saying
to use 301 until November 1.

On Monday 4 November, I will be sending revised versions of some archive
files whose names start with "areacode".  They will account for the
301/410 split (see above), and also 213/310 and 404/706 (although the
last one has to be flagged because it will still not be in effect).

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

From: [e-mail] (Allen Pellnat)
Subject: OSI Management Registry Info Needed
Organization: Computer Consoles Incorporated
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 14:05:42 GMT


Can anyone provide me with informational contacts, either telephone
numbers or e-mail addresses where I can enquire about the status of
the (Formerly ISO) Network Management Forum's registry/library of
Managed Objects. I understand that the Canadian Standards Association
is the repository but haven't been able to get much from them.

Reply by e-mail or 716-654-2686. Thanks in advance.


Allan Pellnat   Computer Consoles Inc.   Rochester, New York

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

From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Date: 27 Oct 91 (23:47)
Subject: Relaynet Phones Conference
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario


I've mentioned FidoNet and its telecom-related echoes (FCC and MDF)
before. I thought I should also mention that RelayNet, another mail
network for BBSes, now has a PHONES conference. (A RelayNet
conference, like a FidoNet echo, is like an unmoderated Usenet
newsgroup.)

If you would like to check out the RelayNet PHONES conference, here
are some BBS numbers you can call to access it:

The DataGate [phone]
Hispanic Bell Mgmt Assoc 312-727-4868 Chicago
Telephone Exchange at 904-268-2945
Parole Board BBS [phone]

Some of these BBSes may also have telecom-related files available for
download.

You may be able to locate some nearby RelayNet or FidoNet BBSes by
checking with a local computer user group or university computer
center, or possibly a computer dealer.


Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host


[Moderator's Note: One of the numbers you gave above (312-727-4868) is
on someone's desk at Illinois Bell headquarters in downtown Chicago.
All 312-727 phones end up there. And in fact I just now went
a-calling, and it seems like a well-maintained, interesting BBS.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #880
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12261;
          3 Nov 91 0:21 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11398
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 22:46:19 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18458
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 22:46:10 -0600
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 22:46:10 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #881

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Nov 91 22:46:09 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 881

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Toronto Transit Commission's Timeline Service [Nigel Allen]
    NYC Court Decision May Protect Usenet Sites [Stan Brown]
    Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Mike Godwin]
    Divesting Phone Companies (was Testimony to CA PUC ...) [David G. Lewis]
    CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications [Lauren Weinstein]
    Israeli Phones Get Free (and Unasked For) Call Waiting [Warren Burstein]
    The Rate Shuffle Hearings [John Higdon]
    I *Couldn't* Use AT&T! [David Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 18:42:45 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Toronto Transit Commission's Timeline Service
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto


The Toronto Transit Commission operates subway, bus and streetcar
service in Metropolitan Toronto (the city of Toronto and the adjacent
suburbs).  A few years ago, it introduced Timeline service, which
gives every bus or streetcar stop its own telephone number. Call the
number (for example, 416-539-1111 is one particular stop on the 4
Annette trolleybus route), and you'll get a synthesized voice giving
you the scheduled arrival times of the next two or three transit
vehicles. It gives the scheduled times, and doesn't track the actual
progress of the bus. However, if the bus is likely to be late because
of bad weather or some other problem, you're warned that "major (or
minor) delays may occur".

Since each stop has its own phone number, the service can be accessed
from a rotary phone; you just dial the seven-digit number. This uses
up most of the (416) 539-xxxx block of numbers, of course, and may
have hastened Bell Canada's plans to split the 416 area code.

Several other Ontario communities have services like this. Ottawa may
have been first. The transit services in Guelph, Oakville, and
Mississauga also have phone numbers on their bus stops.

Of course, people could consult the printed schedules that are
provided for Toronto's less frequent transit routes, but the Timeline
service is convenient, and probably has helped the TTC to win or
maintain some riders.

For a message explaining Timeline, call [phone].

The Toronto Transit Commission's address, if you want to write to it, is:

 Toronto Transit Commission
 1900 Yonge Street
 Toronto, Ontario M4S 1Z2
 Canada


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: NYC Court Decision May Protect Usenet Sites
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 7:54:15 EST


Sites that carry Usenet groups may now be shielded from legal action
based on the contents of the postings.

Today's (Thursday, 31 Oct) {Wall Street Journal} carries news of a
Federal court decision in New York City.  It's too long to quote (a
full column on page B1), but here's the gist.

A column "Rumorville" published in CompuServe said nasty things about
a rival.  The rival sued the writer of the column and CompuServe for
libel.  US District Judge Peter Leisure agreed with CompuServe's
motion to be dropped from the lawsuit.  The judge said, "CompuServe
has no more editorial control over such a publication than does a
public library, bookstore, or newsstand, and it would be no more
feasible for CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for
potentially defamatory statements than it would be for any other
distriubutor to do so."

The article continues, "CompuServe doesn't pre-screen its electronic
bulletins, though it periodically deletes notes it considers
offensive.  ... The decision won't necessarily [benefit] Prodigy ...
because Prodigy has an unusual policy of pre-screening its members'
public notes."

The article didn't mention Usenet.  But it seems to me that the key
point is the inability to pre-screen material, coupled with the
absence of any declared intention to do so.  Usenet meets both those
criteria.

I believe the decision should be made known to any site administrators
who are nervous about carrying Usenet in general or particular
newsgroups because they fear their sites may be liable if someone is
offended by the content.  Judge Leisure's decision is an important
precedent that should remove that fear.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 03:27:31 GMT


Our Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: Well whatever happened to the last part of 'knew or
> should have known'? If it were *that easy* to avoid liability -- by
> just shaking your head and claiming you knew nothing of it -- then why
> can't everyone pull that off all the time?   PAT]

Bookstores and libraries *do* pull this off all the time. Judge
Leisure correctly decided in Cubby Inc. v. CompuServe that online
services like CompuServe are more like bookstores than like newspapers
or magazines.

The same reasoning would lead to a different result for Prodigy, which
prescreens all its public postings.


Mike Godwin,    [e-mail]
[phone]  EFF, Cambridge

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Divesting Phone Companies (was Testimony to CA PUC...)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 17:26:22 GMT


(a rather sensitive issue to my company ...)

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

> 5. If Pacific Telesis really thinks it cannot make money in the
> regulated market without these additional increases, then ask them to
> divest themselves of Pacific Telephone.  Of course, they won't because
> Pacific Telephone provides the resources for all the other businesses
> they want to get into.

Before I came to Bell Labs, I spent a little over a year working for
Teleport Communications Group, an access carrier with its largest
network in New York.  Teleport is slowly but surely setting itself up
as a competitor to New York Telephone in the local loop, although the
regulatory envelope hasn't quite been pushed enough to put the two
companies at anything approaching parity.

Anyway, we often had brainstorming sessions about what kinds of
defenses NYTel would present to keep Teleport out of the local
switched services business, and how we'd respond.  We half-seriously
considered that if NYTel said that Teleport shouldn't be allowed to
provide local switched services because we'd "cream-skim" the urban,
business market leaving NYTel with the "unprofitable" suburban and
rural residential operations, then we'd offer to buy those
"unprofitable" operations from them at book value ...

(note that "we" == "Teleport" in the above; my current company would
have nothing to do with such shenanigans ...)


David G Lewis    AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej   ISDN Evolution Planning

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 11:33:01 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications


Greetings.  I had a number of discussions with GTE Executive Offices
last week concerning the lack of detailed rate increase proposal info
in advance of the current round of public hearings.

Their resposne was that the dates for all mailings had originally been
set in agreement with the PUC, and that they did not occur in advance
of the hearings since, supposedly, these public testimony hearings
were never originally planned!  Apparently the PUC actions regarding
intra-LATA competition were not initially planned to go to public
testimony hearings at all!  Only complaints by some public action
groups resulted in these hearings being scheduled.

GTE also kept repeating that these hearings were not the rate
hearings, so detailed rate proposals were not necessary in advance of
these hearings.  When I pointed out that the issue of allowing
competition was directly related to the proposed rate increases, so of
*course* the info was needed, they agreed that might be true, but that
they couldn't change the procedures.  There appears to be some
question about whether there will actually be another round of public
testimony hearings to actually deal with the rate case separately.
There of course will be the usual "private" hearings with official
testimony by various interested parties.

GTE also tried to explain their rate increase by mentioning that part
of the proposal includes removing the current "temporary surcharge"
(now running at something close to 20% I believe), which would tend to
(very slightly) reduce the impact of the rate increases.  They also
claimed that their proposals for increased measured service usage
charges were much less than what Pac*Bell proposed (though I have not
seen this in writing as of yet).

The plan apparently is for the details of the rate increases to start
going out in the October 7 cycle bills -- those would be mailed
starting around the 24th or 25th of October.  So GTE subs should start
seeing the details about now.

It's also worth noting that most of the public groups who are fighting
the increases by both telcos are doing so from the standpoint of
residence customers -- suggesting that businesses take an even
*higher* increase than currently planned.  Even the originally
proposed increases could be devastating to small businesses,
particularly ones with lots of ordinary POTS or Centrex lines to
service incoming callers, but who don't make many intra-LATA toll
calls.

 --Lauren--

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Israeli Phones Get Free (and Unasked For) Call Waiting
Date: 31 Oct 91 14:47:19 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


Within the last few weeks, Bezeq, the Israeli phone company, turned on
call waiting (and forwarding, I think) on digital phone lines.  This
of course has caused lots of fun for modem owners.  There appears to
be no way to disable it temporarily, so I suppose I will have to call
them and ask to have it disabled permenantly.

So I started thinking about getting a second line so there is some way
that people can reach me when I'm plugged in.  An article in this past
Friday's {Yediot Achronot} says that a second line can be installed at
the same price as the first line, a mere 965 shekels (about $400).
Bezeq was once famous for taking years (yes, years) to install a
single line, now you can have as many as you can pay for, if you can
pay for them.


[e-mail]

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

Subject: The Rate Shuffle Hearings
Date: 31 Oct 91 22:19:59 PST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


After hearing what an exciting thing the Caller-ID hearings were, I
decided to attend the "IntraLATA Competition" roadshow hearings when
they came to a town near me. At the moment that happens to be
Victorville.

A little mention of the locale is in order. Victorville is a small
(45K) town that is essentially the gateway from the Los Angeles sewer
to the High Desert. It is part of a growing desert community of about
220K and the majority of the telephone service comes from Contel.
Since Contel's rates are tied to the rates Pac*Bell charges, the PUC
came to town to get customer comments.

The meeting was in the city council chambers and had representatives
from Pac*Bell, Contel, GTE, TURN, and the PUC consumer advocates
office present. In addition, there were about ten townfolk at the
gathering.  It would appear that simple (?) rate increases do not have
the draw that an explosive issue such as Caller-ID carries.

In any event, the predictable comments came from the predictable
people. The judge gave opening remarks, Mr. Disher from Pac*Bell had a
few words with charts and graphs showing his case, the person from
Contel said that his company was still pondering its part in the whole
thing, and the PUC consumer advocate explained what his function was
in the whole proceding.

TURN predictably was more concerned with little old ladies than with
anyone else, claiming that this increase would be a hardship on people
with fixed incomes, etc., etc. But since all of these people had been
heard from many times before, the bulk of the time was turned over to
the audience.

I spoke first. Remembering the last major PUC action with Pac*Bell
(the great regulatory giveaway, as David Gast so aptly expressed it)
and how we, the public, got absolutely nothing, I went on to express
my suspicions that this was even worse. Refuting Mr. Disher, I
mentioned that it was too late to stop bypass; it is already a big
reality among big business. Pac*Bell is sharply raising its prices
ONLY in those areas where the customers involved cannot go anywhere
else and will use that money to undercut and devastate the competition.

And what happens if competition is so effective that Pac*Bell needs
even more money from the regulated rate base? Will they be back in a
couple of years wanting still more? And this in an industry where the
actual costs of providing service are plummeting. And considering what
advances have been made in the past ten years in the arena of
telecommunications, what have we, the monopoly customers got to show
for it? What services can we get now that we could not get ten years
ago? (Remember this is California and Pac*Bell territory so you ISDN
people just sit on your hands!)

Anyway, I went on and on. It was sort of theraputic in its own way.
But it suddenly dawned on me. Here was the public's chance to sound
off, and we heard from one crackpot (me), two little old ladies ("too
much money"), and one other gentleman ("too much money"). And this for
an increase that, if passed, will really gouge the small businessman.
The doubling of the local minute charge is not something to be taken
lightly.

I overheard Mr. Disher (Pac*Bell) discussing the wonders and joys of
measured service with one of the elderly ladies. Believe you me, that
is Pac*Bell's next major agenda: total measured service. In my
comments, I suggested that if competition was so successful in
bringing down the price of everything else, why not extend it to local
service as well? This did not make a big hit with Mr. Disher, who
after the meeting tried to tell me that the cable companies are
responsible for keeping Pac*Bell from wiring neighborhoods with fiber.
"We would love to deliver your sixteen residential lines with T1, but
the PUC won't let us."

And with that bedtime story, it is time to hit the hay. But the judge
did mention that no decision could be expected on this whole big ugly
mess before fall, 1992 and no implementation would be scheduled before
the first of 1993.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

Subject: I *Couldn't* Use AT&T!
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 91 21:25:01 -0800
From: [e-mail]


This morning, I was trying to call an 800 number, and got an
*immediate* busy signal when I dialed the last digit.  That seemed
odd, so I tried another one ... and got the same results.  Then, I
tried making a non-800 number call using AT&T, and got a distorted and
unintelligible intercept recording ... even the three-tone sequence at
the beginning was wrong.  Then, I tried calling 10288-1-700-555-4141
 -- same bad recording.  But 10222-1-700-555-4141 gave me the "welcome
to MCI" message, and 10333 got me Sprint's message.  And my other line
had the same problems.  (Both are in the same exchange, 408-356.)

I called "0" for the operator, and got an AT&T operator, who was able
to connect me to the original 800 number with no problems; after that,
I asked the operator to give me AT&T repair.  They couldn't figure out
what might have happened, but when I got home from work, I was able to
use AT&T again.

I guess I'm lucky that GTE contracts with AT&T for operator services,
or I might never have been able to make an AT&T-handled call again!  I
just wish I knew what happened ... any guesses?


David Singer -- Internet: [e-mail]   BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN
                Voice: [phone]              Fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I'm sure you would 'have been able to make an AT&T
handled call again ...'. There was probably some temporary failure in
the local AT&T switch which got resolved seconds or minutes at most
after you noticed it. I doubt it was peculiar to your phone lines, and
repair service was probably inudated with complaints they could do
nothing about (other than notify AT&T, in case Mother didn't know
about it already, which is doubtful.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #881
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19989;
          3 Nov 91 1:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06774
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 23:53:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18331
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Nov 1991 23:53:14 -0600
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 23:53:14 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #882

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Nov 91 23:53:08 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 882

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? [John R. Levine]
    Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet [Krishnan Sakotai]
    IS-41 Information Request [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    AT&T Online Translation Service [Jacob R. Deglopper]
    Telco Voice Mail Question [Alan Marc Gallatin]
    512 Area Code Split Announced [Joe Isham]
    ISDN Connectivity Report and Demand For Testing [Clemens Schrimpe]
    Morris, IL ESS (was Early ESS) [Jim Haynes]
    Re: First ESS(tm) Retired [David T. Punia]
    Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot?
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 12:09:42 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


An article earlier this week in {Newsbytes} offers some insight into
what Genie and the other packet carriers are upset about.  (You may
think of Genie as an on-line service, but GEISCO also happens to have
a very large data network.)

The FCC considers packet networks to be similar to voice networks, and
all things being equal they should be connected to the phone network
the same way, e.g. 950 and 10XXX.  But all things are not equal, and
the FCC has given packet carriers an exemption so that they connect to
the phone network like business customers, not like long distance
customers.  There is an important financial difference, since long
distance carriers pay per-minute rates for incoming calls, but
business customers don't.  That's why per-hour rates for packet
carriers are much lower than for voice carriers, e.g. $10/hr is cheap
for voice, but expensive for data.  I'm not saying at this point
whether this is good or bad, but it's how things are.

But this exemption is just for the current kind of service, i.e.
business POTS.  Anything fancier is lumped under ONA.  The FCC's
ruling says that if a packet carrier wants any ONA features, it loses
its exemption.  If they wanted, say, ANI or automatic redial (the two
examples an FCC spokesman used,) they'd have to pay voice rates.
That's what they don't like.

What the packet carriers really want is to be put in a different
category so their less expensive network access is considered the
normal thing for their category, rather than an exception in the
larger long distance category.  As a spokesman for the trade
association ITAA, formerly Adapso, put it: "We want to be treated like
any business user of phone services, like General Motors. We're not
common carriers, like MCI."

Editorial: I can see merit to both sides here.  On the one hand, the
packet carriers use the local telco for access much as long distance
carriers do.  On the other hand, what they ask is much less --
typically 2400 bps of bandwidth rather than the 64K bps that voice
needs, if only there were a way to distinguish between data and voice
calls.  In a perfect world one might dial 950-DATA to be connected to
a local packet switch which would take your data off the voice net at
your local switch, then connect you via efficient packet switching to
your packet net.  AT&T even has a 1PSS packet switch intended to work
this way.  ISDN offers the necessary hooks, but it'll be quite a while
before ISDN overtakes POTS.

Considering the way that telcos are overpricing ISDN, and their long
standing philosophy that they know what's good for you and if it's
anything but POTS it'll be real expensive, I believe that pricing
packet access like business service is the best achievable compromise
in the near term.  Maybe in 1999 when there is as much ISDN as POTS
they can rethink the rules.

Regards,


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Krishnan "krish" Sakotai )
Subject: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet
Organization: University of Lowell Computer Science, Lowell MA
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 19:13:49 GMT


Hello,

Sometime back I heard that ITU finally agreed during Telecom '91 that
it would initiate publishing the BISDN standards (or proposed ones) on
Internet or some central location in electronic form for public
consumption. Anyone know what is happening in that regard? I for one
feel that it is ridiculous that any organization or standards body
should make it difficult for individuals to easily obtain information
on standards.


Krishnan C. Sakotai

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

Date: 2-NOV-1991 04:13:29.57
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: IS-41 Information Request


Since IS-41 will be upon us by March 1992, I was wondering what (if
any) literature or technical info there may be available on this?

For those unfamiliar with what "IS-41" is, it will be a protocol by
which various switches can "talk" to each other.

Thus, while presently and Ericsson cellular switch can't talk to an
AT&T Autoplex switch, the IS-41 protocol will allow the two to
communicate, and thus allow "Custom Calling" features and all sorts of
feature packages to work in different switches other than your home
switch. So not only will you be able to get calls in ANY market
without the need for activation codes or roam ports, you will be able
to get "call-waiting", "three-way-calling", and the various flavors or
"Call-forwarding" as well.

This is sort of like a 'universal' Motorola EMX system, where your
features can be accessed in any Motorola EMX which is connected to a
given EMX-cellular system, but far more advanced, allowing all
switches to participate in what will hopefully one day be a nationwide
network.

Ericsson and Ericsson's chief buyer, McCaw Cellular, are pushing hard
for this. They need to integrate their new Ericsson switches in the NY
market with the Motorolas surrounding the NY system (presently they
have an EMX just sitting there for the purpose of integration with the
rest of the Northeast, and it runs the Cell One/NY's voicemail as
well), and McCaw has a good deal of systems in the Midwest (and
Lynn/Los Angeles?) which are AT&T, all of which McCaw wants to
interconnect into its growing network.

This differs from the system which McCaw just announced, where callers
in six markets can go to other McCaw systems (running Ericssons, of
course :) ), and be autonimously registered when they enter one of
these six areas. Thus, the Ericsson "back home" knows they are
elsewhere, and automatically sends the calls out to that system.
Custom calling works as well. This, however, is only between Ericssons
(and presently this doesn't include Canadian Ericssons, as least not
in terms of McCaw's systems), and utilizes SS-7, but it is not, from
what I gather, a true implementation of IS-41.

Anyhow, I guess I went beyond a simple request for info, but perhaps
some of you have heard about IS-41 but by a different name, so maybe
the above description will help broaden the range of responses.

Thanks in advance for any info,


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

P.S. I said "Cell One/NY" - This used to be "Metro One/NY", but last
week they changed their name. Just a note for the more observant
reader! :)

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

From: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Subject: AT&T Online Translation Service
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 19:43:40 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Graham Toal) says:

> AT&T also offers a translation service online if you're in a fix
> abroad; no hint of the charge scale though.

Is this accessible from inside the US?  I'm a volunteer EMT with a
rescue squad in the Washington DC suburbs, and we occasionally could
use some sort of translation.  We're supposedly able to get it through
Andrews Air Force Base, but on at least one occasion, all we've been
able to get is Spanish, and we have members and police officers who
speak Spanish.  The case in point was one night about 3 AM we had a man
who spoke only Chinese who seemed to have a severe case of poison ivy.
He didn't need an ambulance, or a hospital, just a good shot of
cortisone, but we ended up taking him anyway due to a lack of
communication.  Anyone have any other ideas besides calling the
Chinese Embassy at 3 AM?  It would have been a local call, and if it
_wasn't_ 3 AM, that's what I would have done.


   _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad
   [e-mail] -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve
   Opinions my own...

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telco Voice Mail Question
Date: 2 Nov 91 23:06:55 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.


I'm currently using GTE's 'Personal Secretary' service (aka voice
mail). The service notifies you of message(s) waiting by changing the
dialtone from a constant sound to a 'stutter.'

Does anyone know of a device that can be plugged inline with the phone
which will illuminate a light or something to that effect when a message
is waiting (thereby eliminating the need to pick up the phone to hear if
there is a message).

Thanks!


ALAN MARC GALLATIN               Internet:  [e-mail]
Duke University School of Law            ----- Disclaimer, etc.... -----

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

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 20:16 CST
From: [e-mail] (Joe Isham)
Subject: 512 Area Code Split Announced


Southwestern Bell has announced the splitting of area code 512
effective November 1, 1992.

The new area code -- 210 -- will serve San Antonio and the Rio Grande
Valley.

The 512 code will remain in use in an area stretching from Lampasas
through Austin, San Marcos, Victoria and Corpus Christi to south of
Kingsville.  Cities to be switched to 210 include San Antonio, New
Braunfels, Seguin, Eagle Pass, Laredo, Zapata, McAllen, Harlingen and
Brownsville.


Joe Isham -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Clemens Schrimpe)
Subject: ISDN Connectivity Report and Demand For Testing
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 17:56:11 MET DST


Hi all around -

Over the past weeks I have tried some international ISDN connections,
I'd like to report about.

According to the German PTT (Telekom) the following ISDN connections
exist from Germany to foreign networks:

DIRECT:
    Netherlands (PTT telecom), [regular service since 9/91, before
                    9/91 was a 2 year trial period]
    Denmark (Telecom Denmark), [since 8/91]
    Italy (ASST), [since 10/91]
    United Kingdom (British Telecom), [since 12/90]
    France (France Telecom), [since 10/90]

TRANSIT THROUGH FRANCE:
    Belgium (RTT), [since 7/91]
    USA (AT&T), [since 10/91]
    Japan (KDD), [since 4/91]

So far I have successfully tested connections to/from UK and JP:

The connection to the UK was set up with UCL (University College
London).  They run a self-made PRI adapter board on their side with
their own software. We tested IP using broadcast-UI-frames and it
worked well.  Call setup-time is between two and five seconds and ping
shows an average of 70 ms (compared to 55 ms inside Germany).

The connection to JP was tested with Sony in Tokyo. They run their own
software on a BRI interface for their NeWS Workstations. After
punching our local PTT admins to correctly route our calls, we finally
connected.  Call setup-time is between 12 and 19 (!!!) seconds (it
seems, that someone is manually connecting us on a switchboard :-)
Ping shows an average of 640 ms (obviously a satelite link) FTP
throughput is currently very lousy (av. 2KB/sec) but we are currently
trying other B-channel link parameters (we currently use LAP-B modulo
8 with a windowsize of 7).

Now: I am still interested in trying other connections. Any
volunteers?  We can support almost ANY HDLC-based B-channel protocol
(various Level 2 and Level 3 protocols) -- we are even able to connect
to 56kbit based networks (USA) with the appropriate baudrate
conversion [at least we have implemented it :-]  Even people with just
a TA and aserial port on a cisco are quite welcome.

Hope to hear from YOU soon :-)

    Clemens Schrimpe, netCS Informationstechnik GmbH, Berlin

INTERNET:  [e-mail]                     BITNET:     [e-mail]
PSI:       PSI%26245050230409::CSCH           X.25/WIN:   2624 50502 30409
PHONE:     [phone]                   FAX:        [phone]
X.400:     /S=Schrimpe/P=netCS/A=DBP/C=DE/ [on Research Networks]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 20:18:30 -0800
Subject: Morris, IL ESS (was Early ESS)


Morris, IL had the first electronic switch, but as I recall it was a
field test of a model not intended for production.  Seems like it used
vacuum tubes and magnetic drum memory.

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

From: [e-mail] (Card 54...)
Subject: Re: First ESS(tm) Retired
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 04:20:41 GMT


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

> The Succasunna switch, installed in 1965, was the first commercial
> electronic switching system.  AT&T Network Systems and New Jersey Bell
> are considering donating part of the retired switch to the Smithsonian
> Institution.

A good idea!  I grew up in central NJ, and remember the excitement
generated by the first touch-tone <tm?> phone in the neighborhood.
Hmm, sort of foreshadowed my later training, I guess, but it was
exciting ...


David T. Punia                Internet: [e-mail]
Univ. of Vermont CSEE dept       Voice: 802-656-1915
Burlington, VT 05405-0156   Compu$erve: 72617,1211  Prodigy: DJND87A

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

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 23:44:25 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption


I've been bad, and I guess I should call one of those confession phone
lines and bare my soul ...

Actually, it wasn't my fault (don't all deadbeats say that? !), but
my phone bill -- my monthly pennance to IBT had gone unpaid for over
two months, and I got my just rewards Friday morning when the service
was summarily cut.

I'm on a telephone bill paying service which allows me to call a
certain number, identify myself, punch in a 'merchant number', an
amount to pay, and a date to pay. For whatever reason, IBT had gone by
the wayside ... I've not yet gotten to the bottom of it, but that's
not the gist of my story.

They say they called me to notify me on Thursday. Then why no message
on their own message service I asked. No answer to that, but I suppose
they figure I was the liar, having gotten their message from the day
before and erased it.  I pointed out I'd had this service and the same
phone numbers for about 14 years, plus service in my own name for 32
years (from a time when deposits were never requested by telco, mind
you; I've never had a deposit with them) and were they seriously
concerned about a bill for $239?

The response was they're getting itchy a lot sooner these days than
they used to ... and would I like to pay up now. So I leave my office
in the driving rain (what else is new here for the past week!) and
hoof it over to Harriet's Department Store on Clark Street, which is a
bill paying agency for various utility services. I paid and by the
time I got back to my office twenty minutes later the service had been
turned back on ... amazing!

I was only tipped off to the problem when I tried to call my brother
at home at 1:00 PM to say something ... only to get the sickening
intercept message on both lines and my multi-ring number that 'the
number you have dialed, xxx-xxxx has been temporarily disconnected'. I
reached him on the cell phone which fortunatly was turned on and
sitting on my desk here at Digest headquarters; he drove over to get
me and we went immediatly to Harriet's. The service was restored by a
little after 2 PM.

An oddity when calling the 800 numbers during the shutoff was that
Telecom tried to forward the call as always, but IBT picked it off
here and returned (to the 800 caller) the same message about 'the
number you dialed (local Chicago number -- not 800 number) has been
temporarily disconnected.'

All in all, a fun afternoon, and it gave me a good excuse to yell and
be abusive to the service rep as well as be cranky at my office the
rest of the afternoon ... while it rained, and rained, and rained.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #882
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07557;
          3 Nov 91 4:12 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26884
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 02:39:31 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21936
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 02:39:19 -0600
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 02:39:19 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #883

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Nov 91 02:39:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 883

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Station Message Detail Recorder [Mike Morris]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Mike Morris]
    Re: Snoopy Phone Wanted [Mike Morris]
    Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires [John Higdon]
    Legalities of Taping Phone Calls [David R. Zinkin]
    Call Waiting/Cancel Call Waiting Fun [David R. Zinkin]
    Instead of ATT Mail? [Alexis Rosen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Station Message Detail Recorder
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 01:52:41 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

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

>> .... when one talks about SMDR he is usually referring to a normal
>> function of a PBX.

SMDR is on almost any recent moderately sized electronic key system --
the Mitel SX-10 at work hasn't been in production for years, but has
it (if I could only get the printer port to work ...)

> This is also how I understand it. However I don't have the money
> for a PBX.  I do have an ordinary computer and an ordinary phone. Can
> one get SMDR or something equivalent to its functionality without
> getting a PBX?  What can I attach to my ordinary phone so that my
> ordinary computer can have the functionality of an SMDR?

Radio Shack made (maybe still does) a SMDR-like device that printed on
adding machine tape.  It hooked across the phone line just like an
extension.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 02:25:08 GMT


uunet!uucs1![e-mail] writes:

>    Making system software deal with DST was fun.  Our first
> systems (about ten years ago) had a problem changing back to standard
> time.  They would change back to standard time at 2 AM, but then it was
> 1 AM and not time to change yet, so it'd go back to DST.  Each change
> was printed, so we got lots and lots of changes logged.  We finally
> made the change based on the "unadjusted" or standard time.  Software
> is fun!

Guy Finney    UUCS inc.   Phoenix, Az    writes:

> Here's another fun twist to dealing with DST: Try writing code for a
> system which frequently crosses time zones.  Sometimes you cross from
> a daylight-savings zone to a standard-time zone.  You might even
> cross between zones using different "spring ahead" values.

> What sort of beast is this?  An alarm clock program which wakes up
> passengers on a cruise ship!  The human-factors considerations are
> daunting indeed.  When you set your alarm for 7:00 AM tomorrow
> morning, are you doing it thinking it will or won't take the zone
> change into account?  It's even money you'll get it wrong, and we
> always had some passengers complaining that they'd missed breakfast
> because they had outwitted the alarm program.

I once worked on a Data General Nova-based radio paging system in Los
Angeles.  The time changes were handled rather straightforwardly: a
table in memory had the dates for the next ten years, and a task
queued up tasks every hour: one was a time change task.  If it
executed it set a flag that inhibited execution -- the flag was cleared
by the midnight task.

What was a real bear was time entry for delayed pages: one of our
features was a page queued up to three months in advance via the
operator (as opposed to touchtone entry).  Example: ask 50 people what
12 o'clock is, and is it am or pm, and is 12am = midnight or noon?.
We ended up not accepting 12:00 at all, and instead requiring the
operators enter 'noon' or 'midn'.  And then we had people giving us
military time, etc.  As I recall, we had it accept:

nn:nn am or pm or a or p
n:nn am or pm or a or p
n am or n pm
nnnn (but having to accept 0000 and 2400)
nnnn am or pmor a or p (yes, we had customers say "1520 pm"
and so on....

In case anybody is interested the routine converted everything to
military time with 0000 as midnight, and then exited.

The code to do that was in the neighborhood of 8k of assembly code.
The reason we went to all the trouble was simple: turnover and
training.  The operators job was minimum wage, and we'd have a
complete turnover at least once a year.  It was easier to note what
was being typed by the operators and make the software handle 90% of
it -- this way it was minimal training.

Please no flames about the decisions - I didnn't make policy, it was
1979 when this was done and I was a electronic tech and junior
programmer on this problem (the system had two 6' racks of card cages
with paging tone generators, transmitter controllers (14 tx's at 12
sites, linked by microwave), operator interfaces, audio switchers,
interfaces for 32 phone lines, etc ...)

I had an excellent supervisor who was a fabulous teacher -- I learned
more about real-time systems from him than I've learned about any
other area of programming from anybody else since.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Snoopy Phone Wanted
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 02:37:45 GMT


[e-mail] (David Dodell) writes:

> My wife's birthday is coming up, and she mentioned at one time that
> she missed the "Snoopy" telephone she had as a kid.  I called the
> local AT&T store, and confirmed that they did make one at a time, but
> no longer.

> Anyone have any suggestions where I might find one of these in working
> order?

Here in LA they are rare -- it seems every 25-39 year-old that had one
as a kid now wants one ... I've heard of them going for >$600 in primo
condition.


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

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

Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires
Date: 2 Nov 91 22:55:36 PST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


[e-mail] (Maurice R Baker) writes:

> The 1ESS design project, which was conducted at Whippany in the
> early 60's, was the largest single development effort undertaken by
> the Bell System up to that point, occupying more than 300 engineers
> and technicians.

> AT&T Network Systems and New Jersey Bell are considering
> donating part of the retired switch to the Smithsonian Institution.

At least the 1ESS in my office is still up and running. Since the
introduction of the 5ESS to other prefixes in my area, I have come to
appreciate that verable old workhorse more and more. My Pac*Bell
contacts insist (of course) that it is just a matter of time before
the five prefixes (723, 978, 979, 559, and 879) still served by the
1ESS are moved over to the 5ESS and the 1ESS is finally retired. From
what I have seen of the 5ESS's performance, that will be a sad day.

Somehow, I don't think that the SJ14 1ESS is going to end up in the
Smithsonian :-)


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

From: [e-mail] (David R. Zinkin)
Subject: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 06:23:23 GMT


Hello,

I have a question, and I was wondering if someone could please help.
I have had a number of difficulties at my school with departments who
claim that they will look into a particular matter, fill a request,
resolve a minor difficulty, or something else along those lines, but
who then fail to follow up and later claim "but we never promised to
do that" or even "no one *here* would say that!"

I was thinking that a way to end the problem would be to tape any
calls between me and the departments in question so that if such a
problem arises again, I can simply play back the tape.  My question
is, can I legally tape a phone call between me and another party
without letting the other party know that the call is being recorded?

By the way, in case the laws vary by state, I'm in Ohio.

Thank you!

David Zinkin ([e-mail])
CWRU Psychology and Chemistry (WR '92)
Apple Computer Student Rep & CWRU MacMUG
University of Rochester Cancer Center

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

From: [e-mail] (David R. Zinkin)
Subject: Call Waiting/Cancel Call Waiting Fun
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 06:32:28 GMT


Warren Burstein's post regarding call waiting reminded me of one of my
prior dealings with Rochester Telephone.  (So that people who see my
previous message don't think I've lost my marbles, I go to school in
Ohio but my home is in Rochester, NY.)

Shortly after I purchased my first modem, I brought it home with me
and tried to use it on my home phone line.  Of course I had forgotten
that my parents had Call Waiting on the line, so I called Rochester
Telephone to find out how to temporarily disable it.  The
representative who took my call said "Well, for an extra $1.50 a month
plus a $15 connect charge, we can give you Cancel Call Waiting.  You
can then just push 80# to disable the Call Waiting tone."  After
placing the order for the "extra service", I had an idea.  I asked if
it would be possible to discontinue Call Waiting but to continue the
Cancel Call Waiting service.  The rep answered, "Certainly.  I can see
why you'd want to do that; you'd save yourself quite a bit of money."

This happened three years ago; now I'm sorry I didn't ask for more
details on how I could "save money"!  :-)


David Zinkin ([e-mail])
CWRU Psychology and Chemistry (WR '92)
Apple Computer Student Rep & CWRU MacMUG
University of Rochester Cancer Center

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

From: [e-mail] (Alexis Rosen)
Subject: Instead of ATT Mail?
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 03:41:43 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


[Moderator's Note: When I received the message below, I gave it some
thought and finally decided to show it to you, in view of the several
complaints I've read recently regarding the huge increase in rates for
little users at AT&T Mail starting next month. And since we've
discussed commercial services such as MCI/ATT Mail here in the past, I
thought this alternative might interest some of you. Bear in mind two
other services offering similar things are Chinet here in Chicago
(312-283-0559 login newuser) where Randy Suess is the sysadmin and $75
per year or so gets you a full news feed plus mail; and Portal Comm-
unications in San Jose, CA whose phone number slips my memory at
present. You'll note instructions were to not run it if deemed 'too
commercial', but I had never heard of this bunch and found it
interesting. Maybe you will also.  This is the final message in this
issue, so if you don't want to read a 'commercial' message, you may
quit reading now.  PAT]

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

(start of submitted text by Alexis Rosen)

I have never sent anything to this group before because I felt it
would be inappropriate for me to do so. Nevertheless, because of the
ATT mail thing, I thought it might be valuable for your readers to
know about our service.  So I'm sending you the entire "brag sheet" we
typically send to people who enquire about us; feel free to trim it
down or not post it at all if you think it's too "commercial" (though
we certainly aren't making a dime off of the service ...) for this
group.

One thing that should be pointed out is that we're a real unix, not
just a mail system. This is good for unix users, or those capable of
learning it, (or at least capable of learning to get into elm or mailx
from a shell), but bad for computerphobes who just want to type an
address and a letter. We will probably make a bbs interface available
early next year, but I don't want to make any promises.


Alexis Rosen
Owner/Sysadmin, PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
[e-mail]
{cmcl2,apple}!panix!alexis

       ---------------------Cut Here-------------------

About Panix       Last Updated by Alexis on Saturday November 1, 1991

Panix is a Public Access Unix system based in New York City. It is
dedicated to providing stable and reliable netnews and mail services,
but anything legal is permissible as long as it doesn't get in the way
of our primary goal.

Panix is accessible by local call from anywhere in New York City, and
can be accessed via PC Pursuit from anywhere in the USA or Canada. PC
Pursuit is a service (which we are not affiliated with) which provides
up to 30 hours of long distance modem time per month for $30.

Panix is a Mac IIx with 8MB RAM, 1150MB on 3 fast Wren disks, 10
serial ports, and an assortment of modems. There are currently 8 phone
lines, two of which are reserved for high-speed Telebit access; the
others run at 2400bps. We plan on migrating the 2400 bps lines to
V.32bis over the next year.

Panix calls the largest Internet site in NYC six to thirty times daily
to exchange mail and news. We also call a west coast Internet site
(apple) regularly, and a number of smaller sites in NYC. We get a full
newsfeed from NYU.EDU, including a large number of regional newsgroups
(such as the ba, ny, nj, dc, can, and chi hierarchies). As a member of
the ".com" domain, any site that can mail to anywhere on the Internet
can mail to us. This includes Compuserve and MCI mail, Bitnet sites,
etc.

We will provide you with your choice of shell- sh, ksh, csh, or tcsh.
We have the ELM mail reader as well as regular mailx. A variety of
programs useful for Mac and PC users is available on-line, such as
archivers, unstuffers, and download protocols such as kermit, xmodem,
ymodem, zmodem, and jtrans.

We provide recent versions of both the rn and nn newsreaders. We will
support both, and keep both current.

Panix runs a modern merged SVR2.2 / BSD4.3 Unix, A/UX 2.0.1. It's a
"nice" Unix, including features like job control and all the programs
and libraries you get with either standard flavor of Unix.

Panix is a system created solely for the convenience of its users. If
there is a program or newsgroup that you want that we don't have, let
us know, and we'll try to get it.

Panix isn't free. We've invested enormous amounts of money and time
into making Panix run smoothly, and we continue to spend money on the
system.  For example, early in March '91 we were running out of disk
space, so we purchased a 630MB disk to relieve the crunch. Just a few
months ago we added three more phone lines, with another Telebit on
one.  We ask that users pay us $10 per month, or $100 per year up
front. We do _NOT_ charge for connect time or disk storage. If you
think you might be interested in Panix, you can join up. If you decide
after two weeks that you don't like it, just tell us -- we'll cancel
your account and you won't owe us anything.

We supply uucp mail feeds free to users on request. News feeds are
available for an extra $5. You can pick which groups you want, up to
2MB/day average.  (Telebit users can have up to 3MB/day.)

What's in store:

1) A _REAL_ Internet connection. Schedule calls for hookup by December 31,
   1991. Of course, this might slip a bit, but we hope not. Benefits of
   faster mail will apply to all users, but those wishing to use FTP or
   telnet must pay an additional fee.

2) V.32bis modems. So far, demand has been almost nonexistant, but we anti-
   cipate that many people will own V.32 or V.32bis modems by the end of the
   year, as prices tumble. When a significant portion of our user base owns
   such modems, we'll start putting them on.

3) If warranted, a processor upgrade. Right now performance, even at peak
   usage, is quite good. If we add more lines, this may be necessary.

If you are interested in subscribing to Panix, you can dial in at
[phone], and log in as "newuser". Panix will ask you a few
questions and then one of us will call you back shortly. If you'd like
to talk to one of us first, email us at the addresses provided below,
or call us.


Alexis Rosen     [phone]     [e-mail]     cmcl2!panix!alexis
Jim Baumbach     [phone]        [e-mail]     cmcl2!panix!jsb

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #883
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07014;
          4 Nov 91 0:05 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17612
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 21:23:53 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07722
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 21:23:22 -0600
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 21:23:22 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #884

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Nov 91 21:23:05 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 884

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Radio Station DJs Meets the Telemarketers [David Kuder]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Need Information on European Metering Pulses [Peter Knoppers]
    Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [John R. Hall]
    Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires [Christopher Lott]
    Re: Digital Cordless Telephones [Ken Levitt]
    Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet [Peter M. Weiss]
    Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Telco Voice Mail Question [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We Fall Behind [Warren Burstein]
    Re: How Does the Law Handle Crank Calls [Dave Niebuhr]
    Re: IS-41 Information Request [Carl Wright]
    Re: Working Assets as an IEC? [Charlie Rosenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David Kuder)
Subject: Radio Station DJs Meets the Telemarketers
Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 06:37:20 GMT


In light of the recent spate of messages about DJs making obnoxious
calls, I wonder what the rules are when things get turned around.

One of the local station's morning (why is it always the morning
"crew"?) DJs was complaining about the seemingly infinite
telemarketing calls he got from the {San Fransisco Chronicle} and John
Higdon's favorite, the {San Jose Mercury News}.  Somehow he found out
the name and number of the telemarketing company.  After spewing
spleen for a bit, he encouraged his listeners to call the company and
ask if they wanted to subscribe to him.  He also had the number of
some joint subscription bureau run by the papers that he gave out.

He did give out numbers over the air and he did encourage listeners to
call those numbers.  When he succeeded in getting through (off air) to
one, he was told to "quite bugging us", but I don't think the
receptionist being harrassed knew it was him who was responsible.


David A. Kuder   415 438-2003  [e-mail]
   {uunet,sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 02:15:25 GMT


[e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun) writes:

> On the other hand, B104 (WBSB 104.3) often does this thing in the
> morning where someone calls in and arranges for the DJ to call someone
> else (usually spouse/significant other/good friend) and tell them
> something outrageous ("Your wife just died" or something else to cause
> a really heated/hysterical reaction) before telling them it's all a
> joke.

Yeh, the local Q-Zoo station used to do this. I don't know if the
current DeeJays still does it. They call it "Zoogerizing".


Peter da Silva   Taronga Park BBS.
[phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Knoppers)
Subject: Re: Need Information on European Metering Pulses
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1991 15:03:40 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> I am looking for information on the "metering pulses" that are used in
> many European countries.

In the Netherlands metering pulses are available at a price if you are
connected to a computerized telephone exchange, or free if you are
connected to an old-style exchange. (The telco cannot suppress the
signal in old-style exchanges.)

The signal is a 50Hz common mode signal of approximately 60 Volts.
The signal lasts about 400 ms (but this varies a lot). Each pulse
corresponds to DFL 0.15 on your phone bill (about US $ 0.08).

To count the pulses a special (rather expensive) counter is used
that contains the following circuit:

  a     b     a and b are connected parallel to the phone(s)
  |     |     (These wires are called tip and ring in the US)
  |     |
* > ||| <     This is a kind of transformer that only passes
  > ||| <     through common mode AC and DC current.
  > ||| < *
  |     |
  |     |          These capacitors block DC current, preventing
 ===   === 0.3 uF  an off-hook condition that would otherwise occur.
  |     |          Only common mode AC current gets beyond this point.
  |_____|
     |
     |
    === 0.5 uF     Don't know why this capacitor is needed.
     |
     |
     /
     \  1.2 .. 2.2 kOhm Resistor.
     /
     \
     |
   __|__
  |__/__| 2400 Ohm  Coil that controls the mechanical counter.
     |
     |
     e    This wire must be connected to ground.

In computerized exchanges additional equipment must be connected to
the subscriber circuits that are to receive metering pulses.  This
equipment is very expensive and takes up a similar amount of space as
4 subscriber line circuits.

It is possible to replace the resistor in the counter with a bridge
rectifier and a small relay. This relay closes shortly when a metering
pulse is received and can be used to drive other circuits. Such
modifications are probably not appreciated by the phone company ...

> My particular problem is determining the requirements for a modem in
> this scenario, in particular, I need to know the maximum signal level
> of the metering pulses at the modem's input.

As you can see, the metering pulse signal reaches the phone or modem
completely intact. The modem should therefore be capable of normal
operation with a 50 Hz 60 Volt common mode signal superimposed on the
normal line voltage. (The audio signal is differential mode.)  Test
signals used by the phone company to test subscriber circuits use much
higher voltages (a few 100 Volts). While this does not happen while
the line is off-hook, a modem should survive such signals when
on-hook.

Hope this helps,


Peter Knoppers - [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun,  3 Nov 91 12:29:44 EST
From: [e-mail] (John R Hall)
Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Sure.  The Language Line service can be reached from the U.S.  These
are the numbers and address that customers can use to request more
information.  I have not called these numbers to verify their
accuracy.  If there is any problem, send me some E-mail and I'll
figure it out.

AT&T
Jeff Munks - Director Sales & Marketing
Building 2 Suite 400
1 Lower Ragsdale Drive
Monterey, CA  93940

800-752-6096 or 408-649-5871
8am - 5pm PST


Note that the service itself is 24 hours / seven days, but the info
line is just 8am-5pm.


John

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 13:50:03 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Lott)
Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires
Organization: University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science


>      The cutover was accomplished in three steps.  First, the new
> 5ESS was installed and hooked up to the incoming lines -- which were
> also still going to the old switch -- but not powered up.  Then, at
> 1:00 AM, when there is relatively little traffic on the old switch,
> the cables coming in to the 1ESS were quickly cut.  Once all the lines

If this is obvious, please forgive me.  I don't understand why the old
1ESS switch wasn't just powered down about the same time that the new
one was powered up.  Wouldn't this do the same thing??  Seems awfully
final to cut the cables.  What if the new switch doesn't work right?
I must be missing something.


Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
[e-mail]   /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg  301 405-2721 <standard disclaimers>

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

Date: Sun, 03 Nov 91 16:06:08 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Re: Digital Cordless Telephones


In a message Sydney Weinstein writes:

> There seems to be some questions re who is B. A. Pargh, and that
> is understandable.

> B. A. Pargh is a Wholesale distributor of things for office supply
> style stores, and they happen to list an awful lot of telephones.
> ... but they deal with resellers only, they do not sell at retail.

I have a dealer account with B. A. Pargh.  I'm willing to buy and
resell a 900mhz digital cordless phone at zero profit under the
condition that I get to play with the phone for a few days before
passing it on.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sunday, 3 Nov 1991 16:34:17 EST
From: Peter M. Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Krishnan "krish" Sakotai) says:

> Sometime back I heard that ITU finally agreed during Telecom '91 that
> it would initiate publishing the BISDN standards (or proposed ones) on
> Internet or some central location in electronic form for public
> consumption. Anyone know what is happening in that regard? (etc.)

~ftp bruno.cs.colorado.edu cd pub/standards/ccitt


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: Sun, 3 Nov 91 15:17:10 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


    I've heard that a voice online langauge translation service is
available here in CA, but I can't find any info on it.  It might be
interesting to try some of the low cost text language translation
software now available.  Selective Software (3004 Mission Street,
Santa Cruz, CA 95060, 800 423 3556) sells "Spanish Assistant", "French
Assistant", "German Assistant", and "Italian Assistant" for $79.95
each.  Most translation software I've seen works "both ways" (ie,
English to Spanish and Spanish to English), but these appear to be one
way translators.  They take an ascii file and generate an ascii file
in the target language.  They include the standard editor that puts
the source and target files up on the screen side by side, to check
and edit the translation.  They won't replace human translators, but
they seem better than nothing!

    For the online emergency handling problem, text oriented
translators have a couple problems.  Once you have the translated
text, can you read it into the phone?  There are lots of languages
that would not be understandable to someone were I to try reading
them.  This could possibly be handled by a voice synthesizer.  Then,
the caller is going to speak in some language, and the dispatcher has
to try to figure out how to spell what the caller says.  Well, we
could try to get into voice recognition, or require all telephones to
have asciii keyboards, but perhaps we'd better stick with human
translators!


Harold

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 16:25:06 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Telco Voice Mail Question
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


> I'm currently using GTE's 'Personal Secretary' service (aka voice
> mail). The service notifies you of message(s) waiting by changing the
> dialtone from a constant sound to a 'stutter.'

> Does anyone know of a device that can be plugged inline with the phone
> which will illuminate a light or something to that effect when a message
> is waiting (thereby eliminating the need to pick up the phone to hear if
> there is a message).

    Someone sells a little box that I once considered
manufacturing.  It trips an indicator if your phone has rung.  I
originally intended to sell it to answering services, who'd give it
away to their customers, cutting down the incoming calls for messages
when there were none.  My "little box" would reset the indicator when
you went off hook (by detecting loop current, not loop voltage, so
answering services on cross-town extensions would not reset the
indicator).  I've seen a similar device advertised for something
around $20, but I don't remember where!  This should work with your
voice mail system if it rings your phone before transferring to the
voice mail system.

    A "software solution" to this problem would be for telco's or
independent voice mail systems to call you back every few minutes when
they are holding a message.


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Date: 3 Nov 91 10:37:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


[e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun) writes:

> Speaking of which, don't various countries go on/off savings time at
> different dates in the year?  And is there any good reason why this
> isn't synchronized?  (Seems it would make the most sense to me ...)

In Israel, we don't even do the same thing from year to year.  Each
year the Interior Minister decides what the dates will be that year.
Usually the Interior Minister wants as little summer time as possible
and the Energy Minister wants as much as possible.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 7:39:16 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: How Does the Law Handle Crank Calls


(Text deleted about steps to take when dealing with harrassing calls.)

> [Moderator's Note: You really can't blame telco for the stand they
> take on this. They are not going to waste their time adjudicating
> domestic disputes between family members, in-laws and the like. If you
> want to prosecute the trouble-maker, that's fine. If not, that's fine
> also, but don't involve telco in your personal disputes.   PAT]

The point is that a lot of harrassing calls are NOT from "Aunt Sally",
"Nephew Bob", etc.  The phone company is involved at the beginning
solely by being the medium of transmission.

If the phone company didn't want to get involved, then why is there a
portion of the White Pages in my phone book devoted to telephone
harrassment and what to do about it?

I don't know if the Moderator has ever received harrassing phone calls
but I can tell you that its not fun to receive them and hear some of
the language.  It is also not fun to pick up the phone and have the
idiot on the other end start pressing buttons before I can say more
than "Hello".

It is also not fun getting calls in the middle of the night and the
caller just hangs up.  Punks can and do that.

The original message described how it works New Hampshire and a
comment was made about not being sure if other states worked the same
way.  My comment what that in New York it did.


[Moderator's Note: And it is very similar here in Illinois also. Yes,
I had a battle with this about two years ago. We had a trap put on the
line and caught the person, who happened to be the lady living
downstairs from us. We signed the police complaint, went to court on
the appointed day and she was told if she called us again for any
reason at all she'd wind up in jail. Telco's position is they do not
intend to be your private investigation service. They are not able to
tell what you do or do not consider harassing. They will assist the
police and courts in stopping the harassment if that's what you want,
but they won't be in the middle of family disputes, etc.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Carl Wright)
Subject: Re: IS-41 Information Request
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 91 19:00:11 EST
Organization: UMCC - Ann Arbor, MI  USA


You can get them from the Telecommunications Industry Association in
Washington, DC. Call Susan Shaw at 202-457-4904 to order copies. I
believe that only the interim standard is available to those not on
the IS-41 committee.


Carl Wright                     | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]        | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST       | Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 06:51:22 PST
From: Charlie Rosenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Working Assets as an IEC?


I have used them for over a year and US Sprint sends me my long
distance bill.  Unless they have a new deal going, they were charging
me the same rate as Sprint was and donating 1% to a group of
enviromental organizations.  There is another outfit that does the
same thing with Sprint that is call The Affinity Fund.  For more
information call 1 800 366-9563.  Hey, I feel like non-profits can use
that one percent a whole lot more than U.S. Sprint can.


Charlie Rosenberg

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #884
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10035;
          4 Nov 91 2:07 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29279
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 23:56:45 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29460
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 Nov 1991 23:56:35 -0600
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 23:56:35 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #885

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Nov 91 23:56:30 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 885

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CNID Bill Passes Committee [Washington Post via Bill Berbenich]
    Caller ID Chip from Motorola [Electronic Eng Times via Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Question About 5ESS Switch [Dave Niebuhr]
    900 Line for Homework Help [Dave Niebuhr]
    System 85 Expert Needed [David Lesher]
    Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? [Harold Hallikainen]
    Re: Early ESSs? [John Nagle]
    Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Michael A. Covington]
    Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Harold Hallikainen]
    Wanted: Two Line Answering Machine Recommendations [Jeffrey C. Honig]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: CNID Bill Passes Committee [Washington Post Story]
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 19:30:37 EST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]


By Cindy Skrzycki
Washington Post Staff Writer

       Congress took another step forward yesterday to balance the
privacy rights of callers who do not want their telephone numbers
revealed against those of people who want to know who's calling them:
The Senate Judiciary Committee proposed that telephone companies offer
callers free blocking of their numbers on a call-by-call basis.

      The committee agreed on a bill that would make Caller ID legal
and sets a national standard that requires what is known as per-call
blocking of telephone numbers.

    If someone has Caller ID on his or her phone line, a screen
displays the number a call is coming from. With per-call blocking, a
caller who does not want that number displayed punches in a short code
before dialing.

     "I believe Caller ID is a welcome service," said Sen. Herb Kohl
(D-Wis.), who introduced the Telephone Privacy Act of 1991. "But
forced Caller ID violates our fundamental right to privacy because
there are a variety of situations in which callers need and deserve to
keep their phone numbers to themselves."

    The bill proposes to grandfather per-line blocking in the fewer
than ten states that have allowed it. Per-line blocking protects the
identity of the caller on all calls made from a single line.

    It also creates a special exemption for battered women's shelters
and other places where people take refuge from domestic violence,
offering per-line blocking in those cases.

    The bill, which may come to a vote in the Senate before the end of
the session, also resolves legal disputes over Caller ID, exemplified
by a Pennsylvania case that prevents Caller ID from being offered by
Bell Atlantic, the regional telephone company serving that state.

    The legislation, if passed, also would mean that states such as
Virginia that have Caller ID but have not allowed blocking would have
to allow per-call blocking.

    The District and Maryland both have Caller ID and free per-call
blocking.

    "We can live with the bill and manage Caller ID in the states we
serve," said Aubrey Sarvis, vice president of federal relations for
Bell Atlantic.

     Similar legislation proposed by Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.),
chairman of the House telecommunications and finance subcommittee,
also is awaiting floor action. That bill sets as a minimum free
per-call blocking.

    Both House and Senate bills place restrictions on how information
gleaned from the use of 800- or 900-phone numbers is sold or reused.

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

    Whether one agrees with the philosophies of the various parties to
this story or not, it is certainly an objective piece IMHO.


Bill Berbenich

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 14:02:16 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Caller ID Chip from Motorola


{Electronic Engineering Times}, 28 October 1991, page 79

    Motorola's MOS digital-analog IC division has entered the
telephone-caller identification market with a highly integrated CMOS
chip designed to demodulate the Bell 202 1,200-baud frequency-shift-
keying asynchronous data.

    The primary use for the MC145447 is in telephone adjunct boxes
and telephone products that can receive and display the calling number
or message-waiting indicators that's been sent to subscribers from
participating central-office facilities of the public-switched
network.  The device contains a carrier-detect circuit and a ring
detector that can be used to power-up the device.

    The chip operates from a single supply of 3.5 V to 6 V.  The
pin-selectable clock frequencies are 3.68 MHz, 3.58 MHz or 455 KHz.

    In quantities of 1,000, the caller-ID chip goes for 2.23 each.
In quantities of 25,000, the price drops to $1.88 per unit.

    More info, call Dave Kolkman, 512 928 6733

                             --------

    Note also that Yamaha has what they are calling a "Vodem" chip
that does standard 2400 bps data modem communications, 9600 bps fax
send/receive, DTMF detection and generation, voice generation
(probably thru digitized voice instead of synthesis), and Caller-ID.


Harold

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 7:27:55 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: Question About 5ESS Switch


> I recently found out that my switch is a 55-5ESS.  I understand what
> the 5ESS is, but what is the 55?

> [Moderator's Note: Maybe the person who told you this was stuttering
> as they were speaking ... :)    PAT]

NO! This was on a complaint form that I filed with NY Tel.  I feel
that it was a legitimate question, or are only some people allowed to
ask questions.

I thought that this forum was for the discussion of telecommunications
issues and reasonable questions were allowed.


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


[Moderator's Note: Of course reasonable questions are allowed. Does
anyone have an answer to Mr. Niebuhr's reasonable question? What is a
55-5ESS?    PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 7:57:17 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: 900 Line for Homework Help


Today's {Newsday} has an article about school kids (grades 8 - 12)
getting homework help via a 900 line.

It was started by a former teacher whose office is in Huntington, New
York and is designed for those who need assistance with math, science,
social studies or communications skills.  The hours are 6:30 - 10:00
pm, Monday through Thursday.  All questions are answered by a teacher
who is on the owner's staff.

The charge is $1.99/minute, up to ten minutes, first minute free.
Calls by students under 18 must be approved by a parent and are
terminated at ten minutes unless parental approval is received.

Safeguards: Charge only for time on the phone; no charge for the
tutors' research, and refunds are offered when the tutors can't find
an answer.

This is an interesting concept for use of a 900 line; however, I feel
that the charge is somewhat high.  It seems to fill a void when
parents cannot assist a student for some reason or lack access to
research materials.

The reason I feel it is high, is that on Wednesday, I can spend $.95
per minute to find out the results of the local elections held the day
before.  If anything, it should be the other way around.  Maybe volume
(if it develops) will help the cost to come down.


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

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: System 85 Expert Needed
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 8:59:35 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


I'm looking for an expert on System 85's to answer a few quick
questions. These are in the features area, i.e "can it do ....?"
rather than the how it works realm.

Any volunteers?


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 14:58:16 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


    It was suggested that local telcos could distinguish between
voice and data traffic, charging voice for access to an LD carrier,
while charging substantially less for access to a data packet network.
I don't think the telco should charge based on the content of the
call.  They should, instead, charge for the use of their equipment.
Telephone usage charges have (as I've suggested before) traditionally
been charged to those originating the call, not those receiving the
call.

So, on this basis, I'd expect to see no per minute charge on 950,
10XXX or access to packet switched data networks.  In fact, these high
usage call receivers would appear to decrease the amount of equipment
the telco needs to handle a higher amount of traffic, since they need
less line terminating equipment for the same call volume on high usage
lines (the LD carriers, etc.).  They can make their income by charging
the people who call these numbers.

    The fact that a data user may only be sending 2400 bps over
the local loop and thru the switch really makes no difference to the
switch, so it appears to me there should be no price differential
between data and voice, providing the data can be stuffed down the
voice circuit.


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Early ESSs?
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 02:15:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


The Moderator questions:

> [Moderator's Note: Wait a minute. What about Morris, IL? I thought
> they were first or nearly first back in the sixties.   PAT]

      There were a number of experimental electronic switching systems
before the 1ESS.  Interestingly, an early Bell System experimental
system, in 1953, involved pole-mounted concentrators remotely
controlled by a #5 crossbar at the central office.  Field trials were
conducted in LaGrange, IL, Englewood, NJ, and Freeport, LI.  Further
experimental work was done on distributed switching, but the notion of
active components in outside plant was premature; components were not
yet reliable enough.  So the 1ESS was, like its electromagnetic
predecessors, designed with all the active components in the central
office.

      The system installed in Morris, IL in 1958 was in some ways "more
electronic" than the 1ESS system.  Unlike the 1ESS, which uses reed relay
type devices for the actual call switching, the Morris system used
cold-cathode gas tubes.  So, unlike 1ESS, Morris had no moving parts.
But Morris required special telephone sets, with active components,
because the gas-discharge tubes couldn't handle the usual 86V ringing signal.
Coin lines, PBX lines, and loop testing, all of which use nonstandard
voltages, were not supported at all.

      While electronic, Morris was only partially solid-state.  The
test system had over 2000 vacuum tubes, plus 30,000 gas-discharge tubes.
The test system served only 400 customers, so a big Morris-type system
would have had rather large numbers of vacuum tubes.

      Pictures of the Morris switch show a truly strange-looking system.
The gas-discharge tubes had to be illuminated by fluorescent lamps to
provide enough free electrons so that the tubes would ionize quickly.
So the banks of tubes sat in brightly lit racks with built-in fluorescent
tubes running vertically down the racks.

      After Morris came the 101 ESS, which was a PBX in the 200 line
range.  This, interestingly, used a time-division bus front-ended by
ferreed relays.  But the bus was analog, not digital, using
"pulse-amplitude modulation", intermittently connecting a
sample-and-hold circuit to the analog bus when the time slot went by.

      But after these forays into truly electronic switching, Bell
Labs decided to build the 1ESS around what are essentially big arrays
of reed relays controlled by a computer.  Semiconductors just weren't
ready for the job of physically switching telephone-line levels.  So
the first 1ESS, at Succasunna, (dedicated May 27, 1965), still
switched calls with moving contacts.  And so did all the other 1/1AESS
switches.  (Was some kind of electronic retrofit developed, or are the
1/1AESS switches running today still using fereed relays?)

      It's interesting to think of how things might have developed.
If the distributed concentrator concept had been pursued, the phone
system might look very different today, with much more intelligence in
the outside plant.  We might have ended up with a phone system that
looked more like the ARPANET or Datakit, rather than the central CPU
operating a dumb crosspoint architecture we still see today.

      If the cable TV people start selling dial tone, we may see it
yet.


[Source: A History of Engineering in the Bell System, Switching
Technology, 1925-1975.]


John Nagle

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 02:44:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jacob R.
Deglopper) writes:

> The case in point was one night about 3 AM we had a man
> who spoke only Chinese who seemed to have a severe case of poison ivy.
> He didn't need an ambulance, or a hospital, just a good shot of
> cortisone, but we ended up taking him anyway due to a lack of
> communication.  Anyone have any other ideas besides calling the
> Chinese Embassy at 3 AM?  It would have been a local call, and if it
> _wasn't_ 3 AM, that's what I would have done.

Call the Chinese Embassy in the daytime and ask them if they have
anyone on duty at night.  (Probably so, for two reasons: they want to
be able to deal with emergencies at any time, and they probably do a
lot of their work when it is daytime in Peking rather than in
Washington.)

Even the lowliest receptionist would be able to give you all the help
you need; you wouldn't need to talk to an attache or anything.


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: Sun, 3 Nov 91 14:26:06 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco


> To add confusion to the issue, the October 31 edition of the
> {Washington Post} reports the ruling of U.S. District Judge Peter
> Leisure that says Compuserve cannot be held liable for defamatory
> statements contained in a newsletter available through its electronic
> library.  A rep for the ACLU was quoted as saying that it was one of
> the first decisions by the First District Court ruling on the status of
> electronic bulletin boards, holding that they have limited liability
> and that without knowledge of the act they are not liable.

        Let's see, libel and slander are (as I recall) for saying or
publishing an untruth that damages someone.  Is a BBS a publisher?
Could it not perhaps be considered a library?  Are libraries liable
for the contents of their books?


Harold

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

Subject: Wanted: Two Line Answering Machine Recommendations
Reply-To: Jeffrey C Honig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Information Technologies/Network Resources; Cornell U Ithaca, NY
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 91 23:09:28 -0500
From: Jeffrey C Honig <[e-mail]>


I have two phone lines and a single line answering machine/phone.
I've looked at a few dual-line adaptor boxes for the answering
machine, but they will make the phone useless.  The phone will end up
being on the last line that rang (or was answered).  Since I don't
have dial-a-visit on both lines this would not be desirable.

So, I'd like to start looking for a dual-line answering machine.  Can
anybody provide any recommendations?  My current Phone Mate 7050 has
remote access, but I'd like something more than a single digit
security code.

I'll summarize responses.


Jeff    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #885
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20830;
          4 Nov 91 9:08 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32103
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 4 Nov 1991 07:07:44 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12008
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 4 Nov 1991 07:07:31 -0600
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 07:07:31 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #886

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 4 Nov 91 07:07:19 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 886

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Largest (?) Free Dialing Area [Lisa Gronke via Joe Stein]
    RFI: PC Voice to ASCII sw/hw [Peter M. Weiss]
    Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls [Steve Brack]
    Re: Internet to EARN? [Al Stangenberger]
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [John Goggan]
    Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone [Dave Niebuhr]
    Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Frederick G. M. Roeber]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Joe Stein)
Subject: Largest (?) Free Dialing Area
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 06:01:05 GMT


Originally from: [e-mail] (Lisa Gronke)

>From {The Portland Oregonian}, Friday, November 1, 1991, page D1 & D8

PORTLAND-AREA DIALING TURNS TOLL-FREE AT MIDNIGHT FRIDAY

o Every phone call will be local throughout a 1,407-square-mile area
  from Corbett to Forest Grove

by Dean Baker (of the Oregonian staff)

Hold that phone a minute before you dial long-distance.

Come Saturday, there'll be a lot less need to dial 1 in the Portland
area.

Portland and 20 neighboring communities will become one big telephone
city at midnight Friday.

Every phone call will be local througout a 1,407-square-mile area --
from Corbett to Forest Grove, from Burlington to Charbonneau.

The new toll-free region ends long-distance dialing among the towns,
farms and suburbs around Portland and 20 other adjoining phone
exchanges.

The new region includes the 20 exchanges that already could call
Portland toll-free but could not all call each other unless they paid
for it.

The spoke-and-hub pattern is being changed to something called an
"extended-area service" region in which everyone calls anywhere
toll-free. Some 2,500 new circuits have been added for the change,
cross-linking the 21 exchanges.

For subscribers using 694,256 telephone lines in the area, the change
means no more long-distance and more costly flat monthly charges -- but
not necessarily more costly total bills.

"It all begins to make more sense if we assume that this is a vibrant
area that's growing, with a transporation system that's growing and
carrying people everywhere, both ways," says Ron Eachus, chairman of
the Oregon Public Utility Commission.

Unlike a freeway, the old telephone system carried voices toll-free to
some areas. But there was a charge to get onto some city streets.

The new system is a freeway that will bind the area together.

"The commission sees this change reflecting how the community has come
together physically, socially and commercially." said Jim Haynes,
spokesman for US West. "They said the phone system ought to change to
keep up with that."

While the PUC has not analyzed the all-one-city approach for benefits
to commerce, Eachus said business owners in outlying areas -- Forest
Grove, in particular -- told him "it's worth it to us."

Still, some telephone users will save money with the change, while
others will lose.

"We think this is a benefit for the entire region," said Eachus. "I
realize this is a subjective call. There will be winners and losers."

The winners will be customers who once were forced to make many
long-distance calls throughout the 21-exchange region.

The losers will be customers who already have extended-area service
where they make the most calls.

Gresham residents will pay $4.49 more, Sandy $6.38 more, Corbett $9.45
more and Portland just 12 cents more. For the money, Gresham, Sandy and
Corbett subscribers will add toll-free dialing to 18 or 19 other
exchanges.

Winners like Beaverton customers now will be able to make toll-free
calls to Lake Oswego and to 11 other extended-area service exchanges
that used to cost them money.

GTE Northwest will increase Beaverton's residential phone rate $2.54 a
month and business rate $2.17 to make up for revenue lost in
long-distance charges. But that increase covers it.

Still more communities want to get in on the change.

Newberg, Molalla, Yamhill, Scapoose, Canby, Hoodland and Aurora all
have petitioned the PUC to be included in the toll-free Portland
region. A hearing is scheduled Nov. 22, but the investigation and a
decision may take many months.

Eachus said Vancouver, Wash., also may be included someday in the
region.

But Haynes said adding Vancouver is unlikely because Vancouver lies on
the other side of two legal borders -- a state line and a federal
long-distance zone boundary. A Vancouver-Portland "area of interest"
also would have to be established under PUC rules.

Including Vancouver also would require approval by Washington state and
the federal government.

Among the 21 exchanges included in Saturday's change, the smallest
residential monthly phone bill increase will be 12 cents in Portland;
the largest will be $10.25 in Estacada. The smallest business increase
will be $1.38 in Portland, the largest $20.50 in Estacada.

In making the changes, the seven telephone companies involved will lose
$12.8 million in long-distance revenues, but they'll make it up by
increasing the extended-area service rates.

The process is designed to keep the change "revenue neutral," so the
phone companies will neither lose nor profit by the change, Eachus
said.

Portland's rate increase is the smallest because US West will regain
its lost long-distance revenues by spreading the larger extended-area
service costs over 377,039 access lines.

Estacada and Corbett have the greatest increases because Cascade
Utilities will cover its long-distance revenue losses by spreading
increased rates over only the 6,385 customers it serves.

Not everyone will pay the same rate for service. Customers may choose
among three options: flat-rate, measured-rate, or a combination
flat-rate local and measured-rate extended-area service.

Flat-rate is one fixed charge a month for unlimited calls throughout
the extended service area. Measured-rate is a charge for each call
made. The combination of flat local and measured extended-area service
would be economical for a customer who makes many calls within his or
her own exchange but few calls outside it.

"This is our first cut on this, and we're starting a tracking mechanism
to see how well it works," Eachus said. "This is our attempt to get the
region in place and meet the new phone book deadline."

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

Metro Toll-Free Calling Area (not exactly to scale)
 [Adapted from {The Oregonian}, 01-Nov-91]

      F                      |  |
      O G     NP     BU      |  |
      R R                    \  \_____________________________
      E O                     \   Columbia River
      S V     HI     BV        \______________________________
      T E
                                PORTLAND       GRESHAM       CORBETT

                          LO      LG      SUNNYSIDE
                                                          SANDY
            SCHOLLS    TIGARD     O C
                                  R I     REDLAND
                       STAFFORD   E T
                                  G Y       BEAVER
               SHERWOOD           O         CREEK         ESTACADA
                          CH      N

Key (roughly from west to east)

FOREST GROVE         Forest Grove
NP                   North Plains
BU                   Burlington
HI                   Hillsboro
BV                   Beaverton
SC                   Scholls
SHERWOOD             Sherwood
TIGARD               Tigard
PORTLAND             Portland
LO                   Lake Oswego
STAFFORD             Stafford
CH                   Charbonneau
LG                   Lake Grove/Milwuakie
OREGON CITY          Oregon City
BEAVER CREEK         Beaver Creek
REDLAND              Redland
SUNNYSIDE            Sunnyside
ESTACADA             Estacada
SANDY                Sandy
GRESHAM              Gresham
CORBETT              Corbett

Telco             Number of exchanges                 Lines

GTE Northwest     9  Beaverton, Forest Grove,         211,705
                     Gresham, Hillsboro, Sandy,
                     Scholls, Sherwood, Stafford &
                     Tigard

US West           6  Burlington, Lake Oswego,         461,727
                     North Plains, Oak Grove,
                     Oregon City & Portland

Cascade Util.     2  Corbett & Estacada                 6,385

Beaver Creek      1  Beavercreek                        3,431

Clear Creek       1  Redland                            2,907

Contel of the NW  1  Sunnyside                          6,648

PTI/Tele. Util.   1  Charbonneau                        1,453

Totals           21                                   694,256



Joseph W. Stein [phone]
[e-mail] -or- [e-mail]
My opinion is that I have no opinion but my own... So there!

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Monday, 4 Nov 1991 06:51:43 EST
From: Peter M. Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: RFI: PC Voice to ASCII sw/hw


This is a request from Dr. Donald F. Parsons, list owner of
HSPNET-L@ALBNYDH2 (Bitnet).  Please respond to dfp10@albnydh2
directly.  When he summaries, I will x-post it to C.D.T.

Thanks in advance,


Pete Weiss, PSU Management Services

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

** VOICED PATIENT RECORDS **
       "Donald F. Parsons MD"
     Maintaining a Listserv File on Voice Communication

I recently saw a demonstration of a nursing home system using a PC 386
and one of the standard voice->ASCII cards (? Kurzweil).  Could any
subscribers who have experience with such medical reporting systems
send to the list their observations?  I will summarize the info into a
LISTSERV stored file here. DFP


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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 23:48:39 EST
From: [e-mail] (Brack)
Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls


[e-mail] (David R. Zinkin) writes:

> My question is, can I legally tape a phone call between me and
> another party without letting the other party know that the call is
> being recorded?

> By the way, in case the laws vary by state, I'm in Ohio.

As far as I know, as long as such is intended for administrative/
recordkeeping purposes, you may tape the call w/o giving notice to the
other party.

In my experience, I've found it "enhances service" when you tell them
you are recording their calls.

BTW: I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on c.d.t. 8)


Steve

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 21:42:43 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Internet to EARN?
Organization: University of California


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

> I'm having some trouble sending a piece of Internet mail to a location
> that does not have a domain name (of which I am aware).  I'm hoping
> someone can help me.

> I want to send a message to "LISTSERV@TAUNIVM" -- my system does not
> recognize that address.  TAUNIVM is in Tel Aviv.  The reference
> material I have at hand indicates that TAUNIVM is connected to the
> EARN network and that the EARN network is connected to the City
> University of New York (CUNY).

Those addresses are all connected to Bitnet.  Try sending to:

[e-mail]


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

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

From: [e-mail] (John Goggan)
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Date: 4 Nov 91 06:07:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Goggan)
Organization: Free Software Foundation


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

> [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.

 ...but what is considered "repeatedly"?  If you call the house once,
say nothing, and just wait for them to hang up -- is that a crime
then?  I'm asking because I'm trying to determine if "crackers" using
war-dialers are breaking the law.  I was under the impression that
they WERE -- but just what law(s) exactly are they breaking?  Since
each person is only bothered "once" (ignoring people with more than
one line for the moment), is it "harassment" as stated above?  I
realize that it is very annoying to the receiver, but are there any
laws preventing the crackers from running the war-dialers/prefix
scanners?


John Goggan [[e-mail]]


[Moderator's Note: Good point. I don't think the 'repeatedly' refers
to any one subscriber so much as it refers to the entire network. In
other words if I call a thousand people, cause their phone to ring and
disconnect without speaking (or transmitting data as the case may be)
 -- if I do this intentially -- then I think its the same difference
as calling one person a thousand times doing the same thing. Remember
the guy who was a programmer for a bank who fixed the bank's computer
so that all the tiny fractions of a cent of interest which otherwise
were rounded off and dropped got put in his account instead? The
fractional shavings when totalled up amounted to a nice piece of
change for him. No one customer noticed the small amount of victimi-
zation, yet the guy was found guilty of fraud against the bank.  I
think it is the same thing with the war-dialers. Everyone is very
slightly victimized.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 07:30:42 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Security wise, what solutions are there against
> people who program their telephone number to one of the demo numbers
> every carrier hands out to their dealers for testing and sales use?

Hmm.  Offhand, I would venture to guess that (a) each store has a
different demo number and (b) each demo number is only valid when used
at a location served by a particular cell [and no handoffs].  At
least, this is what I would do.


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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 7:53:05 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone


I have a question for those who have knowledge of the earlier telephone
switches and hope someone can give me the answer.

In 1965, my wife and I were on one of the earliest exchanges (516-325)
that permitted touch-tone dialing (this was a very small community on
Long Island, and still is for that matter).

We subscribed to the service and enjoyed it and now I am curious as to
what type of switch allowed touch-tone.  My guess is that it might have
been a 1ESS some early animal.

Anyone?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Frederick G.M. Roeber)
Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service
Date: 4 Nov 91 12:44:57 GMT


At Telecom '91 a few weeks ago here in Geneva, a few Japanese
companies were showing their Japanese-English translation systems.
One system was a voice-to-voice interpreter for Japanese <--> English.
Voice recognition (of about 500 words in each language), sentance
analysis, translation, and voice synthesis took about four seconds.
No "training" was needed to teach it a new voice: you could walk up to
the microphone and say a sentance (within the 500 word vocabulary),
and it would translate it.  In addition to the voice synthesis in
Japanese or English, it would display the text on a screen in both
languages plus French and Spanish.

Another company had a computer that could receive a G4 fax, separate
the text from the pictures, translate the text (Japanese <-->
English), paste it back in, and send the fax on.  The slowest part of
this demo was the paper feeds in the faxes.  It was only programmed to
recognize a few (typewritten) fonts, though.

There were lots of fun things at Telecom '91.  When I get organized
I'll send in a summary of the fraction I saw.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #886
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21735;
          5 Nov 91 2:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10347
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:02:54 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23451
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:02:34 -0600
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:02:34 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #887

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Nov 91 01:02:08 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 887

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Bill Sohl]
    Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [J. Brad Hicks]
    Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Michael A. Covington]
    Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [Carl M. Kadie]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Scott Dorsey]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet [J. Porter Clark]
    Re: Information on E-Mail For U.S. Friend [J. Brad Hicks]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 07:03:24 GMT


PAT notes (regarding BBS liability)

> [Moderator's Note: Well whatever happened to the last part of 'knew or
> should have known'? If it were *that easy* to avoid liability -- by
> just shaking your head and claiming you knew nothing of it -- then why
> can't everyone pull that off all the time?   PAT]

Although it would be nice to see the whole decision before passing
judgement on it, I would point out that, as any viewer of Senate
hearings knows, it is pulled off all the time at the highest of levels
 -- as I recall, it's called "Doing the Reagan."


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


[Moderator's Note: Well, hmmm ... time to close still another topic
here and move along :).  As Mr. Godwin said in an issue over the
weekend, the libraries and bookstores 'do it all the time'.  A couple
more on this thread, then let's close if off.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (24411-sohl)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 16:36:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco
Reply-To: [e-mail] (24411-sohl,william h)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

>> To add confusion to the issue, the October 31 edition of the
>> {Washington Post} reports the ruling of U.S. District Judge Peter
>> Leisure that says Compuserve cannot be held liable for defamatory
>> statements contained in a newsletter available through its electronic
>> library.  A rep for the ACLU was quoted as saying that it was one of
>> the first decisions by the First District Court ruling on the status of
>> electronic bulletin boards, holding that they have limited liability
>> and that without knowledge of the act they are not liable.

>        Let's see, libel and slander are (as I recall) for saying or
> publishing an untruth that damages someone.  Is a BBS a publisher?
> Could it not perhaps be considered a library?  Are libraries liable
> for the contents of their books?

In a similar article credited to the AP newswire (Bart Ziegler), the
article satrts out by saying: "Or should they (electronic BBS) enjoy
the looser standards of libraries and bookstores, which are generally
not liable for the information they make available."

That would seem to clear it up for me.  Frankly, it would be ludicrous
(IMHO) to expect a library or any other entity that "archives" text to
be responsible for everything that flows through.  I personally think
that the BBS environment is simply not analogous to a newspaper
because everything that is published in a newspaper is subject to at
least one review by someone.  That is certainly not the case for
postings to BBSs nor is it the case for libraries (eg. receipt of
monthly periodicals etc.)

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.


Bill Sohl   (K2UNK)            ||  email
Bellcore, Morristown, NJ       ||   UUCP    bcr!taichi!whs70
(Bell Communications Research) ||    or
201-829-2879 Weekdays          || Internet  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 19:43 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco


Considering how much I *loathe* Prodigy, I am amazed that I keep
coming to its defense.  First the stupid STAGE.DAT non-controversy
(anybody who read the one-page installation instructions had to know
it was going to be there, and anybody who's computer literate would
have known that it would have overlapped previously-deleted files).
Now this.

Of all improbable places to find clarification on a computer-related
issue, the current issue of {Newsweek} finally made sense out of this
whole silly non-issue, because it reported a simple pair of facts that
were not in any other coverage.  Most of the news media just picked up
the JADL press release; some of them picked up both the JADL and the
Prodigy press release, but bless 'em, {Newsweek} cut right to the gist
of the matter.

(1) The original message which has been described as anti-Semitic was
sent in *private mail* from one user to another user.  (2) The
receiving user was so offended that he or she chose to rebut the
message not via return mail but by posting it to a *public forum*.

Prodigy refused to post the rebuttal, not because either IBM or Sears
is anti-Semitic, but because they have a long-standing policy against
allowing personal attacks to appear in a public forum, and they
perceived this (correctly, I suspect) as a personal attack on the
person who wrote the original *private message*.

In other words, Prodigy quite correctly told the second author that if
he or she had a problem with something somebody sent him in private
mail, he or she should take it up with that person, instead of
dragging that person's name and reputation through the mud in a long
personal attack in a public forum.  Prodigy was right this time.  EVEN
IF the original author was a genuine anti-Semite, I know as an
ex-sysop that it is a genuine BAD IDEA to allow a flame war to start
by letting people throw around personal accusations in a public forum.

If the pro-JADL second author was so determined to add Prodigy to the
list of the many media outlets which are being used to discredit
Holocaust revisionism, then by Prodigy's policies, all he had to do
was to write the message in such a way that it attacked the ideas
without accusing any individual Prodigy subscriber of racism or
anti-Semitism or Nazism.  How hard could this be?  How much is this to
ask?

Unfortunately, as I know from attempting to rebut accuasations against
"occultists" that were made in Prodigy's public forums, I suspect that
at that point Prodigy would have thrown his message out anyway,
because if he quoted any organization such as the JADL they would
decline on the grounds that it "solicited for other organizations."
Even if he didn't, they'd probably say it was "too controversial for a
family-oriented forum." THEN he or she would have had what I consider
a legitimate beef against Prodigy.  That's why I don't use Prodigy,
and as long as they continue to so actively censor the content of
their public forums and until they repay those of us they
bait-and-switched over the original fee structure, I never will.


[Moderator's Note: Really, this has gone too far off topic to continue
here. Maybe one of the .talk groups would be a good place to go.  (I
did like the Reagan comment though! :)  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 15:49:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Frederick G.M. Roeber) writes:

> At Telecom '91 a few weeks ago here in Geneva, a few Japanese
> companies were showing their Japanese-English translation systems.
> One system was a voice-to-voice interpreter for Japanese <--> English.
> Voice recognition (of about 500 words in each language), sentance
> analysis, translation, and voice synthesis took about four seconds.
> No "training" was needed to teach it a new voice: you could walk up to
> the microphone and say a sentance (within the 500 word vocabulary),
> and it would translate it.

Er... how good were the translations?  How easy was it to make it
produce gibberish?

Machine translation is far from a solved problem.  I've never seen a
convincing demonstration of it.  At COMDEX a couple of years ago I
played with an English-to-Spanish translator that produced lots of
nonsense, in either language, whenever you didn't use its favorite
phrases.


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

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

From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service
Date: 2 Nov 91 19:43:40 GMT


In Message <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jacob R.
Deglopper) asks:

> Is this [translation service online] accessible from inside the US?

Yup.  In a recent print ad AT&T lists the following 1-800 numbers for
"Customer Service for Questions and Interpreting":

    Japanese:            338-8120
    Korean:                338-8097
    Mandarin:            338-8095
    Spanish:            235-0900

as well as these other 1-800 numbers for related information:

                    222-0300
    "How can we help you?":         661-0661, ext. 5513

I hope these help you.


Fred E.J. Linton  Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.  649 Sci. Tower  Middletown, CT 06459
E-mail:  <[e-mail]>     ( or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com> )
Tel.:         + 1 203 776 2210 (home)     or    + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 10:21 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?


Well, here's my experience with Pacific Bell's annoyance call handling.

One day, my wife, who was home sick, recuperating from surgery, called
and told me that she had received several obscene telephone calls.
She had (on her own :-) logged the times and was continuing to do so.

I called the business office, and got the annoyance call bureau. They
told me that I needed to file a police complaint and call them with
the case number, and that they would then take action.  So I called
the San Jose PD.  They told me that they wouldn't take the report from
us, but only from the telephone company.  Oh well -- a pox on both
their houses.

I remotely reprogrammed my answering machine with a generic message:
"Thank you for calling - Please leave a message." The machine took
about four attempts over the next two hours, and we never heard from
him again.

Had it continued, my next step would have been to try and get one of
the two parties (telco or PD) to hold on while I conferenced in the
other.  Then let them sort it out.


edg


[Moderator's Note: Actually, I think most of the time the police
snicker behind their backs at people who file complaints about obscene
phone calls, given their case load otherwise in these violent times in
which we live. There are certain crimes which do not take nearly as
high a priority as others. They probably said what they did to get you
out of their hair.  Sorry, but I think that's the way it is.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 22:31:09 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John
Goggan) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Good point. I don't think the 'repeatedly' refers
> to any one subscriber so much as it refers to the entire network. In
> other words if I call a thousand people, cause their phone to ring and
> disconnect without speaking (or transmitting data as the case may be)
> -- if I do this intentially -- then I think its the same difference
> as calling one person a thousand times doing the same thing.

So, a telemarketer who calls ten people who are not interested is
equivalent to ten calls to one person who is not interested?


Carl Kadie -- [e-mail] -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


[Moderator's Note: Nope, not true at all, because a telemarketer does
have a legitimate business reason for calling. The fact that you or I
or anyone else is not interested does not remove the legitimacy of the
call in the first place. The difference between them and phreaks who
war-dial an entire community is the phreak had no business calling the
number in the first place ... the telemarketer did.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 14:24:22 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> Henry wrote:

>> It's true ... tonight, on the game show _Jeopardy_, there was a
>> category called "area codes."  They would present a clue ...  "The
>> east side's up and the battery's down ... and they're both in this
>> area code". The contestant had to reply "What is 212?"

>    Was that really the clue, verbatim?  If so, it's wrong!  It's
> not the "east side" that's up, it's The Bronx.  The proper quote (from
> some old Broadway show tune, I think) is:

   That's true, in fact the Bronx is so up that it's now in 718, no
longer 212 ....


scott

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 11:10:28 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (KATH MULLHOLAND, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, X1031)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


          This area code is bordered
          by only one other, whether
          north south east or west.


Kath Mullholand, University of NH, Durham, NH    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Porter Clark)
Subject: Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date:  4 Nov 91 14:56:03 GMT


[e-mail] (Krishnan "krish" Sakotai ) writes:

> Sometime back I heard that ITU finally agreed during Telecom '91 that
> it would initiate publishing the BISDN standards (or proposed ones) on
> Internet or some central location in electronic form for public
> consumption. Anyone know what is happening in that regard? I for one
> feel that it is ridiculous that any organization or standards body
> should make it difficult for individuals to easily obtain information
> on standards.

In a similar vein, does anybody know if there is an anonymous FTP
source for the ADPCM test sequences described in CCITT G.721 and
G.722?


J. Porter Clark    [e-mail]
NASA/MSFC Communications Systems Branch

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 19:39 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information on E-Mail For U.S. Friend


In reply to somebody else's message, Pat said:

> [Moderator's Note: Did you ever get the feeling that within the next
> two or three years, Internet will be the default standard for email?
> That is, any email service worth anything will use Internet for
> connections to the others. The question asked of any service before
> signing up should be do they have Internet access.   PAT]

That's actually a pretty debatable proposition, given how many of the
world's governments (including our own) have legislated X.400 as the
interchange standard.  As a semi-libertarian, I'm torn ... after all,
the primary funding mechanisms for the Internet are tax money (to cop
a phrase from P.J. O'Rourke, would you hold your grandmother at
gunpoint to pay for the Internet?  That's what you're doing now ...)
and inflated college tuition costs (making it less and less possible
for anybody outside the monied elite to get a decent education).

On the other hand, RFC822 over TCP/IP is a robust standard, much less
politicized than X.400, and I find Internet addresses easier to
remember.  So given my druthers, I guess I'd pick RFC822 over TCP/IP
transport for mail, but with the costs spread evenly over all users
(and with none of the costs dumped onto non-users).  TANSTAAFL!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #887
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22945;
          5 Nov 91 3:36 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01433
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:43:52 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01561
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:43:16 -0600
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:43:16 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #888

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Nov 91 01:42:46 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 888

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines [Jack Dominey]
    Re: Internet to EARN? [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires [Al L. Varney]
    Re: Morris, IL ESS (was Early ESS) [David W. Barts]
    Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!! [Darren Alex Griffiths]
    Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Graham Toal]
    Re: TTC Timeline Service [Tony Harminc]
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Guy R. Berentsen]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Tom Gray]
    Re: Wanted: Two Line Answering Machine [Charlie Rosenberg]
    Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption [David E. Martin]
    540 Pager Scam Update [Rob Boudrie]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Nov  4 15:10:35 EST 1991
Subject: Re: Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines


In V11#879, Bob Izenberg ([e-mail]) inquires:

> A friend told me of a co-worker that brought up using a "dial-out only"
> phone line for a computer system at work....If this type of service exists,
> what are the economics of it?

Since I'm a long-distance salesdrone, the first thing I thought of is
a WATS line.  Most LD carriers are happy to install them.  Instead of
the old Band 1 through Band 5 system, most WATS lines provide
"unlimited" access, meaning you can call anywhere in the US, including
in-state.  Calls are typically billed according to mileage at a
slightly lower rate than calls over a telco local line.

AT&T's version of the "unlimited" WATS line is called One-Line WATS
(sm).  It costs $36.70 per month, per line, plus $12.00 per month for
the WATS account.  You can even use it for international calls (with
no discount), and for local calls (billed by telco at Intra-LATA WATS
rates).

So if the computer system that Mr. Izenberg is talking about makes
lots of long distance calls, and very few local calls, a WATS line
could be just the ticket.


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

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

Date: 4-NOV-1991 15:28:31.61
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Internet to EARN?


Responding to a query of [e-mail] (Peter Petto) in <telecom11.
[e-mail]>, our Moderator suggests:

> Have you tried '[e-mail]'?

As the mystery site TAUNIVM is an EARN site, i.e., a "Bitnet/EARN"
site, a good many US mailers won't know how to reach it unless its
name is given in the "domain-icised" form TAUNIVM.bitnet .  Ergo, some
things that might work are:

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

or the bang-path equivalents thereof, or what is obtained therefrom
after replacing [cunyvm.]cuny.edu by the Internet name of any other
reachable "smart" host.


Fred E.J. Linton  Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.  649 Sci. Tower  Middletown, CT 06459
E-mail:  <[e-mail]>     ( or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com> )
Tel.:         + 1 203 776 2210 (home)      or     + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)

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

Date: Mon,  4 Nov 91 13:37:06 CST
From: [e-mail] (Al L Varney)
Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Maurice R Baker) writes:

> From {Bell Labs News} of 10/28/91:
>    ----Picture of a row of craftpersons with bolt cutters severing
>        many multi-pair cables---

>      The cutover was accomplished in three steps.  First, the new
> 5ESS was installed and hooked up to the incoming lines -- which were
> also still going to the old switch -- but not powered up.  Then, at
> 1:00 AM, when there is relatively little traffic on the old switch,
> the cables coming in to the 1ESS were quickly cut.  Once all the lines
> were cut, the new switch was turned on.  The whole operation took only
> a few minutes, and emergency services agencies were notified ....

   I've written before about the ability of ESS(tm) switches to
cut-over lines (one or more NXXs, or an entire office) without the
need to drop any calls or cut cables.  Each cut-over is handled on a
case-by-case basis, so some cut-overs do not use all the capabilities
available.

   In the Succasunna cut-over, the sequence involved was:

1) Lines were marked for cut-over in each switch, as usual, except NJB
marked the old switch lines to be "in-active@pre-cut" and set the
switch status as "post-cut".  The line cut-over normally sets the both
switches to "pre-cut".  The major difference in procedure involves the
treatment of "unassigned" lines in the old switch.

2) All trunks were previously set up to connect via T1 patch panels to
the new switch.  Patch cords were used to connect to the old switch
facilities.

3) At about 1 A.M., set the old office status to "pre-cut", making the
switch not recognize new "off-hooks".  Set the new office to "pre-cut",
making new off-hook requests result in dial tone from the new switch.

4) Pull the patch cords on the T1 facilities.  Drops any inprogess
trunk calls in the old switch.

5) A while later, cut the line-side cables from the old switch to the
MDF.  Drops any old line-to-line calls in the old switch.

6) Some days later, when service is completely verified, power off and
remove the old switch.

Step 5 is not usually needed until the new switch operation is
verified; NJB felt the age of the equipment, particularly in the
contacts that are used to remove the "off-hook" detection at this No.
1 ESS, might result in some added induction loading on lines after
cut-over.  Once calls appeared to be working on the new switch, the
cables were cut.

And in article <[e-mail]> [e-mail],
(Christopher Lott) writes:

> If this is obvious, please forgive me.  I don't understand why the old
> 1ESS switch wasn't just powered down about the same time that the new
> one was powered up.  Wouldn't this do the same thing??  Seems awfully
> final to cut the cables.  What if the new switch doesn't work right?
> I must be missing something.

  Briefly: (remember Succasunna was large, say gymnasium-sized).
Powering off a switch will not reliably remove ground or forms of
resistance/inductance from lines, since the non-power state of relays
and cross-points is not predictable.

  The old switch would act as a load on the lines to the new switch.

  The alarms set off might mask real alarms from the new switch or
other systems, and also require a lot of paperwork later.

  Power spikes induced by any massive load removal is not a Good Thing
to do to power sources, especially since the sources probably also
power the new switch.

  The No. 1 ESS switches were not built to be turned off/on
frequently.  If the new switch doesn't work, a quick massive power-up
of all the redundant power sources might damage lots of circuits.
Normally, power-up takes lots of time, as in hours!  This could be a
lot more final than cutting cables, which, as I mentioned, was done
only after new switch calls were tested.


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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 14:09:59 -0800
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Morris, IL ESS (was Early ESS)


In Volume 11, Issue 882, Message 8 of 10, [e-mail] (Jim
Haynes) writes:

> Morris, IL had the first electronic switch, but as I recall it was a
> field test of a model not intended for production.  Seems like it used
> vacuum tubes and magnetic drum memory.

It was also an end-marked switch (the calls were routed by placing a
voltage between where the calling party's pair entered the switch
matrix and the called party's pair left it (where one of these "pairs"
can be a trunk to another office).

I remember reading something about a special kind of tube used in the
Morris switch that wasn't a vacuum tube since it actually contained a
minute amount of some gas, and this gas was ionized to make it
conduct.  I believe these were a critical part of the end-marked
switch matrix.

The biggest drawback with the Morris CO was that it used a different
set of voltages than a normal CO; while it was installed, all
subscribers in Morris had to use special, non-standard station sets
that were designed to work with the Morris CO.  The special voltage
requirements were a direct result of the special tubes used in the
switch.  The Morris switch was replaced with a normal 1ESS soon after
the Succasunna installation.

The nonstandard station set interface (with the associated high cost
of replacing all station sets in a service area) was probably the main
reason why this technology was never put into production.


David Barts  N5JRN            UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
[e-mail]        Seattle, WA  98195

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Today's Phones Must Go!!!
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Open Systems Solutions, Inc. -- UNIX R Us.
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 13:31:05 PST


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

> 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.


Yet another case of evolution in action kids.  I say keep the phones.  :-)


Cheers,

Darren Alex Griffiths    [e-mail] (finally)

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service
Date: 4 Nov 91 23:03:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jacob R.
Deglopper) writes:

> In a previous article, [e-mail] (Graham Toal) says:

>> AT&T also offers a translation service online if you're in a fix
>> abroad; no hint of the charge scale though.

> Is this accessible from inside the US?

Well, the US number of USADirect on this info card I have here is:
1 800 874 4000 x359, or call collect on 412 553 7458 from overseas.

Now -- an update on my application for this card: I was phoned at work
by AT&T's UK sales person, who left a message saying she needed my
passport number and social security number.  I was rather concerned by
this, because I know for a fact that the *only* people who can index
me anywhere under these numbers is the UK government.  I've never
given anyone else these numbers (as anyone who has read my postings on
other groups about civil liberties might have guessed).

However, when I got in touch, it seems the reason was because they
assumed I was American.  Apparently it is slightly problematical for a
non-US person to get this card (she didn't explain why, but I think it
was something to do with my wanting to pay with Amex), but she said
she would sort something out and make sure I got the card.


Graham

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

Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 18:50:33 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TTC Timeline Service


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) wrote:

> The Toronto Transit Commission operates subway, bus and streetcar
> service in Metropolitan Toronto (the city of Toronto and the adjacent
> suburbs).  A few years ago, it introduced Timeline service, which
> gives every bus or streetcar stop its own telephone number. Call the
> number (for example, 416-539-1111 is one particular stop on the 4
> Annette trolleybus route), and you'll get a synthesized voice giving
> you the scheduled arrival times of the next two or three transit
> vehicles. It gives the scheduled times, and doesn't track the actual
> progress of the bus. However, if the bus is likely to be late because
> of bad weather or some other problem, you're warned that "major (or
> minor) delays may occur".

I've been meaning to mention TTC Timeline here for a while -- thanks
for bringing it up.  There are a few quirks to the system:

The ringing tone is bizzare -- it sounds like a recording of some old
rural SxS switch, followed by the clatter of someone carelessly
picking up the receiver.

The voice is not synthesized; rather it is spliced together recorded
pieces.  The numbers are not handled too well (stop 1000 is read as
"one zero zero zero"), and the stitching between phrases is jerky.
But it does work.

Actually each stop does *not* have its own number -- they cheated and
assigned one, two, or three stops one number, depending on how far
apart they are.

> Since each stop has its own phone number, the service can be accessed
> from a rotary phone; you just dial the seven-digit number. This uses
> up most of the (416) 539-xxxx block of numbers, of course, and may
> have hastened Bell Canada's plans to split the 416 area code.

It seems to use the 1000 through 6000 blocks of 539.

I don't know what equipment they are using -- presumably a PBX-style
interface.  416 539 is a DMS 100 office.


Tony H.

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

Date: Mon,  4 Nov 91 19:10:58 EST
From: [e-mail] (Guy R Berentsen)
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> 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.

I have heard that line noise on data calls is often caused by improper
syncronization between the switches at each end of a digital path.
This causes enough of the signal to get dropped to generate noise on a
modem call ( often looks like periodic '{' chars ) even though it is
not perceptable on a voice call.

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

From: mitel!Software![e-mail] (Tom Gray)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Date: 4 Nov 91 15:16:31 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


As an interesting note, we have been on Standard Time for more than a
week now in Ontario. Howevr my Maestro telephone with Class service
still displays DST.

Bell Canada keeps telling us that their new equipment is so modern.
You would think tat they could program their switches to follow the
time change.


Tom Gray

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 17:30:11 PST
From: Charlie Rosenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: Two Line Answering Machine


Crutchfield sells a nice Panasonic 800 446-1640

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

From: [e-mail] (David E. Martin)
Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption
Date: 4 Nov 91 18:22:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,  Batavia, IL,  USA


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

> So I leave my office
> in the driving rain (what else is new here for the past week!) and
> hoof it over to Harriet's Department Store on Clark Street, which is a
> bill paying agency for various utility services.

For some reason, Illinois Bell doesn't publicize it, but they take
Visa for payment now.  Just call them up, ask them your balance, and
you can pay it immediately. Of course, then you wouldn't enjoy the
Chicago fall weather!


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: Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 13:58:48 EST
Subject: 540 Pager Scam Update


A friend of mine who works in the security office of a large
corporation recently showed me an internal dispatch descirbing the 540
pager scam previously discussed in this group.  Besides the expected
warnings, it mentioned that their pager company (Skytel) was updating
their software to prevent such numbers from being displayed, but that
the change had not yet been implemented, and urging caution in the
mean time.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #888
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23980;
          5 Nov 91 4:10 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02451
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 Nov 1991 02:29:46 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25602
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 Nov 1991 02:29:23 -0600
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 02:29:23 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #889

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Nov 91 02:29:19 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 889

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [David W. Barts]
    Bypassing the Local Telco is a Good Idea [John Higdon]
    Another MCI Offer: Is This a Scam? [Brian Crawford]
    1973 Articles on 703/804 Split [Carl Moore]
    Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches [Steve Valle]
    Call For Split Information [Carl Moore]
    Wanted: Integrated Computer Terminal/Telephone [Paul Cook]
    Looking For SMDS / Frame Relay Mailing Lists [Gordon Spoelhof]
    Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 23:10:10 -0800
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea


Time and time again, I keep seeing contributors to this Digest make
references to how wonderful allowing competition for local dial tone
will be.  Well, I, for one, cannot share in their enthusiasm.

I will admit I am not an expert on the early days of telecom history,
but I keep hearing stories of how our towns and cities were served by
different, competing telephone companies in the past and of the chaos
that resulted from such policy.  Things like merchants wasting money
having three or four phones installed (from three or four different
phone companies) so that all their customers could reach them.

And while all this vigorous competition was taking place in the
cities, farmers, ranchers, and residents of small, isolated towns had
no telephone service simply because there were no profits to be made
by serving such areas.

Like it or not, local telephone service is, has always been, and
probably always will be a natural monopoly.  This is a result of the
high cost of stringing (or burying) cable through an area, and also of
the fact that one properly-maintained cable system can serve an area
as well (actually better than, since there are less connectivity
problems) as two or three, but without the added labor and
inconvenience of the extra systems.

I can imagine readers itching to fire off a response saying "what
about using radio waves?"  An interesting idea, but first, take a look
at a radio frequency allocation chart.  Notice anything?  That's
right!  All the frequencies are already taken.  Even with improved
modulation technology, I just can't see how we'd find the room for
allocating blocks of spectrum to the several dozen firms wishing to
provide phone service in a city the size of New York or Los Angeles.
And note, places like LA and NYC already have the most congested
airwaves in the nation, and they are precisely the areas where firms
would most desire to get spectrum space to provide service.

Even in the event that spectrum space _could_ be found to accommodate
local exchange competition, we'd still have a natural monopoly for
telephone service.  Since spectrum space is a scarce resource, any
system would have to share a single radio channel between many users
(not at the same time, of course).  In a large area, there would
either have to be many channels, or many cells with a few channels
each.

In the former case, the system would have to use frequencies in the
microwave range, since an antenna is designed to work at a certain
wavelength, and its performance drops off as soon as one moves away
from this wavelength.  Thus, we would need to accommodate many
differing frequencies (channels), with as little variation in
wavelength as possible.

Since l = c / f (where l = wavelength, c = speed of light, f =
frequency), it should be obvious that we can get l to change little
for large changes in f when f is large, i.e. the frequency is high.
But UHF and SHF waves propagate over distance very poorly, so unless
you'd want a call to your next door neighbor to sound like a call to
Tanzania every time it rains, the system will have to have many cells.
There will still have to be a big investment in equipment per
neighborhood, and there will still be a natural monopoly.

In the latter case, by definition we have small cells with a high
per-neighborhood investment.

And I haven't even mentioned NIMBY issues (whoops! just did :-) ),
which are already rearing their ugly head with regard to cellular
phone towers across the country.  And the number of towers for an
RF-based local exchange would dwarf anything we've seen in a cellular
system.

Of course, there's always the cable TV network.  Even this, however,
could not be turned into a telephone wire plant overnight.  A CATV
system is deliberately designed for _one way_ transmission of data.
(This is done to prevent disruption of service caused by a customer
accidentally or deliberately injecting an unwanted signal into the
network.)  I'll admit I don't know how extensive the modifications
would be to convert a CATV system into a two-way network, but the
money has to come from somewhere.  The most likely place is from CATV
subscribers.

So whether you're interested in the CATV company's phone service or
not, they will make you pay for converting their system to carry phone
calls.

Then, of course, there's the problem of ensuring that the networks be
well-interconnected.  Do _you_ want to pay long-distance changes to
call your neighbor across the street, just because they use TCI Cable
phone service and you use US West?  Do small businessmen, already
operating at a meager profit margin, want to be forced to pay for
_two_ phone lines, not for any additional service, but just to
maintain the customer contact they already have?  Do you want your
call to 911 be answered by a fast busy because your telco pulled the
plug on the telco serving 911 because of a billing dispute?  Or will
the 911 call be answered with "Do-da-deeeee, The number you have
dialed, 9 1 1, is incorrect.  The correct number is 9 9 9.  Please
hang up and try your call again."

If the answer to any of the above questions is "no", then clearly some
form of regulation is required to ensure some standards of
connectivity (and sanity at the user interface level).  Now, as
numerous posters have detailed over and over in this forum, state
PUC's have enough trouble keeping one big telco and many small ones in
line.  With several big telcos, and oodles of tiny ones, there will be
even more firms to police, so even more regulators will be hired.  The
end result: more bureaucracy, higher taxes, and telephone service
won't improve much (and it may even get worse).

Local dialtone competition just doesn't make sense to me.


David Barts  N5JRN        UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
[e-mail]    Seattle, WA  98195

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

Subject: Bypassing the Local Telco is a Good Idea
Date: 4 Nov 91 10:47:21 PST (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


Pac*Bell has in its bag of reasons for the rate shifting proposal now
on the table the premise that it must be competitive to prevent big
business from "leaving the system" and thereby increasing the costs
the rest of us have to pay. After performing a survey of my own, it
would appear that the horse is long out of the barn.

Pac*Bell has the highest, most confiscatory rates for intraLATA toll
calls in the nation. One can pay up to $0.49/min to call from one end
of a LATA to another (one can call overseas for that kind of money!).
Consequently, most major companies are now leasing lines directly from
MCI, Sprint, AT&T and others and "accidently" routing their intraLATA
traffic (at $0.10/min) over these lines, completely depriving Pac*Bell
of its pound of flesh.

Even if Pac*Bell succeeds in shifting the burden of its expenses to
the residential and small business customers and brings down the
ridiculous price of intraLATA calls, it will not get back those major
customers.  Why? Those customers now have nice, modern digital
entrance facilities for their direct WATS lines. Why on earth would
they want to go back to the crummy old copper analog circuits that
Pac*Bell insists on for dial tone delivery?

I am going to do everything I can to derail Pacific Bell on this one.
I recommend to every client that spends more than $500/month on
intraLATA call that direct WATS lines be considered from a major
carrier. Many clients are already saving many thousands of dollars per
month EACH on this. In addition, as some e-mail correspondents have
pointed out, the media needs to get involved. People need to
understand that California deserves a utility that is committed to
providing local telephone service rather than grabbing up revenue to
finance foreign and domestic cable, paging, and cellular companies.
Does anyone have any idea how many of our utility dollars went down
the drain on the abortive "PacTel Computer Center Stores"?

It is time that we expect Pac*Bell to start delivering something for
the exhorbitant rates that it charges and wishes to charge in the
future. Not one network feature is available to the residence customer
that was not available ten years ago, and yet the rates have not only
gone steadily upward (remember, Pac*Bell pockets the "FCC-mandated"
access fee), but we pay for many things that were traditionally
provided at no extra charge (inside wiring, DA, number changes for
cause, etc.).

The real reason for this "rate shift" is simply that Pac*Bell is
eyeing all of these new ventures that it will need to capitalize.
Information Providing, cable service, and equipment sales are just
three examples.  Pac*Bell (as does any RBOC) plays to win. It finances
its game on the ratepayer's back. This has got to stop.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)


[Moderator's Note: Per the first article in this issue, I take it you
do not think local competition would be a bad idea ... :)    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 13:49:58 -0700
From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another MCI offer: Is This a Scam?


I have just received what appears to be quite a juicy offer from MCI-
sign up for their MCI fax service and receive $100 worth of free fax the
first full billing period in effect.  What this amounts to is they bill
the fax calls for the first 30 seconds at 6 second increments.

I told the rep that I use my PC fax card on my own home phone line,
and how would they be able to tell between a fax and a voice toll
call?  She stated that their equipment could detect the carrier as
well as the typical short duration of a fax call relative to that of a
voice call.

Has anyone had any experience with this?  I am a recent college grad
(B.S.E.E.)  who faxes his resume's to potential employers quite
frequently, and this offer is a most welcome sight.  Is it a mirage?


Brian Crawford, KL7JDQ      INTERNET: [e-mail]
PO Box 804                            [e-mail]
Tempe, Arizona  85280  USA            [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 16:18:37 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1973 Articles on 703/804 Split


The {Washington Post} had two short articles in 1973 covering the
703/804 split in Virginia.  There was an announcement on May 16 of
that year, then on June 24 on page B1 there was a notice of its being
implemented at 2:01 AM that morning, which was a Sunday.  The
impression was that there was no grace period, or that a grace period
ended on June 24 of that year; a male voice selected to startle
callers informed them of the new area code if the old one was
erroneously used.  (Also, the June 24 article has the wrong area code
for Fredericksburg, which is still in 703 today.)

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

From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Date: 5 Nov 91 02:02 UT
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches


There were several adapters that could be added to Step, XY and
Crossbar switches that permitted a user to have Touch-Tone service.
These were placed on the line equipment which took the tones and
converted them to pulses so that they would continue through the
switch train. Later on at least in Step switches a conversion was done
to the Director equipment that routed the calls to except the Tones
and convert them to pulse or Multi-freq, depending on how the call
would be routed. It has been over eight years since I have been around
that and GTE California no longer has them, with the exception of
Contel areas and I'm not sure about that.


Steve

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 10:56:07 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call For Split Informaition


Area codes 410 and 310 are now in effect, according to the announced
dates.  Below is what I now have for the other splits announced but
not yet in effect; this includes the newly-arrived info for 512/210.
If any of this is incomplete or incorrect, and preferably-official
announcements are available, let me know their contents.

In what is now 212/718:   Bronx to switch from 212 to 718 by July 1992.
404/706 Georgia, 3 May 1992 (full cutover 2 Aug 1992)
512/210 Texas, 1 Nov 1992
212/917 New York, 1992 or 1993? (details not yet available)
714/909 California, Nov 1992  (Riverside and San Bernardino counties
        go into 909; Orange County remains in 714.)
416/905 Ontario, 4 Oct 1993 (full cutover Jan 1994, no exact date yet.)

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 18:29 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Integrated Computer Terminal/Telephone


A few years ago I recall seeing these fancy computers or computer
terminals with a built in telephone.  The idea was to eliminate
clutter on the desk by combining the two functions.  I don't think
these really caught on, and I also remember seeing these in some of
the close out catalogs.

Does anyone still make these?  I am looking for a source for just a
dumb ASCII terminal with a single line telephone built in.


Paul  Cook                  Phone:  [phone]
Proctor & Associates                800-824-9719
15050 NE 36th St.           Fax:    [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317   internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Looking For SMDS / Frame Relay Mailing Lists
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 20:27:44 GMT


Does anyone know an address for any discussion lists on SMDS or Frame
Relay?

If so, please respond to my e-mail address, "[e-mail]".

Thank you.


Gordon Spoelhof, Eastman Kodak Co. - Image and Information Management
Internet: [e-mail]   Phone:  [phone]

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index
Date: Tue 5 Nov 1991 02:00 CST


If any of you have had a chance to get the Volume 9-10-11 Subject
Index from the archives (ftp lcs.mit.edu) and play around with it, I
would appreciate your feedback, since I will update it soon with
another fifty issues, and would like to know your opinion of the
index, and if it is worthwhile to continue. It is NOT intended to
replace the WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) we are working
diligently on, but is intended to complement it and serve as a way to
accelerate archival searches in the meantime.  With a little luck we
should have WAIS up and running by the end of the year. One big
consideration is the amnount of space required for the keyword,
headline and other indexes (like, about 80 megs, I am told.)


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #889
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29311;
          6 Nov 91 2:31 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14249
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 00:40:39 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21204
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 00:40:26 -0600
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 00:40:26 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #890

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Nov 91 00:40:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 890

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Steve Thornton]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Tony Harminc]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Kevin Collins]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [David G. Lewis]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Robert L. McMillin]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Ron Dippold]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Mark Van Buskirk]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced [Linc Madison]
    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" [Jim Somerville]
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Steve Thornton]
    Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Another MCI offer: Is This a Scam? [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 05 Nov 91 09:08:09 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


On Tue, 5 Nov 1991 01:02:34 Kath Mullholand said:

>          This area code is bordered
>          by only one other, whether
>          north south east or west.

What is 617, Boston (surrounded by 508, eastern Mass.)? What is 713,
Houston (surrounded by 409, S.E. Texas)? What is 312, Chicago
(surrounded by 708, N.E. Illinois, I think -- the "map" in my phone
book sucks and is unclear). What is 907, Alaska (borders 604, British
Columbia)? Then there are 808, Hawaii, and 902, Nova Scotia/P.E.I.,
which border nothing.

Also, in reference to the jingle about New York, my book says the
Bronx is in 212 with Manhattan. 718 is Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten
Island. So the jingle is correct as originally quoted.

Incidentally, what is wrong with having maps that approximately
correspond to the land masses they supposedly represent, instead of
the godawful computer-generated "artworks" we see everywhere from the
phone book to the evening news these days?


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


[Moderator's Note: Actually, 312 also borders 219 for several miles on
the south side of Chicago. And some of those places you mentioned
which have water on one or more sides of them wouldn't count either,
since there is technically a 'country code' for ships at sea. And
Alaska does border 604, but a small part also borders 403 I think. PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 10:12:21 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


How about this one?

        If you aren't in the mood
        for fall showers,
        take these locales in area codes
        207, 215, 309, 506, 517, 607, 613, 803, and 919.

(List is not necessarily complete...)


Kath Mullholand, University of NH  Durham, NH

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 10:36:35 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


Remember the answer?

>      This area code is bordered
>      by only one other, whether
>      north south east or west.

There were four correct "questioners", even though the question may
not have have implied clearly that the area code was landlocked.

They were:  [e-mail] (ethan miller)
            [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
            [e-mail] (Tarl Neustaedter)
            [e-mail] (Patrick L. Humphrey)


On to Double Jeopardy.

Kath Mullholand,  University of NH, Durham, NH

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

Date: Tue, 05 Nov 91 12:05:11 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


[e-mail] (KATH MULLHOLAND) wrote:

>          This area code is bordered
>          by only one other, whether
>          north south east or west.
>

"What is 902 ?"
  and soon:
"What is 416 ?"


Tony H.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 09:54 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


Kath Mullholand, University of NH, Durham, NH writes:

>          This area code is bordered
>          by only one other, whether
>          north south east or west.

What is 713?  (Houston)

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

From: aspect![e-mail] (Kevin Collins)
Subject: Re: Largest North-South Area Code
Date: 5 Nov 91 19:31:42 GMT
Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stewart
Clamen) answers:

> Here's a $1000 clue:
>
>             This area code
>             spans the largest
>             north-south distance.

What is 809? (Bermuda in the mid-Atlantic in the north, Trinidad and
Tobago off the coast of South America (Venezuela?) in the south).


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

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 18:08:39 GMT


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

>   That's true, in fact the Bronx is so up that it's now in 718, no
> longer 212 ....

Brrrp!  Sorry, wrong answer.

New York Metro Area Codes:

212: Manhattan and Bronx
718: Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island
516: Long Island (e.g. Nassau, Suffolk Co.)
914: Upstate (e.g. Westchester Co.)

917: New area code for NYC.  My first information was that 212 would
be split, with the Bronx going into 917, and with new exchange codes
added in Manhattan for other than standard lines (e.g. for pager
company, cellular, and possibly DID trunks?) going into 917.  I've
since heard that 917 will be an overlay on 212, not a split.  I don't
know which is correct.  Hello Bellcore?


David G Lewis                    AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 09:35:25 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


Kath Mullholand writes the latest Jeopardy clue:

> This area code is bordered by only one other, whether north south east
> or west.

Hmm -- isn't this 214 serving Dallas, Texas?

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 01:56:50 GMT


[e-mail] (Stewart Clamen) writes:

> Here's a $1000 clue:
>            This area code
>            spans the largest
>            north-south distance.

That's got to be 907 - Alaska.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Nov  6 03:48:15 GMT 1991
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


ANSWER: What is 713?


Mark Van Buskirk

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

From: TELEOCM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Date: Tue 5 Nov 1991 00:00:00 CST


Here is my submission:

It is broken in two parts which don't touch each other. The little
part in the middle is completely surrounded by another one .. Then the
bigger part of the first one surrounds the whole thing on three sides.


PAT

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 03:32:00 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> Southwestern Bell has announced the splitting of 512 on 11 / 1 / 92.

> 210 will serve San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley.

> 512 will remain in use in an area stretching from Lampasas
> through Austin, San Marcos, Victoria and Corpus Christi to south of
> Kingsville.  Cities to be switched to 210 include San Antonio, New
> Braunfels, Seguin, Eagle Pass, Laredo, Zapata, McAllen, Harlingen and
> Brownsville.

Lampasas?  I'm a native Texan, and I didn't realize 512 got that far
north ... so much for the neat-o new area code maps that show lovely
neo-geographic facts such as, Delaware is now wider east-west than
north-south.  (Pac*Bell says so, so it *must* be true!)

Anyhoo, that's a pretty convoluted boundary, leaving 512 as a narrow
stripe about 75 miles wide and about 300 miles long, kind of like 908
only bigger.  From my limited knowledge of the subject, though, it
does sound like they kept to LATA lines pretty closely -- is that the
case?  (Of course, Texas has quite a few LATAs, something like 17 of
them.)

I'm just a bit surprised that they split it in the direction they did
 -- I would've expected San Antonio to keep 512 and Austin and/or
Corpus to get the new area code.  My mother's home town of Goliad
won't have to change after all!


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

P.S. A COCOT in San Francisco yesterday intercepted as "invalid
number" a call to 510, and the "permissive" dialing period is almost
half over.  I took my business to another phone, after leaving a
message on their repair line to get their act together or get out of
the payphone biz.

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

From: bnr-rsc![e-mail] (Jim Somerville)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 17:15:57 -0500
Organization: Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada


In article <[e-mail]> mitel!Software!grayt@
uunet.uu.net (Tom Gray) writes:

> As an interesting note, we have been on Standard Time for more than a
> week now in Ontario. Howevr my Maestro telephone with Class service
> still displays DST.
> Bell Canada keeps telling us that their new equipment is so modern.
> You would think tat they could program their switches to follow the
> time change.

I work on the operating system of said equipment ie. Northern
Telecom's DMS family of telephone switches.  I read this group
regularly so your observations are not falling on deaf ears.

Standard disclaimers apply.  These comments in no way represent my
employer, BNR, Northern Telecom, or Bell Canada.


Jim Somerville (bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!jim)    Phone:    [phone]
Bell-Northern Research, Stop 145    Usenet:utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!jim
P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 13:04:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Guy R
Berentsen) writes:

> I have heard that line noise on data calls is often caused by improper
> syncronization between the switches at each end of a digital path.
> This causes enough of the signal to get dropped to generate noise on a
> modem call ( often looks like periodic '{' chars ) even though it is
> not perceptable on a voice call.

Clock slips.  Actually poor syncronization between the transmit end
and the receive end of any T1 digital path, even if it is not a
switch, will cause the problem.  The receive end will either skip a
byte of data or repeat the last byte of data, depending on whether it
needs to catch up or slow down, and that results in a phase jump that
a modem will detect.  It usually will not bother 1200 bps or slower
modems, but will produce the classic '{{{{{{{' pattern at 2400 bps
with modems that do not do error correction.

Since the sampling rate is 8 Khz, that one byte dropped or added
usually can't be heard on a voice connection.  Occasionally the
problem is such that many "clock slips" happen all at once, and that
can be heard as a slight pop or tick.


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

Date: Tue, 05 Nov 91 09:31:59 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality


On Mon, 4 Nov 91 19:10:58 EST [e-mail] (Guy R Berentsen)
said:

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

>> 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.

> I have heard that line noise on data calls is often caused by improper
> syncronization between the switches at each end of a digital path.
> This causes enough of the signal to get dropped to generate noise on a
> modem call ( often looks like periodic '{' chars ) even though it is
> not perceptable on a voice call.

This is similar to what happened to us when Harvard installed its 5ESS
a couple of years ago. It took N.E.T. and Harvard's Network Services
geniuses over a year to isolate and fix (they called it "tuning" the
connections to several other switches in the area. Wellesley (or was
it Melrose?) and Roxbury come to mind as particular problems. The
symptom was as you describe -- no degradation of voice, but data
calls, even at 1200 bps, would drop or fail to connect with repeated
{{{{{'s. I was told that the problem switches were 1AESSes, though,
not digital.

The problems came and went. As soon as they got one area settled,
another switch would "go out of tune". (Of course, it wasn't really
the _other_ switch that was the problem, it was us). I was doing phone
support for modem dialers at the time, and I eventually learned to
suspect this problem right off the bat. It seemed to me then that in
their great wisdom the phone gods had designed a piece of equipment
whose sophistication greatly surpassed that of the people who were
intended to operate it.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Prodigy's Latest Fiasco
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 02:39:51 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Really, this has gone too far off topic to continue
> here. Maybe one of the .talk groups would be a good place to go.  (I
> did like the Reagan comment though! :)  PAT]

Some men are called to greatness; others have greatness thrust upon
them; I just sit around and exercise my twisted sense of humor and
then inflict it upon you, Pat.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Another MCI Offer: Is This a Scam?
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 13:29:20 GMT


Hey Brian,

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

> Has anyone had any experience with this?  I am a recent college grad
> (B.S.E.E.)  who faxes his resume's to potential employers quite
   ^^^^^^^

You finished it up eh!

Have you faxed a copy of that resume to Alascom?  Lately?

Right now might be a real good time.


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 19:03:04 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> Somehow, I don't think that the SJ14 1ESS is going to end up in the
> Smithsonian :-)

Well, John, considering how long it took Pacific Bell to retire those
old crossbars, perhaps your 1ESS *will* end up in the Smithsonian, as
the LAST one in service!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #890
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06128;
          6 Nov 91 5:41 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27778
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 01:20:59 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27822
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 01:20:44 -0600
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 01:20:44 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #891

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Nov 91 01:20:25 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 891

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [Mark Fulk]
    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [Mickey Ferguson]
    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [Peng H. Ang]
    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mark Fulk)
Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 16:20:13 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes:

> Time and time again, I keep seeing contributors to this Digest make
> references to how wonderful allowing competition for local dial tone
> will be.  Well, I, for one, cannot share in their enthusiasm.

I think you raise valid issues, but I think that they can be dealt
with.

> I will admit I am not an expert on the early days of telecom history,
> but I keep hearing stories of how our towns and cities were served by
> different, competing telephone companies in the past and of the chaos
> that resulted from such policy.  Things like merchants wasting money
> having three or four phones installed (from three or four different
> phone companies) so that all their customers could reach them.

Obviously there must be a connectivity standard.  The early days of
telephone were utterly unregulated, and consequently are not a fair
representation of what a regulated competitive phone system would be.

Furthermore, the technology available up until the 60's, at the
earliest, would have made adequate inter-telco connection
prohibitively expensive.  Bear in mind that, if there are two
equal-sized phone companies in an area, and people choose randomly,
roughly 50% of all phone calls will have to be routed between the two
companies.  If there are more companies, the percentages are likely to
be worse.

> And while all this vigorous competition was taking place in the
> cities, farmers, ranchers, and residents of small, isolated towns had
> no telephone service simply because there were no profits to be made
> by serving such areas.

Certainly this issue needs to be addressed.  Service to sparse areas
is an important social good.  There are several important points:

1) By reducing the cost of switches and trunks, modern technology has
made serving rural areas much more reasonable.  Any place that has
electricity can have a trunk run in, and a switch for 50 or 100 people
is not an unreasonable proposition.  A fiber-optic trunk can easily be
hung from the same poles as the electric wires.  The extremely small
number of people who live in even more remote areas could use a
subsidized satellite phone service; the price of satellite antennas
has been dropping like a stone.  (Interestingly, my cousin Judy and
her husband have no electricity, but DO have a phone, at their house
five miles back into the woods in Vermont.)

2) The population is now much more urbanized than it was at the turn
of the century.  Only 1% or so live on farms, and of those, probably
only a few percent could be described as living in an extremely remote
area.  75% live in the northeast corridor, very little of which is far
from an urban area.  The number of people who would be best served by
a satellite link is extremely small; I would be surprised if there
were even a million.

3) Given the above, some form of taxation or requirement of service to
support rural telephone service seems a reasonable idea, as it does
not represent a severe burden.  The hardest problem is determining a
fair rate to charge the rural customers.

> Like it or not, local telephone service is, has always been, and
> probably always will be a natural monopoly.  This is a result of the
> high cost of stringing (or burying) cable through an area, and also of
> the fact that one properly-maintained cable system can serve an area
> as well (actually better than, since there are less connectivity
> problems) as two or three, but without the added labor and
> inconvenience of the extra systems.

The economies of a monopoly are well known.  The diseconomies of
regulated monopolies are harder to determine.  I think it is arguable
that the diseconomies of multiple phone systems are now low enough
that they are exceeded by the diseconomies of monopolies.

As for the cost of stringing cable: most of the cost of cable is
really in the telephone poles and rights-of-way (or easements).  I
think that local governments should probably own most of the telephone
poles and underground conduits, and the telephone companies (and
electric companies) should lease insulators on the poles.  There needs
to be a suitable set of laws punishing deliberate cable-cutting, and a
way of distributing the cost of repairs of deliberate cable-cuts even
when the perpetrators cannot be identified.

> I can imagine readers itching to fire off a response saying "what
> about using radio waves?"  An interesting idea, but first, take a look

Not an interesting idea for long.  I would only advocate radio
connections for very remote locations, and for mobile services.

> Of course, there's always the cable TV network.  Even this, however,
> could not be turned into a telephone wire plant overnight.  A CATV
 ...
> So whether you're interested in the CATV company's phone service or not,
> they will make you pay for converting their system to carry phone calls.

They are going to be converting their systems to optical fiber one of
these years anyway, and we'll certainly pay then.  CATV is really only
interesting as a capital source for the creation of a competing data
carrier.

> Then, of course, there's the problem of ensuring that the networks be
> well-interconnected.  Do _you_ want to pay long-distance changes to
 ...
> If the answer to any of the above questions is "no", then clearly some
> form of regulation is required to ensure some standards of
> connectivity (and sanity at the user interface level).  Now, as

I believe that regulating connectivity, 911 service, and the like will
be easier than regulating rates.  The required service standards can
be made quite objective, whereas setting rates depends on evaluating
costs and depreciation and a multitude of other, rather ill-defined,
financial issues.  To some extent, the competing telcos can be made to
monitor each other.  Automatic monitoring equipment can measure
compliance.  And the threat behind the rules can be "comply or have
your license revoked," which is a good bit stronger than "we won't
let you have your latest rate increase."

With quite a bit less leverage, we have been able to get the RBOCs and
independent local telcos to provide connections to all of the major LD
carriers.  Indeed, there was a lot of grief along the way; however, I
think a lot of the grief was caused by an ill-planned transition from
the old system to the new.  And the grief was mostly in the form of
unhappiness at not yet having a cheap service; not in the form of
missing services.

Now that I think about it, you might have been arguing with a straw
man.

I do not support the establishment of an unregulated free market in
telephone service.  I am just suggesting the substitution of a
regulated oligopoly for a regulated monopoly, in order to substitute
market forces for regulation of prices.  I do know some of the flaws
of oligopolies (e.g. the difficulty of introducing expensive new
technology).  I don't think they will be serious in the telephone
industry.  But I will argue those points in other postings, if other
people wish to raise them.


Mark A. Fulk                Computer Science Department
[e-mail]            University of Rochester
Omit needless words -- Strunk        Rochester, NY  14627

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 11:00:42 PST
From: [e-mail] (Mickey Ferguson)
Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea
Organization: Rolm Systems


In a recent Digest, David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
writes about competition for local phone service being bad.  Unless I
am misreading something, I interpret an underlying premise of his
message is that because calls go from one provider to another, they
will be charged as long distance calls, even though the distance may,
in fact, be very short.  This may have been true in "the olden days,"
:) but it would seem to me that the PUCs could prevent this by
regulation.  I see no reason why the competition couldn't be forced to
provide service across to other providers at the same rates as are
determined by our LATAs which are defined by the PUC.  If this were
done, I believe it takes most of the steam out of the argument against
allowing local competition.


Mickey Ferguson      Rolm Systems      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: IBT and Centel both operate in the city of Chicago,
and they exchange traffic on a local call basis.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 05 Nov 91 10:19 EST
From: "Peng_H.Ang" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea


Bart raises a number of related issues on natural monopoly in the
local loop.

> I keep hearing stories of how our towns and cities were served by
> different, competing telephone companies in the past and of the chaos
> that resulted ... merchants wasting money having three of four phones.

Someone from the U. of Pennsylvania has done a doctoral dissertation
on the issue. He found that 1) the concept of universal service has
changed and that 2) that competition in the local loop has helped
penetration of the telephone.  In fact, according to his findings,
phone penetration in the farmland of Iowa in the early 1900s was
higher than penetration now in certain parts of Western Europe. (The
exact details elude me.) There is also argument along this line that
US phone penetration is high because it was in private (ie compet-
itive) hands and not in government hands.

It might also interest you to note that Sir Bryan Carsberg, head of
the British Office of Telecommunications that regulates telecom in UK,
recently said that there is no reason the economics of the local
service is so different from that of the long-distance service as to
preclude competition.

Back to universal service. The U.Penn researcher said the concept of
universal service in the past was that one phone should be able to
connect to all numbers. That is, there should not be three or four
phones. An eminently sensible idea. Now, our idea of universal service
is that *everyone* should be able to get a phone.

> there's the problem of ensuring that the networks are well-inter-
> connected.

If the traditional concept of universal service is used, inter-connec-
tion will not be a problem.

Bart is right that there will be more bureaucracy and perhaps higher
taxes.  But these in themselves are not grounds to maintain monopoly.
All over the world, telecos are being privatized (28 at last count).
Almost all if not all will have more regulation. But the benefits just
outweigh that cost.

Perhaps the safe typical-academic-cop-out answer is to say: more
studies are needed. But right now, my gut feelings go with
competition. When it is cheaper for me in East Lansing to call Los
Angeles than to call Detroit, my guts tell me something is wrong.

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

Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea
Date: 5 Nov 91 12:06:07 PST (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


David W. Barts <[e-mail]> writes:

> I will admit I am not an expert on the early days of telecom history,
> but I keep hearing stories of how our towns and cities were served by
> different, competing telephone companies in the past and of the chaos
> that resulted from such policy.

That was then. This is now. To discount the bulk of your article,
there are numerous ways of providing for multiple local carriers in
any community. Common fiber trunkage, short-haul microwave, CATV,
etc., can be used quite effectively and maintain interconnectivity. In
short, there are no valid technical reasons to oppose competition.
These same arguments used to be used to explain why competition in the
IEC field was impossible.

> Of course, there's always the cable TV network.  Even this, however,
> could not be turned into a telephone wire plant overnight.

So if something cannot be done overnight, we should just give it up,
right?

> Then, of course, there's the problem of ensuring that the networks be
> well-interconnected.  Do _you_ want to pay long-distance changes to
> call your neighbor across the street, just because they use TCI Cable
> phone service and you use US West?

I would suggest that you look at Pac*Bell's current rate restructuring
proposal that is now before the PUC. If this is approved, this is
exactly what will happen -- Pac*Bell would like to price local calls
as if they were long distance. So what do we do about that? We cannot
go to the competition; there isn't any.

> Do small businessmen, already
> operating at a meager profit margin, want to be forced to pay for
> _two_ phone lines, not for any additional service, but just to
> maintain the customer contact they already have?  Do you want your
> call to 911 be answered by a fast busy because your telco pulled the
> plug on the telco serving 911 because of a billing dispute?  Or will
> the 911 call be answered with "Do-da-deeeee, The number you have
> dialed, 9 1 1, is incorrect.  The correct number is 9 9 9.  Please
> hang up and try your call again."

These are very silly and unrealistic scenarios. You can make up all
the horror fantasies you want and for your efforts the current LECs
will be most appreciative. But the truth of the matter is that saying
that local exchange service is a natural monopoly is like saying that
interexchange service is a natural monopoly and I think that MCI and
Sprint could take issue with that. What has happened since the
"impossible" took place? Much better quality, more advanced services,
much cheaper rates, and many other benefits too numerous to mention
here.

LEC competition IS inevitable. With companies such as Pac*Bell now
wanting to rape the small subscriber, the time is coming closer,
faster. At $1.20 per hour for a call ACROSS THE STREET, Pac*Bell is
making "universal service" a bad joke. You claim that competition will
drive the cost up rather than down. I think Pac*Bell is single-handedly
proving you wrong.

> With several big telcos, and oodles of tiny ones, there will be
> even more firms to police, so even more regulators will be hired.  The
> end result: more bureaucracy, higher taxes, and telephone service
> won't improve much (and it may even get worse).

Allow me to introduce you to the most effective regulator of them all:
The Marketplace. With competition, providers will have to woo
subscribers on the basis of price and service. What a novel concept!
I cannot fathom the idea that ANYONE would consider the current system
of a utility flim-flamming some brain-dead bureaucrats with things
such as "revenue shifting" and "cost of providing service" to be
superior to market reality.

You absolutely cannot have a company that is simultaneously involved
in competition AND monopoly in the same field at the same time.
Pac*Bell is working both sides of the street: running a monopoly at
the individual subscriber level and then competing in the short-haul
long distance arena. How can ANYONE claim that this is a viable or
beneficial (to anyone other than Pac*Bell) situation? Full monopoly or
full competition is the answer. We have been through monopoly and
apparently did not like it. What is the remaining choice?

> Local dialtone competition just doesn't make sense to me.

It will.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #891
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06191;
          6 Nov 91 20:35 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05931
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 18:08:55 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05890
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 18:08:46 -0600
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 18:08:46 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #892

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Nov 91 16:08:44 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 892

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [Bob Clements]
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [Bill Gripp]
    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [David G. Lewis]
    Re: I *Couldn't* Use AT&T! [David Singer]
    Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Toronto Star via Rick Broadhead]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 10:47:58 EST
From: [e-mail]


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

> [Moderator's Note: Nope, not true at all, because a telemarketer does
> have a legitimate business reason for calling. The fact that you or I
> or anyone else is not interested does not remove the legitimacy of the
> call in the first place. The difference between them and phreaks who
> war-dial an entire community is the phreak had no business calling the
> number in the first place ... the telemarketer did.   PAT]

Balderdash!

A telemarketer has no more legitimate reason to call me in my home
than does a modem-searching phreak.

Each is trying to get something from me, against my will, that they
have no right to.  In one case, the use of my computer, and in the
other case the use of my wallet.


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Wrong again. The telemarketer is soliciting you for
a business transaction. The phreak is trying to steal from you. Both
may be unsightly, ill-bred creatures; but the fact that you do not
want anything to do with either of them does not mean they are equal
in purpose or intent.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Organization: The Bank of New York
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 15:26:58 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Remember the guy who was a programmer for a bank
> who fixed the bank's computer so that all the tiny fractions of a cent
> of interest which otherwise were rounded off and dropped got put in
> his account instead? The fractional shavings when totalled up amounted
> to a nice piece of change for him. No one customer noticed the small
> amount of victimization, yet the guy was found guilty of fraud
> against the bank.

The only place I remember this from is Richard Pryor in Superman III.
Did this really happen???  If so where?


[Moderator's Note: I think the scene in Superman III was inspired by
the actual incident several years ago. Sorry, I do not have specific
references available now. Can anyone else provide specifics?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 17:55:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes:

> Time and time again, I keep seeing contributors to this Digest make
> references to how wonderful allowing competition for local dial tone
> will be.  Well, I, for one, cannot share in their enthusiasm.

> I will admit I am not an expert on the early days of telecom history,
> but I keep hearing stories of how our towns and cities were served by
> different, competing telephone companies in the past and of the chaos
> that resulted from such policy.  Things like merchants wasting money
> having three or four phones installed (from three or four different
> phone companies) so that all their customers could reach them.

The problem in the early competitive era of telephony was the lack of
well-defined and enforced interconnection arrangements.  Businesses
needed to have multiple phones because local telcos refused to
interconnect with each other.  Refusing to interconnect was a
mechanism to gain market share.

> And while all this vigorous competition was taking place in the
> cities, farmers, ranchers, and residents of small, isolated towns had
> no telephone service simply because there were no profits to be made
> by serving such areas.

Also because it took a significant amount of time to get there.  Lack
of service in isolated areas continued to be a problem long after the
demise of local telephone competition, and "Universal Service" --
getting phone service to these areas -- continued to be a goal of the
Bell System for a good 20-30 years (at least) after competition went
by the wayside.

> Like it or not, local telephone service is, has always been, and
> probably always will be a natural monopoly.

How can something be a natural monopoly when it was originally
competitive?

> This is a result of the
> high cost of stringing (or burying) cable through an area,

One of the defining factors of a natural monopoly is natural barriers
to entry.  I will grant that for a company to go in and duplicate the
existing telco plant would be sufficiently costly to be a natural
barrier to entry.  But I submit that it would be exceedingly stupid
for a carrier seeking to compete to do so.

I would also submit that the cost of stringing or burying cable
through an area is overestimated by many people.  Yes, it's expensive
 - but not prohibitively so.

What are the components of cost of outside plant?  Rights-of-way,
materials, and installation.  Let's look at them in order.

Access to rights-of-way is usually cited as one of the largest
barriers to entry.  But all that means is that underground or aerial
right-of-way is a natural monopoly.  In New York City, the government
has recognized that the right-of-way is the natural monopoly, and a
company called Empire City Subway owns all the underground
right-of-way in the city.  They are obligated to lease rights-of-way
to anyone -- sort of a "common carrier" of space.  They are also a
"value-added provider" -- they own conduits built in the r-o-w, and
will lease conduit space if you don't want to build your own.

Yes, access to rights-of-way can be a barrier to entry.  But I would
submit that the solution is regulating free and fair access to
rights-of-way, not mandating that only one company shall be granted
access to r-o-w, and that company is therefore a natural monopoly
because no one else has access to the r-o-w.  That's a state-imposed
monopoly.

Material?  Yes, to lay five hundred thousand route-miles of fiber
would be prohibitively costly.  But even the Bells aren't doing that.
If I'm going to compete with a local telco, I'm not going to try to
duplicate in one year, or five years, or twenty years, a network that
it took over a hundred years to build.

"Cream-skimming!", I hear you cry.  Of course, that's the same thing
you cried when MCI put some microwave towers between Chicago and St.
Louis.

Installation?  Ditto.

> and also of the fact that one properly-maintained cable system can
> serve an area as well (actually better than, since there are less
> connectivity problems) as two or three, but without the added labor
> and inconvenience of the extra systems.

I must strongly disagree here (like I've only been weakly disagreeing
above...).  If I'm going to try to compete with Big Monopoly Telco,
I've got to find ways to do things cheaper and better than them.  So
I'll use techniques, architectures, methods that let me provide the
same or better service at a lower cost.  Guess what?  BMT is going to
feel some pressure, and start figuring out new techniques of their
own.  Both our costs are going to come down, and both our quality of
service is going to go up - mine, because I've got to stay one step
ahead of BMT; theirs, because they're trying to keep or win back the
market share that I'm trying to grab.

For another line of argument, I could say that one long-distance
system can serve a country as well or better than two or three for the
same reason, but I don't think many people would agree with me.

> I can imagine readers itching to fire off a response saying "what
> about using radio waves?"  An interesting idea, but first, take a look
> at a radio frequency allocation chart.  Notice anything?  That's
> right!  All the frequencies are already taken.

I'd submit that in the places where spectrum is least available,
physical right of way for cable is most available (given a neutral
regulatory environment like I've described in NYC).

> Even in the event that spectrum space _could_ be found to accommodate
> local exchange competition, we'd still have a natural monopoly for
> telephone service.  Since spectrum space is a scarce resource...

Open (non-leading) question: Does anyone know of any studies of
situations where two "scarce resources" can be used for the same
purpose?  Does the market behave the same way as it does in the
presence of a single scarce resource, does it settle into duopoly, or
does it act as if there is no scarce resource?  (Hmm, I think I see a
thesis in there somewhere ...)

> Of course, there's always the cable TV network.  Even this, however,
> could not be turned into a telephone wire plant overnight.

It does, however, give me a handy right-of-way to run my fiber
through, complete with building entrances ...

> Then, of course, there's the problem of ensuring that the networks be
> well-interconnected.

I agree that this is the kicker.  However, it's a very different thing
to say "local competitive telecom networks must be gracefully
interconnected" than to say "local telecom is a natural monopoly."

> Do _you_ want to pay long-distance changes to
> call your neighbor across the street, just because they use TCI Cable
> phone service and you use US West?

If "the street" happens to be a boundary between two local telcos,
e.g.  United Tel and NJ Bell, the situation occurs today - which means
that there are established precedents for local telco interconnection.
Granted, there are issues outstanding.  Those issues are being worked
even as we speak.  New York, New Jersey, Chicago, Massachussets, and
California (to my knowledge) have established agreements between LECs
and other carriers which share the same geographic area for
interconnection of leased line services.  Switched services are still
a ways away, but coming.

> Do small businessmen, already
> operating at a meager profit margin, want to be forced to pay for
> _two_ phone lines, not for any additional service, but just to
> maintain the customer contact they already have?  Do you want your
> call to 911 be answered by a fast busy because your telco pulled the
> plug on the telco serving 911 because of a billing dispute?

I think you're getting into a little bit of hyperbole here ... mandate
that telcos are obligated to interconnect their local networks.
Mandate the grade of service for that interconnection.  Mandate that
calls which can not be completed on the originating network shall be
handed off to the geographically-colocated network.  Allow handoff to
be at a point chosen by the originating network.  Allow the
originating caller to specify a transit network (IXC) for calls which
can not be completed on the originating network, and leave this choice
to the caller (or billed party).  Establish intercompany charges for
delivering calls to the destination party, similar to access charges,
or let these be negotiated between companies, subject to the condition
that such arrangements must *not* prevent calls from being completed.
Have the regulatory agencies have responsibilities for policing
interconnection arrangements and arbitrating disputes over grade of
service, billing, and other interconnection issues.

> If the answer to any of the above questions is "no", then clearly some
> form of regulation is required to ensure some standards of
> connectivity (and sanity at the user interface level).  Now, as
> numerous posters have detailed over and over in this forum, state
> PUC's have enough trouble keeping one big telco and many small ones in
> line.  With several big telcos, and oodles of tiny ones, there will be
> even more firms to police, so even more regulators will be hired.  The
> end result: more bureaucracy, higher taxes, and telephone service
> won't improve much (and it may even get worse).

You're slipping in the unstated assumption that the regulatory
agencies will still be responsible for their current functions,
including rate of return regulation, tariff approval, customer
complaint handling, and all the other things that make up "regulation"
of the "natural monopoly".  Eliminate the tariff approval process
because the telco is subject to competitive price pressure, and you
eliminate a large chunk of staff.  Eliminate the armies of accountants
to perform ROR calculations and audit telco books to prevent
cross-subsidies between "regulated" and "unregulated" lines of
business, and you eliminate even more.  Pare down the regulatory
agencies to fulfill the policing and arbitration functions I described
above, and I doubt they would be larger than they are today.


David G Lewis        AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

Subject: Re: I *Couldn't* Use AT&T!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Singer)
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 20:54:25 -0800
From: [e-mail]


AT&T service called me back on Saturday afternoon and told me that GTE
had asked them to "reroute the trunks" on Friday morning, but
obviously the entire process hadn't been completed, leaving me without
1+ access to the network.  They said that 0+ access should have
worked, and suggested that I try using Call Manager if I ever have the
problem again (though Call Manager won't connect me to an 800 number,
since it requires calling 0+NPA+number, and 0+800+number goes to an
intercept recording).

For what it's worth, I was unable to connect to AT&T for over an hour;
that's a long time to be disconnected from the One True Network.

I'd tried calling GTE repair service, but gave up after a few minutes
on hold.  I had to wait for AT&T, too, but the person I reached seemed
able to understand what I told him, unlike my last experience with
GT&E.  And I was happy that AT&T called back to explain, even if it
was 24 hours later.


David Singer -- Internet: [e-mail]   BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN
                Voice: [phone]              Fax: [phone]
(For good time, call [phone].)

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

Date: Tue, 05 Nov 91 00:08:14 EST
From: Rick Broadhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  AT&T Online Translation Service


Speaking of translation services ...

Toronto, effective Monday, is using AT&T's online translation services
in Monterey, California.  Previously, when the 911 operator could not
understand a caller, ambulance, fire, and police vehicles were all
dispatched to the scene.


CHIEF HAILS 911 SERVICE TO INTERPRET LANGUAGES

By Dottie O'Neill
TORONTO STAR

A new emergency phone service that instantly interprets calls for help
in 140 languages is "absolutely fantastic" says Metro police Chief
William McCormack.

The system that the Metro police department has plugged into "meets
the needs of concerned groups within Metro's ethnic communities,"
McCormack said yesterday.

Starting Monday, calls to the emergency 911 line will provide almost
instant interpretation in 140 different languages, Metro police
announced yesterday.

These will include everything from Afrikaans to Zulu and Cantonese,
Mandarin, Swahili and Urdu.

The multilingual around-the-clock telephone service is provided by the
AT&T Language Line, acting Sergeant Lisa Hodgins said.

Call takers at Metro's police communications centre on Jarvis St. will
reach the service through a toll-free number "and a language line
service interpreter will come on the line momentarily" to determine
details of the emergency, Hodgins said.

With the touch of a button known as speed dialing, the local call
taker gets immediate access to the multilingual centre in Monterey,
Calif., said Inspector Bill Holdridge of the communications section.

The Metro call taker stays on the line to receive the interpreter's
instructions as given by the caller.

Last month, Metro police received at least 50 emergency calls from
people speaking languages that were not immediately recognizable,
Holdridge said.

AT&T will bill police $2 a minute to use the service.  The average
conversation lasts for five minutes, research has shown.

"Ten dollars is very, very cheap to save a life or prevent a major
crime," Holdridge said.

The system was developed by a California police officer in the early
1980s after an influx of Vietnamese refugees.

Peel Region police have also hooked up to the service recently.

[originally appeared in {The Toronto Star}, Saturday November 2, 1991]


Rick Broadhead   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #892
******************************















Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09851;
          6 Nov 91 22:59 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25787
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 21:06:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25158
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 21:06:03 -0600
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 21:06:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #893

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Nov 91 21:06:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 893

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Scott Fybush]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Linc Madison]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Carl Moore]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [David Cornutt]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Gregory M. Marr]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [Stewart Clamen]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [John R. Levine]
    Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (ANSWER) [Stewart Clamen]
    Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption [Warren Burstein]
    Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption [Jeff Hibbard]
    Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting System [Tad Cook]
    Re: Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index [Craig R. Watkins]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 17:21 EDT
From: Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


TELECOM Moderator entered the fray, giving clues for 708:

You didn't have to be so obvious as to pick your very own city!  The
answer is obviously 708, where there are small pockets of 708
completely surrounded by the city of Chicago (312), which is itself
bounded on three sides by the rest of 708.  Now if you then include
the 312 enclave at O'Hare that is, I believe, surrounded by 708, the
fun really starts!  (I understand the 213/310 and 301/410 boundaries
are similarly convoluted)

>From just within the 617/508 line,

Scott Fybush -- [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Actually, O'Hare is not disconnected from Chicago,
just barely ... what I mean is, Illinois law provides that you can't
have the same city in two different places without some geographical
link between them. In order for O'Hare to be Chicago politically,
while at the same time Rosemont, IL geographically, a small thin slice
of land extends from Chicago proper on the northwest side down Foster
Avenue out to the airport where it 'balloons' or mushrooms full size
into O'Hare. The buildings on either side of Foster Avenue are in the
town of Rosemont (? correct, Mr. Tamkin?) while the street itself is
considered Chicago.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 01:38:35 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> It is broken in two parts which don't touch each other. The little
> part in the middle is completely surrounded by another one .. Then the
> bigger part of the first one surrounds the whole thing on three sides.

Well, I guess I'd have to guess "What is 708?" although I don't know
exactly what part of 708 is surrounded by 312.  508 is possible, but I
don't think it's the answer.

As for longest north-south, I think it's 403 -- all the way from the
Alberta/Montana provincial line almost to the North Pole.  I believe
that's a good bit farther than Alaska or Area Code 809.  (BTW, Alaska
has quite a long border with 403 -- Yukon)

For my submission, consider this one:
"This County is home to five area codes, more than any other U.S.
County."  (I believe it's five, not six, although it's close at the
northeast corner.)


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]
So when are 408 and 609 going to split?  Every other area code I've ever
lived in has split or is about to!  (512, 713, 214, 415)


[Moderator's Note: The villages of Norridge, IL and Harwood Heights,
IL are totally surrounded by Chicago. They touch each other. The two
of them also touch an area called 'Unincorporated Norwood Township'
which is for the most part 708, but with a small section in 312. I've
since remembered another convoluted 312/708 arrangement: North of
Howard Street and west of the CTA yards is considered Evanston (708).
 From the corner of Howard and Clark Streets (which the Evanstonians
prefer to call Howard Street and Chicago Avenue, go about two blocks
north and a little finger of Chicago juts out along Jonquil Terrace
north of the CTA yards. For about fifty yards, you are in back in
Chicago (on the east side of the street, with 312 numbers) until you
reach the alley and the south wall of Calvary Cemetery, where Evanston
starts again on both sides of the street.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 9:58:33 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


No, I do not think 214 (after 214/903 split) is bordered by only one
other area code.  It still touches 817 between Dallas and Fort Worth.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Cornutt)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 15:04:59 GMT


[e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> Henry wrote:

> Was that really the clue, verbatim?  If so, it's wrong!  It's
> not the "east side" that's up, it's The Bronx.  The proper quote (from
> some old Broadway show tune, I think) is:

> The Bronx is up, and The Battery's down.
                           ^^^^^^^
Oh, Battery Park!  I get it!

(For a moment there, I thought they were talking about Thompson St ...)


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] (Gregory M Marr)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 16:12:51 GMT


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

>          This area code is bordered
>          by only one other, whether
>          north south east or west.
>

  Boston Mass area.
  Area code 617
  Bordered north south and west by 508
  Bordered east by Atlantic Ocean


[Moderator's Note: Then 617 would not be correct, since she included
EAST in her description.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 12:35:28 est
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


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

>> This area code is bordered by only one other, whether
>> north south east or west.

> What is 617, Boston (surrounded by 508, eastern Mass.)? What is 713,
> Houston (surrounded by 409, S.E. Texas)? What is 312, Chicago
> (surrounded by 708, N.E. Illinois, I think -- the "map" in my phone
> book sucks and is unclear). What is 907, Alaska (borders 604, British
> Columbia)? Then there are 808, Hawaii, and 902, Nova Scotia/P.E.I.,
> which border nothing.

> [Moderator's Note: Actually, 312 also borders 219 for several miles on
> the south side of Chicago. And some of those places you mentioned
> which have water on one or more sides of them wouldn't count either,
> since there is technically a 'country code' for ships at sea.

Pat, the clue said "area code" -- nothing about water or country codes
counting as area codes.  I think we have to give him 617 on this
basis, though the completely water-bounded area codes he mentioned (he
forgot 809) don't actually meet the test of being bordered by "one
other" area code.  Of course, land-locked 713 is probably the answer
the original riddler had in mind; he just didn't phrase the question
tightly enough.

> And Alaska does border 604, but a small part also borders 403 I
think. PAT]

I'd hardly call the entire Alaska/Yukon Territory border "small"!!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 19:18:21 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

         This area code is bordered
         by only one other, whether
         north south east or west.

I believe 418 (Quebec City and environs) is totally surrounded by 819.


Stewart M. Clamen        Internet:    [e-mail]
School of Computer Science    UUCP:          uunet!"[e-mail]"
Carnegie Mellon University    Phone:          [phone]
5000 Forbes Avenue        Fax:         [phone]
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA

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

Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 6 Nov 91 15:54:52 EST (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


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

> Here's a $1000 clue:

>            This area code
>            spans the largest
>            north-south distance.

An interesting one.  One possibility is 809, which runs from Bermuda
to Trinidad, about 22 degrees of latitude or 1320 nautical miles.  But
the winner is 819, which runs from the Quebec-Vermont border to Baffin
Island, and maybe even to Ellesmere Island.  If there are phones on
the latter, it runs 40 degrees of latitude or 2400 nautical miles.

Another challenger is 403 which runs from Alberta to the western
Canadian Arctic.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 14:16:39 EST
From: [e-mail] (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (ANSWER)
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 19:16:20 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In message <[e-mail]>, I provided the following
clue:


            This area code
             spans the largest
             north-south distance.


In over a week, no one has come up with the response I was looking
for.  Let me review the answers that were posted or mailed to me
directly:


Code    Region                    approx. N/S span (in degrees)

714    LA suburbs (perhaps a typo)              2
702    Nevada                          5
908    Alaska                         20
809    Caribbean                       25
403    Alberta, Yukon, western NWT            >30

And the correct answer, by a large margin, is:

819:    rural Quebec, eastern NWT             40!

(Begins at the Quebec/NH border, extending to the most northly regions
of the Northwest Territories.)

When I initially made the post, I believed the correct response to be
403, assuming that much of the Northern Canadian archipelago (which
extends up to the town of Alert on Ellesmere Island in the mid-80's)
was in that area code.  However, a ten minute conversation with the
supervisor at 403-555-1212 changed my mind.  With the aid of her
atlas, my world map, and her database mapping towns to area codes, we
discovered that Resolute Bay, NWT (74.5 N, 94.5 W) was, in fact, in
the 819 area code.  Since Resolute Bay is west of Ellesmere (to the
north), I must assume that Ellesmere is also in 819.

You might ask, why didn't I research the obvious, and find out what
area code phones in Alert are in?  Well, because all the phones in
Alert (a Canadian/US military base) are run through Ottawa.

Those of you who who guessed Alaska can blame me for not explicitly
specifying that "area code" included all of "Country Code 1".

Thanks to all who participated, including:

Nick Sayer        <[e-mail]>
Joe Isham          <[e-mail]>
Ethan Miller        <[e-mail]>
Kath Mullholand     <[e-mail]>
Eric Weaver        <[e-mail]>
Shih-ping Spencer Sun    <[e-mail]>
Kevin Collins        <aspect![e-mail]>
Ron Dippold        <[e-mail]>


Any omissions were unintentional.


Stewart M. Clamen        Internet:    [e-mail]
School of Computer Science    UUCP:          uunet!"[e-mail]"
Carnegie Mellon University    Phone:          [phone]
5000 Forbes Avenue        Fax:         [phone]
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 12:21:02 IST
Organization: WorldWide Software


I recently had my outgoing service disconnected by Bezeq (the Israeli
telephone company).  I assumed that this was because my landlord had
neglected to have the bill forwarded to me while he was on vacation.

When I got to their office, they printed out a new phone bill (which I
paid, and service was reconnected within a few hours).  When I got
home, I discovered that my landlord had in fact tried to change the
billing address to my apartment, but someone had gotten it wrong.
There was more than enough time for the misaddressed phone bill to
have returned to the phone company.  They made no attempt to contact
me either when the bill returned or before disconnecting my service.
Or perhaps they called, but didn't know what to do with an answering
machine.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Hibbard)
Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 23:24:34 GMT


[e-mail] (David E. Martin) writes:

> For some reason, Illinois Bell doesn't publicize it, but they take
> Visa for payment now.  Just call them up, ask them your balance, and
> you can pay it immediately.

Well, you can try.  I called Illinois Bell on October 14 to pay a bill
which was due on October 17.  Visa shows a payment to Illinois Bell on
October 14 for the expected amount, but my latest phone bill does not
acknowledge the payment, and includes a late charge for not paying it
by the 14th.

Paying the next bill by old-fashioned check now presents a new risk,
since I will be paying a lower amount than shown on their "return this
page with your payment" sheet.  Illinois Bell encodes the MICR dollar
amount on checks themselves, and has a tendency to encode it for the
amount shown on the bill, rather than the amount the check is actually
written for.  Once encoded, no bank handling the check looks at the
hand-written written amount, so Illinois Bell gets whatever amount of
money they feel like taking from you, and you end up wondering why all
your other checks are bouncing.  I know several people this has
happened to.  Of course you can complain to your bank and get your
money back, but it's difficult to figure out what's going on until you
actually see the cancelled check.


Jeff Hibbard, Bradley University, Peoria IL

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

Subject: Re: Telegraph Fire Alerting System
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 23:45:47 PST
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)


[e-mail] (Brack) writes:

> Question 2: I once saw one of these boxes on the side of a fire
>             station.  Any clue as to why?

Once in the early 70s I was visiting a friend on Capitol Hill in
Seattle, and fire broke out in an old school bus parked next to his
house.  The local fire station was right around the corner.  This was
before the days of 911, so I ran over there, and the fastest way to
get the fire department's attention was just to pull the alarm box on
the front of the building.  It was very effective and got a mighty
fast response!


Tad Cook   [e-mail]    Seattle, WA

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 17:52 EST
From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> If any of you have had a chance to get the Volume 9-10-11 Subject
> Index from the archives (ftp lcs.mit.edu) and play around with it, I
> would appreciate your feedback ...

It's great.  I used it the day after it was available to find one of
my own old postings on programming cellular phones.  I needed some of
the info for a phone I was programming but I had given up hope finding
the right issue without the index.

It was perfect for my application.


Craig R. Watkins    Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.        Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]        UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #893
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10732;
          6 Nov 91 23:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30456
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 21:41:31 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30347
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 21:41:21 -0600
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 21:41:21 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #894

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Nov 91 21:41:05 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 894

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done [Ron Dippold)]
    Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done [Wilson Mohr]
    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [Frederick G.M. Roeber]
    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [Norman Yarvin]
    Re: CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications [Dave Singer]
    Re: Toronto Transit Commission's Timeline Service [Mark Brader]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 01:33:26 GMT


[e-mail] (Jeffrey Mattox) writes:

> 3) Is there any cellular telephone on the market that allows its ESN
> to be field-programmed without having to use this method?  I would
> think that there might be a backdoor ESN programming method, or do the
> manufacturers painstakingly program a different control ROM for *each*
> phone?

According to IS-3-D (EIA/TIA-553 Cellular System Mobile Station - Land
Station Compatibility Specification), "It [the ESN] must be factory-set
and not readily alterable in the field.  The circutry that provides
the serial number must be isolated from fraudulent contact and
tampering.  Attempts to change the serial number circuitry should
render the mobile station inoperative."

However, there isn't much they can do to thwart anyone who knows much
about the phone.  Replacing the ROMs with a copy of another phone's
should do it.  If a checksum or such is stored in the EEPROM, you may
have to copy that as well.

Probably the most secure way to do it would be to physically wire the
ESN different for every phone (yich - but maybe with auto-manufacturing
something can be worked out.  Or maybe just have someone cut the
appropriate traces, but then someone else can also cut them and the
cuts can be reconnected).  Perhaps a different PAL for each mobile
that supplies the ESN.  It's not foolproof, again, but Joe Crook is
going to have a much harder time copying the PAL than copying an ROM,
I like this solution.

If you look at EIA/TIA-IS-54 (Cellular System Dual-Mode Mobile Station
- Base Station Compatibility Standard), it in fact adds that
"Modification of the ESN will require a special facility not normally
available to subscribers.  The circuitry that provides the ESN must be
isolated from fraudulent contact and tampering.  Electronic storage
devices mounted in sockets or connected with a cable are deemed not to
comply with this requirement."  This doesn't leave much of a choice
except for hard-wiring the ESN somehow.  Then again, IS-54 is
generally brain dead.

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Wilson Mohr)
Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How
Date: 6 Nov 91 18:26:06 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington
Hgts, IL


> [Moderator's Note: Security wise, what solutions are there against
> people who program their telephone number to one of the demo numbers
> every carrier hands out to their dealers for testing and sales use?
> For example, the RS dealer here has a number on which every cell phone
> in his display case will function. On that particular phone number,
> the cell carrier does not bother to check the ESN -- how could they
> while still letting the dealer demo all his phones?  Likewise, the
> internal phone numbers used by the cell carrier are not ESN validated.
> What prevents a typical user from programming his stolen phone to one
> of those numbers so the ESN is no longer a concern?   PAT]

 Nothing stops these people from implementing the "workarounds" that you
mention. A carrier that choses not to validate ESN's is letting themselves
open to a lot of fraud, as well as other carriers that they have roaming
agreements with. I believe this is a stipulation in some roaming agreements
between carriers that ESN checking is mandatory. (Inter carrier agreements
work on blocks of numbers, etc. and the "owning" carrier is responsible for
airtime incurred by its subscribers in other systems with which they have an
agreement.)

Interesting that a large carrier would not validate ESN's. Some major
carriers that employ this as well as alternative methods of combatting
fraud have six and seven figures in lost revenues. Must be passing it
on to the ratepayers! :^) As for internal numbers, if the revenues
lost there reach a certain amount, someone will look into it. Most of
the carriers with internal numbers register them like any other phone
and validate ESN's, but they write off the phone bills as business
expenses! I'm sure if your local RS got a bill that was out of the
norm they'd get their number changed, and fast!

 Like with anything now in our High Technology world there are
mechanisms to keep honest people honest, yet there will always be a
way around them. Someone who wants to get around the systems will do
so, but not for long. For the honest people this solution COULD lead
to a pain. Like I said before, you can do this, but I wouldn't
recommend it.


Wilson Mohr - Motorola CIG

 ...!uunet!motcid!mohr                 Heh, heh!" - Curly

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

From: [e-mail] (Frederick G.M. Roeber)
Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea
Date: 6 Nov 91 21:39:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes:

> And while all this vigorous competition was taking place in the
> cities, farmers, ranchers, and residents of small, isolated towns had
> no telephone service simply because there were no profits to be made
> by serving such areas.

There are many costs to living out in the middle of nowhere.  Food has
to be trucked in from a distance, so it's more expensive.  You have to
dig your own well, or pay a lot to pipe in water from a distance.
Most places -- work, stores, etc. -- are a lot further away, so you
have to spend a lot of time driving around.  There aren't as many
shops, movie theaters, radio stations, etc.; so entertainment is more
limited or more expensive.  In short: living in the boonies has costs.
Presumably the benefits of living there -- fresh air, fewer people,
scenic green hills and cows, whatever -- outweigh the costs.

Why should phone connectivity be any different?

These places do tend to have stores, gas stations, etc., so I don't
see that they would not have phone service at all.  But like these
other markets, the phone market mightn't be so competitive, and
therefore the services might be more expensive.

But why should someone who is willing to live in the middle of a city
subsidize someone who would rather incur the cost of a country life?

If the answer is "Access to emergency services" -- which is certainly
a valid point, even though there are many other factors greatly
impacting this access which should have been evaluated in the decision
to live there -- why doesn't the question then become "How can the
government best provide access to emergency services" instead of "How
can the government best insure access to phone connectivity to insure
access to emergency services"?

And if it is decided that access to the phone network -- instead of
access to the I've-fallen-and-can't-get-up network, or a broadcast
system (CB channel 9?), or whatever -- is the best way to provide
emergency services, why would this require a regulated monopoly of the
entire local loop business?  Insurance has the "assigned risk"
category.  Radio and TV stations have "public service" requirements.
Local telcos could have similar arrangements.

Or, we could call a spade a spade, and say "this society has decided
that universal access to emergency services is a social good that
should be supported by the entire populace.  Therefore we will levy
such-and-such a tax, and go take bids ..."  This would further reduce
the barriers to entry that suppress market competition.

For an analogy: there are many trucking and delivery services on the
roads today.  They pay business taxes, income taxes, fuel taxes, sales
taxes, etc.  Some of this money ends up paying for ambulances and fire
trucks.  We don't have "The Trucking Company" of which one requirement
is the provision of ambulances and fire trucks to all areas.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Norman Yarvin)
Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:21:58 GMT


[e-mail] (Mark Fulk) writes:

> As for the cost of stringing cable: most of the cost of cable is
> really in the telephone poles and rights-of-way (or easements).  I
> think that local governments should probably own most of the telephone
> poles and underground conduits, and the telephone companies (and
> electric companies) should lease insulators on the poles.

Unfortunately, I don't think we can trust local governments to
maintain the telephone poles as well as the phone companies do.  Not
that maintenance is often required, but when a pole does get destroyed
I wouldn't want to wait months for it to be replaced.

On another topic: Suppose telephone outside plant really is a natural
monopoly in some area.  Consider then the possibilities for (limited)
competition on inside plant.  You'd have one company -- the outside
plant company -- supplying wires from all the houses to a central
office building.  Inside the central office building there would be
several competing local companies' switches, each connected to its own
local trunk network.  A subscriber would change his line from one
switch to another by calling the wireline maintainer and asking them
to unplug his wire from GTE's switch and plug it into MCI's.

Could several companies fit into the CO building?  Perhaps -- telecom
equipment is constantly shrinking in physical size -- but it would
become a very noisy place, not just because of GTE's #1 crossbar, but
also because of the constant sounds of sabotage and psychological
warfare ...  :-)

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

Subject: Re: CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Singer)
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 21:15:01 -0800
From: [e-mail]


Here are some of the rate "restructuring" proposals from GTE:

                       Current Rate           Proposed Rate
Residence Flat Rate      9.75 (11.85)         15.55
Residence Measured       5.25 ( 6.38)          8.15
Business Measured        9.10 (11.06)         14.90
FX Residence Flat       14.75                 25.55
FX Business             31.55                 37.35

(The figures in parentheses include the surcharge, which would be
incorporated into the new rates.)

Measured 1st minute      0.04                  0.05
  -- additional minute   0.01                  0.01
  Evening Discount         30%                   20%
  Night Discount           60%                   40%
Residence Allowance      3.00                  none

ZUM first minute         0.10                  0.10
  -- additional minute   0.04                  0.04
  Evening Discount         30%                   20%
  Night Discount           60%                   40%

"A typical business LD call -- day period, 3 minutes, 27 miles --
would drop from 67 cents to 46 cents, a 31% savings.  A typical
residence call -- evening period, 5 minutes, 27 miles -- would
decrease from 73 cents to 61 cents, a 16% savings."

And my calculations show a 5 minute, 27 mile call during the night
period actually *increasing* from 42 to 45 cents, though they
conveniently don't give that example.  (You can, however, sign up for
a 25% discount on evening and night LD calls for $3.00/month.)

Residential customers really take it on the chin with this proposal,
and measured service customers lose bigtime -- not only does their
basic rate go up by nearly $2.00/month, but they lose the $3.00
allowance towards usage, producing a *real* increase of about 75%.

Oh yes...there will be a new discount plan offering 9 cent/minute long
distance calling anywhere in the LATA for a mere $200/month fee.  Aunt
Minnie should jump at that one!


David Singer -- Internet: [e-mail] BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN
                Voice: [phone]              Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 19:17:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Toronto Transit Commission's Timeline Service
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


> A few years ago, [the TTC] introduced Timeline [sic] service, which
> gives every bus or streetcar stop its own telephone number. ...
> Since each stop has its own phone number, the service can be accessed
> from a rotary phone; you just dial the seven-digit number. This uses
> up most of the (416) 539-xxxx block of numbers, of course ...

The above matches what the TTC's publicity says, but it isn't actually
quite right.  The same number may actually be assigned to multiple
consecutive stops along a route.  For example, the two westbound bus
stops nearest my house are both 416-539-2224.  I've never explored the
numbering enough to tell whether they assign new numbers at every
minute's travel, or at slightly longer intervals; anyway, this effect
does somewhat reduce the number of numbers needed.

On the other hand, when the same stop is served by multiple routes, it
sometimes has multiple phone numbers.  It isn't obvious how they
decide whether to do this or not.

If one needs the phone number for a stop that one isn't actually at,
from 7:30 am to 11:30 pm it can be obtained by calling the TTC's
general information number, 416-393-4636 (393-INFO).

> It gives the scheduled times, and doesn't track the actual
> progress of the bus.

A few bus routes have the positions of the buses dynamically monitored
by sensors in the street, to help the drivers maintain an even spacing
along the route.  It has been said that the TTC would like to use this
information to provide real-time information about the bus positions
to TimeLine.  This would, of course, be very nice.  People familiar
with the destination signs that the London Underground now uses on
some lines will be familiar with the warm feeling of *knowing* that
the next vehicle is only 1 minute away.

> Of course, people could consult the printed schedules that are
> provided for Toronto's less frequent transit routes ...

This is actually an interesting point; the TimeLine numbers give out
schedule information even on very frequent routes such as #77 Spadina,
whereas printed schedules stop giving details when the service is more
frequent than every 9-10 minutes.  Of course, the more frequent the
service the less the information is needed and the more likely it is
that it will be meaningless anyway since timekeeping in traffic can't
be exact to the minute.

By the way, the synthesized announcement contains a two-word
commercial for a watch company.  Here's a sample.  I just called
539-2000 and it said:

    TTC TimeLine schedule for stop two zero zero zero.
    [Brand name deleted] time is seven oh one.  [P.M., not stated]
    Route twenty-five, Don Mills, next vehicle to Pape station
    in one minute.  Following vehicle in five minutes.  Third
    vehicle in six minutes.  Route fifty-one, Leslie, next vehicle
    to Eglinton station in sixteen minutes.  Following vehicle in
    thirty-two minutes.  Route three oh three, Don Mills via
    Broadview Blue Night, next vehicle to Queen at one twenty
    [A.M., not stated].  Thank you.

Notice the use of zero in the phone number but oh in the time and
routes.

Notice also that the overnight bus route is included, even though
there won't be any of them for six more hours.  I think the system
should be smart enough to delete this from the announcement.  In fact,
in some cases it used to do so, but this seems to no longer happen, or
maybe the threshold is too large.  A final flaw is the omission of
A.M. or P.M.  from the time from the #303, which occurs even when it
might be ambiguous.

Despite these flaws I appreciate the service and often use it when I
take a non-frequent bus and don't have a timetable.


Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #894
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12710;
          7 Nov 91 0:25 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04293
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 22:33:09 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03710
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 Nov 1991 22:32:47 -0600
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 22:32:47 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #895

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Nov 91 22:32:39 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 895

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real [Steve Millendorf]
    Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone [Ken J. Clark]
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? [Andrew Klossner]
    Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Toronto Star via Mark Brader]
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy [David Leibold]
    Re: Largest North-South Area Code [David Leibold]
    Re: Largest North-South Area Code [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [David Leibold]
    Re: Extended Range Cordless Phone [Tad Cook]
    Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls [Tad Cook]
    Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls [Michael H. Riddle, Esq.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Millendorf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SWB "Modem Tax" Tariff: This Time Its For Real
Date: 6 Nov 91 14:49:11 GMT
Organization: Applied Digital Data Systems


Duncan A. MacGregor writes:

> Ouch.  From previous articles in this newsgroup, as well as other
> sources, I know that you do NOT want to have "Call Waiting" supported
> on a line used by a modem.  If a call-waiting signal occurs while the
> modem is operating, the line will be hung up (by either the modem or
> the telephone system itself) and the connection ended.

I seem to remember there being an "undocumented feature" of call
waiting.  In particular, a way to shut it off.  I think it was "*"-7-0,
but you may want to try other combinations of "*"-7-x.  On some phone
systems it may shut off the call waiting until you re-enable it with
another combination.  On most of the ones I remember trying it just
disabled it for that call only (after you enter the code, it returns
you to a dial tone).

In any case, you can probably check with your customer service office
to see if this works.  If they don't know anything about it, you can't
lose anything by trying.

If anybody does try it, perhaps you can post a summary?


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: *70, 1170 or 70# are usually the codes.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue,  5 Nov 91 13:38:23 PDT
From: "Ken J. Clark" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone


In <[e-mail]> (Volume 11, Issue 886, Message 7 of 8)
[e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) asked:

> In 1965, my wife and I were on one of the earliest exchanges (516-325)
> that permitted touch-tone dialing (this was a very small community on
> Long Island, and still is for that matter).

> We subscribed to the service and enjoyed it and now I am curious as to
> what type of switch allowed touch-tone.  My guess is that it might have
> been a 1ESS some early animal.

Dave,

Actually the function of subscriber dialing known in North America as
Touchtone(R) is _independant_ of the type of switch located in the CO.

Touchtone(R) will work on a step-by-step switch (Strowger, cross-bar)
equally as well as an electronic switch.  The train of tones generated
by the key pad on your phone is received and interpreted then stored
in a register.  This information is then used to instruct the switch.
In fact, this same function is used for pulse dialing and is known as
"common control."  Common control is more efficient in that the switch
is not tied up while the subscriber is "dialing."  Once the number is
completely dialed and passed to the switch, the most efficient
conenction can be made.

I'm not sure when AT&T introduced Touchtone(R) to the market place.
Do they still hold it as a registered trade mark?  Anyone?  However, I
remember seeing a 1930s experimental phone in the Smithsonian about
five years ago.  It had the ten numeric keys in one row (like the
number keys along the top of a typewrite keyboard) on a very
wide-based phone.  I don't know what frequencies were used for the
signaling and I doubt that what has become the CCITT Q23 allocation
for the frequencies was used.  I'm assuming that the 10 linear keys
implies 10 discrete tones, unlike the 4 X 4 combination defined in
Q23.

Anyone have any more information on the history of Touchtone(R)
signaling?


Ken J. Clark                        [e-mail]
Sys. Integration/Applications Group {uunet..}!simpact!cevax.simpact.com!kclark
Simpact Associates Inc.             Voice: 703-758-0190  ex. 2134
Reston, VA                          Fax:   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Date: 6 Nov 91 21:40:37 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


TELECOM Moderator offered counsel to John Hidgon:

> "If you have some way of seeing the passwords he is trying, you
> might stay a jump ahead of him by changing the password more or
> less daily for awhile always picking passwords he has already
> tested and eliminated."

This may not be good advice.  If you have a nice large password space,
you would get better protection by selecting a random symbol sequence.
A cracker may not be methodical enough to try passwords only once.


Andrew Klossner ([e-mail]) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 06:20:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


I think I remember reading something about this service in the past.
But it's been brought back to my attention this week, because the
police forces both here in Metropolitan Toronto and in Peel Region
(the adjacent county-sized area to our west) have recently subscribed
to it to use with their emergency numbers.

Following are excerpts from a {Toronto Star} article of Saturday, Nov.
2, somewhat abridged by me for brevity and resequenced for clarity.

Starting Monday, calls to the emergency 911 line will provide almost
instant interpretation in 140 different languages, Metro police
announced yesterday.  These will include everything from Afrikaans to
Zulu and Cantonese, Mandarin, Swahili and Urdu.

The multilingual around-the-clock telephone service is provided by the
AT&T Language Line.  Call takers at Metro's police communications
centre on Jarvis St. will reach the service through a toll-free
number.  With the touch of a button known as speed dialing, the local
call taker gets immediate access to the multilingual centre in
Monterey, Calif., and "a language line service interpreter will come
on the line momentarily."  The Metro call taker stays on the line to
receive the interpreter's instructions as given by the caller.

AT&T will bill police $2 a minute to use the service.  The average
conversation lasts for five minutes, research has shown.  "$10 is
very, very cheap to save a life or prevent a major crime."

The system was developed by a California police officer in the early
1980s after an influx of Vietnamese refugees.

Last month, Metro police received at least 50 emergency calls from
people speaking languages that were not immediately recognizable.

(end of newspaper article)

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

I'd like to know what happens when the Language Line receives such a
call.  If they can really cover 140 languages at any hour of the day
or night, they must have a considerable number of people there!  Does
each incoming call go to *all* the interpreters simultaneously, until
one says "She's speaking Zulu, that's mine" and claims it?  If not,
how do they do it?

How many interpreters does the service employ altogether -- and what
would be the most and the fewest that it has on duty at one time?

If this is already written up in the Telecom Archives, perhaps the
Moderator will supply a reference.  If not, can someone tell us about
it?


Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto   utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Its not in the archives that I know of. I think
what they do with some of the languages available is they contract
with people as needed, and call them at home (their office, etc) when
they need an on the spot translation.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 22:07:23 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


In a recent Digest ...

> book sucks and is unclear). What is 907, Alaska (borders 604, British
> Columbia)? Then there are 808, Hawaii, and 902, Nova Scotia/P.E.I.,
> which border nothing.

Don't forget 709 Newfoundland ...

> Incidentally, what is wrong with having maps that approximately
> correspond to the land masses they supposedly represent, instead of
> the godawful computer-generated "artworks" we see everywhere from the
> phone book to the evening news these days?

Don't forget the new AT&T 1992 800 Directory ... it seems to have put
Atlanta, GA in a different part of the state when it illustrated the
area code split that is soon to take effect. Then again, with all
these area code splits, the area codes are getting very small land
areas.  Metro Toronto, which will have 416 all to itself in 1994,
might win the geographically smallest area code award.

> [Moderator's Note: Actually, 312 also borders 219 for several miles on
> the south side of Chicago. And some of those places you mentioned
> which have water on one or more sides of them wouldn't count either,
> since there is technically a 'country code' for ships at sea. And
> Alaska does border 604, but a small part also borders 403 I think. PAT]

I wouldn't exactly consider the Alaska-Yukon border to be a small
part.  (Yukon of course being assigned Alberta's 403, perhaps staying
that way until a truckload of new area codes becomes available in
1995).  If anything, 907's border with 604 is the "small part".


[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 22:09:25 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Largest North-South Area Code


Kevin Collins writes:

> What is 809? (Bermuda in the mid-Atlantic in the north, Trinidad and
> Tobago off the coast of South America (Venezuela?) in the south).

Try 819, which claims Grise Fiord as North America's northernmost
phone exchange and south to Hull, Quebec (adjacent to Ottawa) which
would be south of the 49th parallel. Without an atlas and a measuring
tape, it's hard to tell who wins between 819 and 809. Also, do we
count the distance in terms of which are the northernmost and
southernmost exchanges available, or in terms of the geographical
limits of the area code which may extend beyond actual exchange
service?

Of course, if you think about it, the clear winners in the largest
area code sweepstakes have to be 800 and 900! :-)


[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 12:22:57 est
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Largest North-South Area Code


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

>> This area code spans the largest north-south distance.

> What is 809? (Bermuda in the mid-Atlantic in the north, Trinidad and
> Tobago off the coast of South America (Venezuela?) in the south).

Ahh, but can that beat 403, which stretches all the way from the
Alberta/US border to the northern tip of the Northwest Territories?
(Probably not many phones at that end, though!)


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

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

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 22:27:28 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea


In the 1920's in Kincardine, Ontario, Canada, Bell Canada was slugging
it out with the independent Bruce Municipal Telephone service. In
fact, independents were able to set up phone service since Bell was
slow in providing it to rural areas. There was no interconnection
between Bell and Bruce Municipal during the competitive time, and
eventually Bruce Municipal won, and it is likely still an independent
telco today (and fairly modernised, too, considering they installed
digital switching years ago).


[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Extended Range Cordless Phone
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 23:44:21 PST
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)


Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]> writes:

> While traveling on business this week, I came across the following ad
> in American Airlines' American Way in-flight magazine. I transcribe it
> for your edification and make no recommendations.

> [begin ad]
> Up To 60 Mile Radius Cordless Phones*

I called the outfit selling these, suspecting that the telephones were
the ones I have seen advertised by various outfits in the far east.
Sometimes these show up illegally here in the USA on the 2 meter ham
band.

It sounds like these are the same kind of phones.  The sales guy told
me you just apply to the FCC for your "own frequency", and that with
the cost of cellular "many people here in the LA area are doing this."
It sounded like he was talking about getting a land mobile frequency,
but I pointed out that in LA it wouldn't be private, and actually I am
not sure of the legality of doing this on business radio frequencies.

Then he told me that many people just buy the phones and don't bother
to get licensed.  The implication was that this was no big deal!  I
wonder what services his customers will end up interfering with?


Tad Cook   [e-mail]    Seattle, WA

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

Subject: Re: Radio Station DJs Making Dubious Calls
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 23:42:26 PST
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)


Regarding the DJs raising hell over the telephone, and possible
regulatory action, look what just came in:

"The FCC issued a 3 page TEXT Proposing Adoption of a Hoax Rule.  As a
result of several recent incidents of hoaxes by broadcast stations,
the Commission has proposed adopting a hoax rule. Adoption of a hoax
rule would enable the Commission to redress hoaxes with sanctions
other than license revocation, such as monetary forfeiture, and codify
licensee obligations in this area. M Docket 91-314, by NPRM (FCC
91-335) adopted October 24."


Tad Cook   [e-mail]   Seattle, WA

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 13:48:15 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Brack) says:

>> My question is, can I legally tape a phone call between me and
>> another party without letting the other party know that the call is
>> being recorded?

>> By the way, in case the laws vary by state, I'm in Ohio.

> As far as I know, as long as such is intended for administrative/
> recordkeeping purposes, you may tape the call w/o giving notice to the
> other party.

* * *

> BTW: I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on c.d.t. 8)

Well, I'm a lawyer, but not licensed in Ohio.  :-)

But the general rule is, "it depends."  In Federal law, and that of
many states, you can tape as long as one of the parties is aware of it
and has granted permission.  The theory is that this person could tell
anyone else about the call, anyway.

But as your question notes, it hinges on state law.  Some states,
California for one, if I remember correctly, require that both parties
have knowledge.

And there used to be a tariff in many places that required the "beep"
every so often.  My AT&T 2500 anwering machine, with two-way option,
can provide the beep where required.

So the brotherhood's usual answer:  see someone in Ohio!

          <<<< 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


[Moderator's Note: Please explain if 'having knowledge of' is
sufficient or if permission must be specifically given. That is, I say
to you "I am recording this call."  Now both parties know about it,
even though you may object and tell me you don't want it recorded.
But I keep the recorder going ... after all, you now have knowledge of
it. Is there an presumption you agreed to the recording because you
stayed on the line and did not disconnect on being given notice?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #895
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15692;
          7 Nov 91 2:05 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20637
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:19:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18479
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:19:05 -0600
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:19:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #896

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Nov 91 00:19:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 896

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: TTC Timeline Service [Norman Soley]
    Re: AT&T Online Translation Service [Jamie Mason]
    CPID Problems in South Florida [Ronnie Schnell]
    AT&T Cordless 5200 Hidden Warranty [Charles Beatty]
    Need Help Building Telephone Recorder [Sandy Kyrish]
    Re: 540 Pager Scam Update [Ed Greenberg]
    The Telephone/Terminal: Any Information? [Bob Kupiec]
    Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst [Collegian via J. Welch]
    Interoffice Trunk Traffic Engineering Question [Steve Chafe]
    ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5? [Steve Elias]
    Monopolies [John Higdon]
    MCI and FAX Detection [Tim Gorman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Norman Soley)
Subject: Re: TTC Timeline Service
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  5 NOV 91 09:49:11


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

> Actually each stop does *not* have its own number -- they cheated and
> assigned one, two, or three stops one number, depending on how far
> apart they are.

In addition there are also stops with more than one number. I used to
live near a major street where there were three different bus routes
that went by. Each route had a separate number to call. We never
bothered with Timeline since to find out when the next bus to the
subway was usually took longer than actually going out to the stop and
waiting.

> I don't know what equipment they are using -- presumably a PBX-style
> interface.  416 539 is a DMS 100 office.

I don't know either but the company that makes the boxes that do this
service is Teleride/Sage, they're in Toronto at 150 Front St. W..


 Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District
 Digital Equipment of Canada                   [e-mail]
 Opinions  expressed are  mine and do not necessarily  reflect those of
 Digital Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge.

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:04:03 -0500


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

> I'd like to know what happens when the Language Line receives such a
> call.  If they can really cover 140 languages at any hour of the day
> or night, they must have a considerable number of people there!  Does
> each incoming call go to *all* the interpreters simultaneously, until
> one says "She's speaking Zulu, that's mine" and claims it?  If not,
> how do they do it?

    No.  AT&T's Genetic Engineering Department got a patent on the
Babel Fish.  The Language line employs a small staff of regularly
trained AT&T operators, each of whom have a babel fish in one ear.

    AT&T is considering suing Sirius Cybernetics Corperation, and
Douglas Adams, for violation of their trademark.


    (To be taken with a grain of :-), of course...)


Jamie

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 10:44:31 -0500
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: CPID Problems in South Florida


I recently moved to Southern Bell territory.  I am *really* happy to
be out of GTE-land in California.  Everything seems to work perfectly
with the custom calling services.  I can even get a call-waiting while
in a three-way call!

Anyway, one of the reasons I was excited about making the move was the
availability of Caller-ID.  I ran straight from the airport to an
electronics store to buy my display device (I already called from CA
to have the service established).  I purchased the AT&T Call Display
64.  I brought it back to the apartment building and discovered it
only seemed to work about one out of five times.  I called AT&T and
they kept putting me on hold.  I wanted to make sure I could tell
Southern Bell that it was their problem and not the unit.  After being
on hold for 15 minutes I gave up.  I called Southern Bell repair, and
they sent a guy over.  He connected his set, which had the same
problem!  He made a call to his friend, and found out that my building
is wired with fiber optics as opposed to copper.  He said that I need
to get a special type of Caller-ID box that works for this.

Now I had never heard of this so I spoke with his friend.  He
explained to me that some boxes have this extra resister which is
necessary for fiber-optic buildings.  "Is this something I can put
in-line myself?"  "Sure if you have a 600ohm resister ... actually you
also need ---" "Let me guess, a .01uf capacitor?" "Yeah, how did you
know?"  "Just a guess."

The guy went on to tell me that all of the stores in the area know
which ones work in my building and which ones don't.  Of course I
called EVERY store in the area, and none of them knew what I was
talking about.  Eventually I returned the AT&T Call Display 64 and got
one from Sears which had 70 memories, and had the AT&T logo on it.  It
is made by some other company, though.  I called AT&T and they had
never even heard of the device.  It seems to work perfectly.

Has anyone heard of these problems before?


Ron

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Beatty)
Subject: AT&T Cordless 5200 Hidden Warranty
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: National Center for Biotechnology Information
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 16:24:11 GMT


We have an AT&T model 5200 cordless phone which has started buzzing
pretty badly after about two years of use.  I read somewhere that
there is a "hidden warranty" for this, e.g. AT&T is aware of the
problem and will fix it or replace it if you scream loud enough.  Does
anyone know anything about this?  I'll post a summary if I get email.

Thanks in advance.


Charles Beatty    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 16:40 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Help Building Telephone Recorder


Perhaps this subject has been covered before, but I would like to
record telephone conversations onto a conventional tape recorder.  I
already own an answering machine, which doesn't record phone calls, so
buying one with that feature doesn't make sense.  Is there a simple
design for converting the output of a telephone line into (preferably)
a mic level signal or (less preferably) into a line level signal?  In
other words I'd like to have a Y-patch with one end going to the
telephone and the other end into the magic box and then onto the tape
recorder.

I have used the Radio Shack inductance coupler with awful S/N results,
so please don't suggest that alternative.  If there is an off the
shelf product, that'd be great, but I am willing to build.  Please
e-mail replies directly to [e-mail].  Thanks!


Sandy Kyrish

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 10:00 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 540 Pager Scam Update


> their pager company (Skytel) was updating their software to prevent
> such numbers from being displayed, but that the change had not yet
> been implemented, and urging caution in the mean time.

Oh gasp, groan and gripe!  Supposing that I want to communicate to my
wife that I'll be ready at 5:40, and we're going to location 1234 on
our handy cheat sheet of numbers?

I appreciate most of the opinions that have flown on this one, but
John H's point that people should be wary of the charges that may
accrue when they use the telephone, and the opposing view that the
peepul should enjoy protection from such chicanery, but this takes the
cake.

For "my protection", my pages will now be censored.  What ever
happened to the concept of the "common carrier."

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

From: Bob Kupiec <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Telephone/Terminal: Any Information?
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 14:58:56 EST


Hello fellow Digest readers!

I was wondering if anyone else has a beast called the "510a Touch-Tel
Terminal/Telephone" built by AT&T?  I have acquired one of these
wonderful phones and I am looking for *ANY* info that you may have.
[BTW, these are no longer sold by AT&T.  I picked mine up at a
computer fest (TCF).]

The 510a is a Touch-Screen Speakerphone Telephone (w/handset) that
allows one-touch dialing of numbers and is a vt100/510a compatible
terminal all in one.

Thanks for any replies.


Bob  ([e-mail])

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

From: Jonathan_Welch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst
Date: Tue 5 Nov 1991


Monday, November 4, 1991
The Massachusetts Daily Collegian

By REBECCA VOIGT
Collegian Correspondent

All University of Massachusetts graduate and undergraduate students
will be using their telephones instead of the standardized "bubble
sheets" to pre-register for next semester, according to the
registrar's office.

Registrar Nancy Fitzpatrick said the new Touchtone Registration
System, similar to "Voice Mail," will have a pre-recorded voice that
speaks instructions to students.  Choices are entered through the
telephone's keypads.  Rotary dial phones will not work with this
system, so students must use touchtone phones, she said.

All undergraduates and some graduate students will need to get their
Personal Identification Number (PIN) in order to access the new
system.  PINs will be available from students' major departments
starting on Nov. 12.

Pre-registration will be from Nov. 14 to Nov. 21.  Students can begin
calling on Nov. 14 but there will be different individual deadlines.
These deadlines will be staggered up until Nov. 20.  Then on Nov. 21,
students will be "scheduled off of the system."

The Registrar said it was very important for students to know their
deadline.  "People shouldn't rely on what their roommate's or anyone
else's deadline is," she said.

If students miss their deadline, they will not be able to pre-register
and will have to register for all of their classes through Add/Drop.

Each student's deadline will be sent to them in the mail along with
instructions on how to use the system.

Thirty-two telephone lines have been added to handle pre-registration,
she said.  However, the Registrar warned students still might get a
busy signal when they try to call the system.  She said students
should call as early as possible in their access period and should
keep trying until they get through.

The lines will be open Monday-Thursday 8 a.m.-9 p.m., Friday 8 a.m.-5
p.m. and Sunday 10 a.m.-9 p.m..

With this new system, students will be told if they are eligible for
the courses that they choose.  They can verify they entered the
correct course.  They can change their requests.  Choices can be
marked Pass/Fail and students can choose an alternate for each
requested course.  With the old system, students could only choose two
alternates.

Engineering, and Hotel Restaurant and Travel Adminstration majors used
this sytem last semester as a trial run, and many students thought it
was a good idea.

"It's very efficient because you could verify your choices.  With
opscans you didn't know if you marked them right," said senior civil
and mechanical engineering major, Matt Valade.

Junior HRTA major Erik Rothman agrees.  "It's easy because you don't
have to walk all the way over to Whitmore," he said.

The Registrar said what order students pre-register in will not effect
whether they will get the classes that they requested.

"Students will be scheduled into courses during December and will
receive their schedules in January," said Nancy Fitzpatrick.

According to the Registrar's office, Touchtone Telephone
Pre-registration is the first step in a plan to automate the entire
registration process.

Touchtone telephone Add/Drop will be piloted with selected students
for the Spring 1992 semester and will be used for the entire campus
for the Fall 1992 semester.

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Chafe)
Subject: Interoffice Trunk Traffic Engineering Question
Date: 4 Nov 91 23:36:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Chafe)
Organization: University of California, Davis


I am trying to find information on telecom traffic engineering,
especially with regard to calculating trunking needs based on CCS or
Erlangs and call attempt peg counts.  I understand that there is such
a thing as a Poisson table that relates CCS with peg counts to give an
optimum trunk group size.  Does anyone out there know where I would
find this type of table?  I have been to the library and have only
found the most horrendous mathematical equations based on statistical
processes that I have never heard of.

If anyone has any suggestions at all, I would love to hear them!
Please mail to me: [e-mail]

Thanks,


Steve Chafe

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

Subject: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 17:22:10 PST
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


CBS radio news reported another ATT outage in the New England area
some time on 11/5.  Does anyone have more info on this outage?  CBS
also reported that air traffic was unaffected.


eli

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

Subject: Monopolies
Date: 5 Nov 91 12:25:01 PST (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


I think that it is time that we recall just what a monopoly is and how
it is supposed to work. A utility has income and outgo just like any
business. Traditionally, since a monopoly has no competition, it falls
under the supervision of a regulatory body. Its revenues are set to
provide a "reasonable" rate of return over expenses.

In the past, this was not complex. Since telcos only provided
"regulated" services, it was a simple matter for the regulatory agency
to figure what the total rates should be with the only discussion
coming in the area of rate distribution. Frequently the distribution
was skewed somewhat to allow for the concept of "universal service".
People who wanted "extras" paid a little more than the cost of
providing them so that people who only needed the basics could pay a
little less.

The current scene bears no relation to the traditional monopoly
concept. Pac*Bell is involved in more competitive services now than it
is in regulated monopoly services. As more and more of its formerly
regulated products move over into the competitive arena, the
complexity of its regulated rate structure increases. Pac*Bell insists
that the regulated customers do not subsidize the unregulated
services, but the current proposal belies that on the surface.
Pac*Bell comes right out and says that it has to raise local exchange
rates so that it can COMPETE in the intraLATA toll market. What is
this if not subsidization? We take its word for what costs what to
provide and so does the PUC. The PUC has NEVER done an audit on
Pac*Bell.

This is a truly dangerous situation. Either we must put it all back
the way it was (not very realistic) or we must go all the way and
provide for full competition in the telecommunication industry. It is
as simple as that. The Pac*Bell "working both sides of the street"
dynasty must come to an end.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

Date: 05 Nov 91 18:11:02 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI and FAX Detection


Brian Crawford <[e-mail]> writes in TELECOM Digest
V11 #889:

> I have just received what appears to be quite a juicy offer from MCI-
> sign up for their MCI fax service and receive $100 worth of free fax the
> first full billing period in effect.

> She stated that their equipment could detect the carrier as
> well as the typical short duration of a fax call relative to that of a
> voice call.

Anything done on call duration is suspect. Calls terminating to an
answering machine are many times of short duration also :-).

I also have my doubts that they are monitoring every call handled by
their switching network for fax carrier tone. Not that it isn't
possible, but it would probably take a significant investment to
perform this task.


Tim Gorman SWBT    *my opinions are my own, not official*

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #896
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16512;
          7 Nov 91 2:36 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21911
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:50:49 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12659
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:50:37 -0600
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 00:50:37 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #897

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Nov 91 00:50:34 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 897

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    KC Star on SWB and BBSs [William Degnan]
    PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies [Nelson Bolyard]
    Who Benefits From Local Competition? [Lauren Weinstein]
    Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements? [Kirk Davis]
    New Pac*Bell *Info Service [Ron Dippold]
    Who Makes Discrete Modem Chipsets For 2400 bps? [Dave Mc Mahan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (William Degnan)
Date: 04 Nov 91  10:44:50
Subject: KC Star on SWB and BBSs


The {Kansas City Star} - Front page Business Tuesday Pull-out
Tuesday, November 5, 1991

Computer users see threat in costs
Southwestern Bell plan portends changes, they fear
by Martin Rosenberg

Some computer bulletin board operators in Missouri say they might have
to shut down the increasingly popular computer networks if
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co, succeeds in raising their rates.

Southwestern Bell says its only trying to fairly price its services by
charging the bulletin board operators business rates instead of
residential rates. The company is seeking approval for the changes
from Missouri regulators.

Industry experts say the issue could be the opening volley in a broad
campaign by telephone companies to change the way consumers and
businesses pay for electronic communications.

Residential customers might one day have to pay more to use their
personal computers and modems than they pay for voice communications,
experts say. And businesses might have to pay more to use fax
machines.

Southwestern Bell denied that it is attempting to change any rates
other than those affecting a small number of data communications
customers who should be switched to a flat business rate, more
expensive than the residential rate.

The bulletin boards, frequently operated out of homes, allow users to
exchange messages, advice and software programs. Many are free to use,
and operators often get no revenue from them. Hundreds have formed
across the state in the last few years.

Southwestern Bell's proposal is meant for only those who have set up a
bulletin board through his or her personal computer. Not affected are
computer users who merely access the bulletin board computer over
telephone lines.

The proposal comes at a time when telephone companies' plans for
information services have moved to center stage.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for seven
regional telephone companies, including Southwestern Bell, to start
providing information services. Those services could eventually
compete with electronic bulletin boards, newspapers and data base
operations such as CompuServe Inc. and Prodigy Services Co.
(CompuServe is owned by H&R Block Inc. of Kansas City.)

Revenues for telephone-delivered information in the United States
amounted to an estimated $750 million last year and are projected to
grow to $2 billion in 1992, according to industry sources.

Southwestern Bell's proposal, if approved, would take effect by
mid-November.

Bulletin board operators are operating like businesses, said William
Bailey, company district manager of rate administration for Missouri
in St. Louis.

"Some customers on residential lines would more appropriately be on
business lines," Bailey said.

Bailey said current business customers also would be affected. They
would be allowed to switch to the flat business rate ($33.55 a month
in metropolitan Kansas City) and avoid paying a higher "information
terminal service" rate (currently $43.60 a month), he said.

Southwestern Bell mounted a similar effort to get bulletin boards
under business rates in Texas. It later decided to allow free bulletin
board services using three or fewer lines to continue to enjoy
residential rates.

That was "an enormous mistake," Bailey said. Phone companies are
unable to monitor whether a bulletin board is collecting money from
users, he added.

Many Kansas City bulletin board operators are upset with Southwestern
Bell's proposal.

"If they start charging business rates, some bulletin boards will shut
down," said Lanny Conn, who operates a free bulletin board called
SOLO-Quest.

Bill Hirt, who operates the Amiga Central bulletin board for Amiga
computer users, said he would close down if he is charged the business
rate. His bulletin board also is free to use.

Currently, about 200 personal computer users - some as far off as
Australia and Sweden - call his bulletin board, he said.

Conn and Hirt serve as spokesmen for the Greater Kansas City SysOps
Association, made up of about 22 bulletin boards. (SysOps stands for
system operators). Hirt estimates there are 100 bulletin boards in the
city; most have been set up as hobbies.

Attorney Robin Martinez, who is representing the association, said
that Southwestern Bell's proposal would hurt information-age pioneers.

"People running bulletin boards and people using them are on the
cutting edge of the information age," he said.

Southwestern Bell wants to thin the ranks of bulletin board providers
so there will be fewer competitors to its own offerings, he said.

"To a certain extent, they are trying to get a stranglehold on
information services," Martinez said.

Bailey denied there is a link between his company's proposals and
its own plans for information services.

"I'm not getting any direction from on high to do what I am doing," he
said. "I'm really not aware what my company intends to do in terms of
information services."

But William Degnan, a telecommunications consultant in Austin, Texas,
said, "The majority of these folks (bulletin boards) are underpricing
these services that Southwestern bell would like to provide at a
grander scale."

Degnan had advised the group of Texas bulletin board operators who had
opposed Southwestern Bell's efforts to charge business rates there.

"I think Southwestern Bell is concerned that (it) won't be able to
sell what other people are giving away," Degnan said.

Martha Hogerty, public council representing consumers in Missouri,
said after reviewing Southwestern Bell's filing, "This looks like
anybody with a modem would have to be on a business rate."

Most regional Bell telephone companies are now developing strategies
for offering information services.

Phone companies may soon try to get customers to pay a measured rate
for data communications, said Howard Anderson, president of the Yankee
Group of Boston. Under such a system, the monthly cost of data
communications would increase the longer you are connected during the
month -- like a running taxi meter.

A change to metered rates would be reasonable and enable telephone
companies to increase revenues as usage and expenses mount, he said.

The average residential customer uses the phone 21 minutes a day,
while a customer with a personal computer and modem uses a phone line
an average of 62 minutes a day, Anderson said.

Anderson predicted that telephone companies may decide to offer
customers high-speed data communications for a rate higher than voice
communications. Usage above a fixed number of hours would increase the
size of the monthly phone bill, he said.

To encourage use of the new line, phone companies may take steps to
lower the quality of standard lines so that they will not cleanly
carry electronic information, Anderson said.

Bailey disagreed, saying Southwestern bell has no plans to introduce
measured service for voice or data communications.

And, he said, "I know of no plans to degrade our service to migrate
customers from one service to another."

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

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: Tue, 5 Nov 91 14:02:40 PST
From: [e-mail] (Nelson Bolyard)
Subject: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA


John Higdon wrote about his experience speaking at a PUC hearing.  He
enumerated the attendees as including representatives of the LECs,
TURN (a consumer advocate group), the PUC consumer advocate office,
and "The judge" by which I assume he meant an administrative law
judge.  In short, not ONE commissioner from the PUC was present at
this hearing, just as was the case when I spoke at a CLID hearing in
San Francisco.  The implication of this absence is that the PUC
commisioners will NOT hear what you said, but will be limited to how
you were "quoted" in the transcripts.  These transcripts can be
amazingly inacurate.

I obtained a printed copy of the transcripts of my comments to the
PUC.  I was shocked at the inaccuracies.  I had advocated CLID and
call trace as solutions to the problem of obscene callers who call too
infrequently for PAC*BELL to do anything about it (with their present
schemes), and I had argued that call trace should not be billed as a
monthly service charge, as this was analgous to fee-prepaid police
services.  By getting words wrong, the transcripts completely changed
the meaning of what I said, and my comments must surely have not had
the intended effect on the PUC.

Here are some of the transcription errors (some are howlers).

I said: "because the phone calls are not often, about six or seven
days apart, the police and phone company will not get involved."  The
transcipt read "days a week" instead of "days apart" :-{.

I said "After two years of this, I can joke and be light hearted about
it" but the transcript said "light headed" instead of "light hearted" :-{.

I said "We don't want to have our police services fee-prepaid."  but
the treanscript said "fee be mad" instead of "fee prepaid".

I described my "two-line solution" as "an adequate solution for CLID"
but the transcript said "already the solution for CLID".

Imagine how changing "uninvolved" into "unavailable" affects your message.

In short, John, I hope your remarks got more accurate treatment than
mine did.  If somebody knows of a way to solve this problem I'd like
to know about it.  I already thought of presenting a written copy of
your remarks to the transcriptionist in advance of making them orally
to the hearing.  I don't know if the transcriptionist will use them or
not, and I wouldn't want the transcriptionist to be insulted (whether
or not such insult was deserved).


Nelson Bolyard            MTS Trusted IRIX             Silicon Graphics, Inc.
[e-mail]     {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson     415-335-1919
Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer.


[Moderator's Note: There is a procedure by which you can file a motion
to have the transcripts stricken as the official record and then
re-written. You'd need to ask the PUC for the exact way to do this,
and I think it involves filing a complaint with the PUC.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 10:54:33 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Who Benefits From Local Competition?


Greetings.  The big problem with local competition is that it will be
a disaster for all but a certain class of subscriber.  Remember, even
if local competition were allowed, there would likely be no
requirement that *everyone* have all of the competition available in
all areas.

Any attempt to mandate this would probably result in competition
proposals being withdrawn -- potential competitors are only interested
in the "cream" markets.  Competitors want to serve large businesses
with *big* communications bills -- especially those concentrated in
urban centers (such as downtown areas) where physical plant (i.e.
fiber, wiring, etc.) can be deployed in an area of concentrated
potential customers.  As has already been pointed out, most primary
systems will continue to be based on physical cable of some sort for
the forseeable future.

You can bet potential competitors aren't going to be lining up to
serve suburban or rural areas, or residence or small business
customers.  Those will be left to the original telco, who will
continue to go screaming back to the PUCs demanding ever more basic
service increases to make up for the lost revenue.

Such revenue requirements could be at least partially controlled if it
were mandated that the telcos must concentrate on their core
businesses as regulated utilities -- and not keep trying to venture
off into speculative sidelines and enhanced services that usually
don't benefit the average customer in any significant way and would be
best provided by outside entities in any case.  Now, of course, the
telcos are busily setting up services in ways that their outside
competitors can't match, since the telcos won't provide the same sort
of access to their switches on the same basis that they use.

I have no faith whatsoever that the cable companies are going to be
able to compete with the telcos in the short to medium term.  Their
current physical plants are totally inappropriate for such operations
(for a vast number of reasons which I won't even try to enumerate
here).  For them to compete in this arena would require a totally new
physical plant -- that is, all new wiring, drops, etc. from end to
end.  And once again, I don't see them rushing to spend that kind of
money except in dense areas where they can go after the *big* fish.


 --Lauren--

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

From: [e-mail] (kirk davis)
Subject: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp.
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 02:44:55 GMT


   I got a somewhat unique problem that I'd like to bounce off
everyone for feedback. About a year ago I bought a older (20 years)
house.  Before closing, I of course checked the phone wiring and it
had six pairs (enough for my needs ... I don't need 15 lines like *some*
people :-).

   I just got around to having the third line set up and it turns out
that although the builder wired the house for six lines, Pacbell only
ran two pair from the street to the protector on the side of the house
(wait, it gets better). It also turns out that they just buried the
cable without running a conduit so this of course means that it would
have to be dug up and redone to current Pacbell requirements (1' by 2'
trench dug from street up 150' driveway to side of house, lots of
roots in the way etc).  All well and good, but the friendly folks at
Pacbell engineering say I have to supply the trench.

   Considering the fact that Pacbell didn't run conduit in the first
place, I feel it's unreasonable for me to have to pay to have it done
correctly now. Any one ran across this before? Any suggestions on how
to pursue getting them to do it?


Email or Post,
Thanks,
Kirk Davis ([e-mail] -or- uunet!ism!kirkd)

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: New Pac*Bell *Info Service
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 02:20:12 GMT


Pac*Bell is offering a set of new services here called *Info
(so-called because you use a "*" in dialing the numbers) which their
cellular subscribers can call.  There are over 280 information
services, including stocks, traffic reports, weather, directory
assistance, etc.

The cost to the customer is the cost of the air time.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Mc Mahan)
Subject: Who Makes Discrete Modem Chipsets For 2400 bps?
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 03:56:42 GMT
Organization: Dave McMahan @ NetCom Services


I am trying to locate manufacturers of chipsets that implement 2400
baud modems.  I know that Silicon Systems and Rockwell make such
chips, but who else?  I am looking for both the raw 'data pump' and
also people who have integrated the data pump with a CPU to implement
the AT command set.  I am not looking for external modems or modems
that have been soldered onto a half-card.  I would like to be able to
provide it +5VDC, +/- 12 VDC, and data/address buses for direct
access.  I want something small that I can solder or socket into
place.  I can also deal with systems that use a serial link as the
interface to the chipset.

If you know of companies that make either the raw data pump or have
taken a data pump and inserted a CPU with it, please E-mail me at the
address below.

Thank you.


Dave McMahan   [e-mail]  {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!mcmahan

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #897
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01220;
          7 Nov 91 10:13 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20143
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 07:58:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05394
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 7 Nov 1991 07:58:14 -0600
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 07:58:14 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #898

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Nov 91 07:58:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 898

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Impartiality and Due Process? [John Higdon]
    New NETel Rates for Metro Boston Customers [Scott Fybush]
    Last Week at the FCC [Forwarded From Fido by William Degnan]
    What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? [Toby Nixon]
    TAT-10 and TAT-11 [John R. Levine]
    Modems For Democracy [Rudi Westerveld]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Impartiality and Due Process?
Date: 6 Nov 91 11:06:36 PST (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


A number of correspondents have taken me to task for speaking as
though Pac*Bell had already been granted its "screw the little guy"
rate increase. While it is true that the grant is possibly more than a
year away, it is inevitable. To understand why, it is necessary to
quickly review the tariff-making procedures in California.

The informal public hearings have just concluded. Members of the
public have said their piece. Now the formal hearings will begin
before the same administrative law judge. This is where the utilities
drag out their essentially unsupported dog-and-pony figures explaining
why they will all instantly go bankrupt if their wishes are not
granted. After all of this testimony is in, complete with "expert"
witnesses (who are paid cronies of the utilities), the judge along
with the PUC staff will prepare a report and recommendation to the
full commission.

The commission will study the report and will have to option to: 1)
approve the recommendations intact; 2) make modifications and then
approve it; or 3) throw it out entirely and decree something
completely different (as Monty Python would say). What will actually
happen is that the commissioners will have lunch (and maybe dinner)
with some key Pac*Bell people and they will grind out what the people
of California will be stuck with. It will be almost exactly what
Pac*Bell originally proposed with some cosmetic changes to pacify
TURN, who will then be able to go back to its constituency (little old
ladies) and crow about how much it saved the people of the state. My
personal prediction is that even more of the burden of the increase
will be shifted to small business, a group that TURN seems to feel has
infinitely deep pockets.

You may ask: why do they bother with all of these hearings if the
commission is not bound by any of it? Good question. But to give you
an idea of the "impartiality" of the administrative law judge, allow
me to relate a comment made by him at the Victorville hearing. In my
comments, I challenged the assertion made by the Pac*Bell rep that the
company wanted a "level playing field". As in many other parts of the
country, the proposed intraLATA competition does not provide for
presubscription. In other words, to place a call over any carrier
other than Pac*Bell will require the dialing of the usual '10XXX'
code. I remarked that this does not by any stretch of the imagination
provide for equal treatment of carriers when Pac*Bell will be the only
default.

After my remarks, the judge felt moved to "correct and clarify" my
statement. He pointed out that there were telephones that people could
buy that would prepend the five-digit company code automatically, and
then proceded to hold one up to the audience! I see. This same public
that I am constantly reminded by many in this forum that cannot even
avoid accidentally dialing 900 numbers is going to purchase and
program autodialer phones? This is a level playing field?

I hope this gives some of you out-of-staters a glimpse of what a sham
and charade the regulatory process is in California. Hopefully,
someday, telecommunications will be a completely market-driven
industry rather than idiot-driven.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 17:41 EDT
From: Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>
Subject: New NETel Rates For Metro Boston Customers


New England Telephone is changing its rate structure for customers in
metropolitan Boston (most of 617 except for the Lynn area on the North
Shore and the Rockland and Marshfield areas on the South Shore.)

The current rate structure uses message-unit billing.  Residential
customers pay 8.98 cents per message unit.  Calls to one's own
exchange and to adjacent towns are billed at one message unit every
five minutes.  Calls to the next ring of towns around those are billed
at two message units every five minutes, and calls further than that
are billed at three message units (I think for a shorter amount of
time per message unit, as well).  NETel residential customers can
choose between measured service and a variety of more expensive
flat-rate services.  My service gives me flat-rate dialing to my own
and immediately adjacent exchanges, then message-unit billing outside
those.

The new rates, which take effect in mid-November, will eliminate the
message units.  Customers will pay one cent per call, plus one of the
following rates:

ZONE 1: 1.6 cents/minute
ZONE 2: 6.5 cents/minute (I think--I don't have the bill insert here)

Zone 1 corresponds roughly with the old 1-message-unit calls.  Zone 2
is everything else.  Along with this rate change comes a decrease in
NETel long-distance rates to points outside metro Boston but within
the Eastern Mass (617/508) LATA, an increase (second time in 12
months) in basic service rates (customers can still choose between a
variety of plans that offer expanded flat-rate calling), and some
changes in various service costs.

Although NETel claims that the rate change will be revenue-neutral, I
have a feeling it will end up costing me more.  Currently, calls to
the Boston Central exchange are two message units for me.  That means
about 18 cents for a five-minute call.  At the new rates, that call
will cost me 33.5 cents.  On the other hand, a call to a point like
Needham, which is within Zone 1 but outside my flat-rate calling area,
will cost 9.0 cents for five minutes, as opposed to 8.98 cents before.
A short call to Needham will cost me less.  The two-minute call that
used to cost 8.98 cents for one full message unit will now cost 4.2
cents.  Coupled with the healthy increase in basic service charges,
though, it still sounds like higher bills.

Anyone know just what NETel is up to?  Is this a move towards some
sort of universal ZUM system here?  Or is NETel making enough from
extended-flat-rate premium deals like Metropolitan Service that it
would want to avoid ZUM?

No matter what, it's still embarrassing that I can call downtown
Boston, 24 miles away, for half of what it costs to call the West
Coast.  There's still an inequity afoot.


Scott Fybush -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Karl N6BVU)
Date: 04 Nov 91  08:26:26
Subject: Last Week at the FCC


Original to All @ 1:382/39 in FCC
 * Forwarded Mon Nov 04 1991  08:23:58 by William Degnan @ 1:382/39

ON OCTOBER 25th....

The FCC issued a 3 page TEXT Proposing Adoption of a Hoax Rule.  As a
result of several recent incidents of hoaxes by broadcast stations,
the Commission has proposed adopting a hoax rule. Adoption of a hoax
rule would enable the Commission to redress hoaxes with sanctions
other than license revocation, such as monetary forfeiture, and codify
licensee obligations in this area. MM Docket 91-314, by NPRM (FCC
91-335) adopted October 24.

The FCC issued a two page TEXT Proposing Video Dialtone Policy;
Interexchange Carriers Not Subject to Telco-Cable Restrictions.  The
Commission tentatively concluded that there should be regulatory
policy with respect to video dialtone which will encourage a
competitive video marketplace and permit telephone companies to
develop broadband communication services. It has proposed, and asked
for comments on, regulations to implement this policy.  CC Docket
87-266. Action by the Commission October 24 by Further NPRM, First
R&O, and Second Further NOI (FCC 91-334).

The FCC issued a 3 page TEXT Amending Rules for the Private Land
Mobile Radio Service; Clarifies Others; Establishes Finder's
Preference Program. The Commission has amended its Private Land Mobile
Radio Service rules and policies with respect to construction, placing
stations in operation, continuance of station operations, and license
renewal and reinstatement. The Commission also adopted a finder's
preference program to establish new incentives for persons to provide
the FCC with information about unconstructed or non-operational
private land mobile radio systems licensed on exclusive channels. PR
Docket 90-481, adopted on October 24 by R&O(FCC 91-339).

The FCC issued a one page TEXT on Low-Earth Orbit Satellites.
Extended to November 14 the time to file reply comments in the matter
of amending the rules to allocate spectrum to the Mobile-Satellite
Service for low-earth orbit satellites. (By Order Extending Time for
Reply Comments adopted October 24 by the Chief Engineer, OET).

The FCC issued the TEXT on Wireless Cable. The Commission has further
amended its rules to facilitate the development of a wireless cable
service by conforming the rules applicable to the 3 microwave radio
services used in the provision of wireless cable.  General Docket
90-54, by Second R&O (FCC 91-302), adopted Sept 26.


 * Origin: The Master's BBS <> Garden Grove, CA. <> HSTV42BIS (1:103/102)
via "MDF" Central Texas Gateway - f39.n382.z1.fidonet.org
I don't have a .sig file.               - mdf.fidonet.org

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase?
Date: 5 Nov 91 21:40:06 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


I have posted a message to !atthelp on AT&T Mail, scanned through all
of the !atthelp:news shared folder, asked several of my friends and
business associates who have AT&T Mail accounts, and in NONE of this
have I found even the remotest reference to a rate increase or
imposition of a monthly minimum.  Is this just an unsubstantiated
rumor, speculation based upon the integration of EasyLink?  Does
anyone have a message or something they can quote online?


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]


[Moderator's Note: Thus far we have only the original note posted here
in the Digest (Issue 866) by Fred Linton <[e-mail]>
on October 29. The same day I received his for-publication note, I got
a not-for-publication note from someone else saying the same thing.
Like yourself, I have yet to get anything from AT&T Mail on this, in
the mail or otherwise. We were told there was a mailing out to all the
subscribers of AT&T Mail that weekend. So ... I guess at this point we
must turn to Fred Linton and ask for specific backup. Perhaps Fred
will send us a copy of the letter he received, or advise us where his
information came from.   PAT]

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

Subject: TAT-10 and TAT-11
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 23:47:04 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


AT&T sent out a press release today about the proposed new TAT-10 and
TAT-11 fiber optic transatlantic cables.  Both will run from Green
Hill, R.I., to Europe.  TAT-10 will run to Holland and Germany, should
be complete next year, and will cost $300M.  TAT-11 will run to the
U.K. and France, will be complete in 1993, and will cost only $280M.
Both will run at 560 megabits/sec, equivalent to 80,000 simultaneous
calls.  Each will be owned by large consortia of 35 and 25 carriers,
respectively.  The cables are designed so that traffic can be rerouted
between them easily.

FCC approval is needed but is likely.

Green Hill currently serves TAT-6 and TAT-7, older copper cables with
capacities of only 7,000 conversations each.


Regards,

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

From telecom Wed Nov  6 10:01:11 1991

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

From: [e-mail] (Rudi Westerveld)
Subject: Modems for Democracy
Organization: Delft University of Technology
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1991 15:58:08 GMT


[Moderator's Warning: The information contained in this message has
not been verified. Before responding, assure yourself of the
legitimacy of the request.   PAT]

SITUATION: Message exchange, using modems played a very crucial role
during the actions surrounding the Parliament buildings in the Baltic
states. Also the people all over the former USSR and foreign press
agencies were kept informed about the situation around the White House
in Moskow during the coup attempt in August using FidoNet (PC-modem
networking) and RELCOM (Internet version using dial-up modems).
Imagine: Jeltsin did send his urgent statements through FidoNet !!
Thus modems made history and in fact this technology of data-
communication is part of the "The Freedom Technologies" : copying
machines, Fax'es, TV recorders,telephones and modems. They all help to
record and show reality. Unstoppable if the messages can be exchanged
and discussed through multiple, diverse channels : bypassing
bureaucracies. This development can be compared to the emerging of
printing technology that made the publishing of free speech possible
which started the Renaissance in the sixteenth century.

URGENCY: The present situation in the Central- and Eastern-European
countries is very unstable with living conditions deteriorating and
with galloping inflation. This makes labour cheap and equipment
astronomicaly expensive, just the opposite from our situation. People
are confronted with harsh truths and are desparate to see any signs of
improvement. The infrastructure, and especially message exchange using
telephone and Fax; is very fragile which is a bottleneck for food-aid,
logistics and business contacts. The ability to reach people is a pre-
requisite for any improvement we can help to implement to get them
through the wintertime!

REQUEST FOR HELP: We propose to raise money to send modems to the east
quickly to help the present FidoNet system operators to extend their
networks and help pay their telephone bills. Also we ask people who
have spare modems/ modemcards for PC's to send them to us. Because of
the low quality of telephone connections and the difficulty to get a
dial connection the modems should be at least: autodial Hayes- command
compatible , V22bis and MNP5.The modems bought or collected will be
geographically distributed according to the present distribution of
Fido-nodes east of the EEC: Poland 19, Czechoslovakia 54, Hungary 16,
Bulgaria 10, Estonia 14, Latvia 6, Lithuania 18, Ukraine 13,
Byelorussia 6, Moldova 3, Russian Federation 70.

<<-->>Please send your donation to Bankaccount nr 25.96.25.078
(Bank Mees & Hope, Amsterdam) of Jaap van Till, The Netherlands,
stating "MODEMOCRACY". Ask your bank to use the SWIFT network because
that decreases the handling costs. Don't send checks. An alternative
is to send paper-money,with your name and adress,in an envelope to
the postal adress below.

<<-->>Send your spare Modem to : Consultancy Group STRATIX B.V. ,
Kostverlorenhof 2, 1183 HE Amstelveen, the Netherlands. This is
because I do not want to store them at home. An independant Foundation
will audit the handling of your gifts. We know that most of you are
also in need of more equipment constantly but you also know what
dramatic improvements in cooperation can be achieved with PC's and
modems: "networking" means helping other people. Your contribution
DOES make a difference!  Please help our friends in the former
soviet-dominated countries. How about a worldwide -X-mas with -X-modem
???

Sponsors for this charity are welcome: Fax [phone].
E-mail [e-mail]
E-mail BT-Dialcom adress: 12427:CGS003


[Moderator's Note: To repeat, this has NOT been verified. Before
sending money or computer equipment to any stranger, always satisfy
yourself the request is legitimate.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #898
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03959;
          8 Nov 91 1:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16415
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 00:07:07 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24264
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 00:06:52 -0600
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 00:06:52 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #899

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Nov 91 00:06:30 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 899

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers [Linc Madison]
    AT&T Calling Card for NON-AMERICAN Citizens! [Juergen Ziegler]
    New 310 Area Code + FTS2000 - Not Installed Yet [Paul Robichaux]
    Need Call Sequencer [R. Patrick MacKinnon]
    Northwestern University Goes In-House For Dorm Phones [H. Peter Anvin]
    NetWatch by TelWatch [Clyde R. Visser]
    Digital PABXs and ISDN Switches [krish Sakotai]
    Free Samples of the Motorola CLID Chip [Mike Ardai]
    Limited Bandwidth PBX? [Doug Faunt]
    AT&T/Radio Connection to be Featured [Scott Fybush]
    Panasonic KT2445BE [Nigel Roberts]
    Telemarketing Prevented [Eric Dittman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 02:23:24 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers


The local radio station I most often listen to is based in San
Francisco, but has always had a separate number for San Jose area
listeners to call for requests, contest entries, etc.  The two numbers
are in the 415-478 and 408-986 exchanges, both of which I believe are
choke exchanges.  So far so good.

Just a couple of weeks ago, they eliminated the South Bay 408-986
number and replaced it with an 800-696 number, dialable (at least
according to their ads) only from the 408 area.  This strikes me as a
rather stupid move.  For the people in the northern 408 area (their
signal doesn't even pretend to reach south of the Santa Cruz
Mountains, much less to Monterey), the only difference is that the old
number incurred Zone 1 charges on measured phones, or 20c from a
payphone, while the new number is free.  (408-986 is local/Zone 1 to
all of 408 north of the Santa Cruz Mountains.)

However, there were a lot of people in places like Fremont and Los
Altos for whom the 408 number was either local or at least a smaller
toll charge than the San Francisco number.  The radio station is
paying loads of money for their 800 number, which only marginally
improves service for some listeners and makes things worse for many
others.  Just not real bright, if you ask me.  Of course, things might
start to get competitive in terms of cost once you factor in the cost
of forwarding the 408-986 number to San Francisco, but it still seems
they should've expanded the area for the 800 number.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 14:30
From: "Juergen, ZIEGLER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Calling Card For NON-AMERICAN Citizens!


Hi TD-readers:

  Several weeks ago I (and others) reported how to get an MCI calling-
card. Bye that time the MCI card was the best offer. But they
increased some of their rate (e.g. from Germany by 5.8%) so it may be
of interest to have a second calling card from another IEC.

  So I called US-SPRINT. The rep told me that I could get such a card,
but I would need an American address and reference phone number. That
did not satisfy me, since it would create extra hassle to send the
card and bills from my relatives address to Germany. And of course, it
would also create extra expenses. NO Thank You!

  Then I called AT&T. The last time I called them, the rep could not
help me. So I called the USA-DIRECT INFO number (412-553-7458) what
was printed on an AT&T advertisment in the WSJ Europe. The rep told me
that I could get a NON-SUBSCRIBER calling card and gave me the number
of an AT&T calling card center (813-654-6000). After I was transferred
to an NON-SUBSCRIBER rep the rep told me 'NO PROBLEM'. But somehow I
told him that I am GERMAN. Well, that seemed to be the end of my
application.  But he put me on hold and called a so-called SPECIALIST.

That specialist told him that I could not get such a card. Again, the
call seemed to be close to its end. Then I told the rep about the
charges from Germany and that I would definitely not call the US. So
he suggested to call a second SPECIALIST. And that one seemed to be a
real specialist. So the rep told me that I could get the card and I
was transferred to the last rep. Then the last rep took all neccessary
information to get the application processed and checked my
credit-card account during the call.

  So what should we learn about this? Never give up. If neccessary
call many times and ask many SPECIALISTS. Maybe you will find one
SPECIALIST who really is one.

  Just call the AT&T Calling Card Center for NON SUBSCRIBER cards on:

                     816 - 654 - 6004 (call collect from overseas)
                                      (open 8AM-8PM Central)

  And they will (hopefully) take your application. I have to mention
that I do not have the card right now, but I hope that I will receive
it soon. They told me it takes about two weeks to get the card.


Many happy (and cheap) calls.


   Juergen

BITNET   : [e-mail]
Internet : [e-mail]
X.400    : S=UJ32;OU=ibm3090;OU=rz;P=uni-karlsruhe;A=dbp;C=de

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Robichaux)
Subject: New 310 Area Code + FTS2000 - Not Installed Yet
Organization: New Technology, Inc.
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 14:19:52 GMT


I had forgotten about the (recent) 213-into-310 split, but yesterday
received a voice mail message from a vendor in Manhattan Beach, CA. He
asked that I return his call, and left a 310-xxx-xxxx number.

When I tried to call it with our outbound FTS line, I discovered that
our switching system knows nothing about 310. Calls to 213-xxx-xxxx
completed normally.

A quick call to the Boeing people who run Marshall Space Flight
Center's communications elicited the info that "FTS is going through a
bunch of changes and they probably haven't gotten to installing that
new area code yet."

I thought that long-distance FTS calls were carried by Sprint/AT&T
over normal PSTN lines. What else should they have to do to enable
calls to "new" area codes? I'll have to try one of the other new codes
and see what happens.


Paul Robichaux                  | Disclaimer: NTI pays for my skills, not my
[e-mail]  |             opinions.

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

From: [e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
Subject: Need Call Sequencer
Date: 6 Nov 91 16:43:07 GMT
Organization: University of Western Ontario


Can anyone suggest an eight line call sequencer suitable for
loop lines?  I have a friend who wants to sequence eight lines going
into his service departmant.  His in house system is a ROLM Redwood,
and a PC based one would be preferred over a stand alone unit.

Could anyone suggest a product, and source?  Any help would be quite
appreciated.  I am also looking for a four or two port voicemail
system. (again, PC based would be best.) Thanks a million ...


[e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
The Western Business School BBS  --  London, Ontario

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

From: [e-mail] (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP)
Subject: Northwestern University Goes In-House For Dorm Phones
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 16:58:30 GMT


This year Northwestern University let its in-house telephone support,
Northwestern Technologies Group, provide phone service for students in
a few dormitories.  NTG has a deal with AT&T's ACUS service for this
system.  It overall seems to be very much like a "sweet deal" for AT&T
and either Illinois Bell or Northwestern, depending on who gets the
$'s:

The features of the system are:

 1. No installation charge (IBT charged $55 to activate the phone line each
    year).
 2. Fixed charge of $7.00 a month that goes straight onto the housing bill.
 3. Students get separate bills based on a 5-digit code that has to be
    dialed each time.
 4. A 5-10% discount over standard AT&T rates for long distance.
 5. No possibility to choose other carriers or even AT&T's own Reach Out
    plans; calling cards *are* permitted with 10xxx sequences.
 6. Free on-campus calls.
 7. IBT *business rates* for off-campus calls within the LATA; counted from
    the closest campus (Evanston or Chicago/downtown) -- no unmeasured
    local calling area (per minute even across the street).
 8. An unspecified "credit limit" on phone calls.
 9. NTG refer all billing questions to AT&T, who refused to forward to me
    an exchange-to-billing range chart like IBT sends you on request
    (I use it to find cheap BBS's); they told me I would have to ask
    specifically on the phone for each area code/exchange pair.
10. No possibility to turn off Call Waiting per call.
11. No other CLASS services like distinctive ringing offered.
12. Collect calls not accepted, no provisions for Call Me cards.
13. 900 numbers blocked; no option to enable.
14. Line quality occationally too bad to support V.32 modems.

90% of the students I have talked to are negative to this system.  Is
there some way to force a turnaround, except complaining, or is the
setup solid enough that we are stuck with it?


P. Anvin

INTERNET: [e-mail]   FINGER:    [e-mail]
BITNET:   HPA@NUACC     HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/989.4   NeXTMAIL:  [e-mail]
IRC:      Xorbon        X.400:     FATAL ERROR, LINE OVERFLOW

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

Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1991 11:09:54 PST
From: dodeca![e-mail]
Organization: Ameritec Corporation
Reply-To: "Clyde R. Visser" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NetWatch by TelWatch


The NetWatch product of TelWatch, Inc. of Boulder Colorado is now
being sold and serviced by Ameritec Corporation of Covina, California
since the demise of TelWatch earlier this year.  I don't believe
TelWatch nor Ameritec were able to contact all of the current NetWatch
users due to a largely incomplete customer database.  If you have a
NetWatch, please refer to Ameritec (818-915-5441) for all future
servicing.  The customer support person for NetWatch is David
Martinez.


[Moderator's Note: The Ameritec mentioned here is not affiliated with
Chicago-based Ameritech (with an /h/ on the end), the parent company
of Illinois Bell.   PAT]

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

From: "Krishnan \"krish\" Sakotai " <[e-mail]>
Subject: DIGITAL PABXs and ISDN Switches
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 14:44:45 EST


Hello,

I am trying to keep pace with the fascinating developments in the
BISDN area and would like to ask the knowledgable people in this group
a few questions.

1. What are the basic differences between a Digital PABX and a BISDN
   switch ? Is the technology same in both, or is it different ?

2. What would be the distinct application areas for both ?

3. With new developments in ATM switching and the like can we see the
   Digital PABX market dying in the near future ? With my limited
   ISDN knowledge, I see that BISDN switch is a superset of the Digital
   PABX. Hence isnt the market for the latter shrinking ?

4. What does it require for a company having a Digital PABX to convert
   to ISDN(either Near or Broadband), in terms of switch, carrier technology,
   and application software ? Does the Digital PABX switch need to be thrown
   away ?

I would appreciate any pointers on literature on the above topic.


Thanks in advance.


Krishnan C.Sakotai     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Ardai)
Subject: Free Samples of the Motorola CLID Chip
Date: 6 Nov 91 18:34:03 GMT
Organization: Teradyne EDA, Inc.


In the 10/28 issue of {EE Times}, Motorola has a full-page ad
announcing their new MC145447 single-chip call identifier.  This is a
single-chip Caller ID chip and ring detector.  They have a coupon for
a free sample or you can call 1-800-521-6274.

(I have no connection with Motorola; I just thought some readers may be
interested.)


Michael L. Ardai   [e-mail]   N1IST   Teradyne EDA East

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 15:06:36 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Limited Bandwidth PBX?


This was in one of the modem newsgroups:

Not necessarily. A lot of PBX's don't allow enough bandwidth with normal
voice circuits to run a full v.32 session on it. There are cards for
PBX's that do allow this, but if you are using a normal voice channel,
you might see problems that look just like a dirty line or echo
cancellation.

When seeing people who try to do UUCP and PEP and get lots of alarms, one
of the first things I ask is if they have a dedicated phone line or if
they are running via a PBX.


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

Is this real?  Is it real for a AT&T System 75?  Are there expanded
bandwidth cards available for the 75?


Thanks,

Doug

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 17:24 EDT
From: Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T/Radio Connection to be Featured


The early connection between AT&T and radio broadcasting will be the
subject of a short piece this Saturday night on Signals, which can be
heard at 11:35 PM Eastern time on WWCR, 7435 kHz shortwave.  It's the
first of a series of pieces on radio history that I'll be producing
for the show, and since it's telecom-related, I thought I'd let
telecom readers in on the fun.


Scott Fybush -- [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: How about a few excerpts from the show transcribed
for the audience here, Scott?   Thanks!   PAT]

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

From: N Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panasonic KT2445BE
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 19:14:19 GMT


Panasonic UK model KT-T225BE (Answering/Dialer/Speakerphone):

Many moons ago I posted a request for information about this model.
What I was after then was a way to disable the beep when recording
conversations.

I got one reply which seemed to indicate that it could indeed be done
in programming mode, but I never got around to trying it as I didn't
have a pressing need at the time. Inevitably, now I don't seem to be
able to find the details when I do want to use it. (Such is life ...)

Can anyone help? Please note that in the UK either party to a
conversation (telephone or otherwise) is legitimately entitled to
record it -- there's no requirement for the beep.

I'm very pleased with the Panasonic. It does everything I want in an
answering machine -- with the single exception of toll-saver features
when picking up messages, though I suspect that this feature might
also be in the firmware somewhere -- anyone know if this is true, and
if so how to enable it?

Any other internal firmware info, or tricks with this model or its
American equivalent gratefully received.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Dittman)
Subject: Telemarketing Prevented
Date: 6 Nov 91 23:42:09 CST
Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility


I was getting my hair cut today.  The guy that was cutting it was the
owner of the shop.  We were talking and he mentioned that he was going
to expand the chain (right now there are three) and was thinking about
buying a "telemarketing machine".  Upon further questioning, I found
out that he meant a machine that would call lists of numbers and play
a message if answered.  He asked me if I thought buying one would be a
good idea.  I went into a long explanation as to why I thought it
would be a bad idea.  After I was done, he decided not to get one.  A
small battle won in the war against telemarketing.


Eric Dittman
Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility [e-mail]

Disclaimer:  I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test
             Facility.  I don't even speak for myself.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #899
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21422;
          8 Nov 91 8:59 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13798
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 07:05:39 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01043
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 07:05:20 -0600
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 07:05:20 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #900

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Nov 91 07:05:05 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 900

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Faircharge: Answer to VAN Surcharge? [Jack Powers]
    British Telecom Figures [Adam Ashby]
    Vacant Chair: Telecommunication Networks [Rudi Westerveld]
    Costs of Phreaking (was Two Cell Phones on Same Number) [Brad Hicks]
    What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) [Patrick MacKinnon]
    Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? [Douglas W. Martin]
    Video Dialtone vrs. Info Services [Tom Streeter]
    Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere [Juergen Ziegler]
    Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking [Philadelphia Inquirer via D. Green]
    Question on Easments [Neil Kruse]
    Max Cable Lengths for V.35 [Jon Gauthier]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 00:24:43 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Faircharge: Answer to VAN Surcharge?


The FCC wants to require the VANs to pay the same kind of surcharge
for use of the local phone network that the voice long distance
companies do.  The money collected by this surcharge goes to the local
phone companies to help replace the internal subsidies of the old Bell
System.  In the bad old days (before 1984), long distance tolls paid a
big part of the cost of the local network.

I believe that, in principle, the FCC is correct: long distance calls
should be treated the same whether they are voice or data.  However,
the amount of the surcharge should be based on the bandwidth actually
used, and even *very conservative* estimates of that yield much lower
surcharges than those for voice calls.  For example, assuming the
connection were 100% busy in both directions, a 1200 bps data call
should only bear 1.5% of the surcharge imposed on a voice call.
Higher rates would pay in proportion.

This is based on the fact that a voice call is handled in the digital
phone network as a bit stream of 64,000 bits per second.  Since the
start, stop, and framing bits aren't carried between switches the
worst case formula (8 data bits, no parity, 1 stop bit) is:

          (8/10)*(R/6400)=     .015 for  R= 1200
                         =     .030 for  R= 2400
                         =     .120 for  R= 9600, etc.

(Yes, there is some overhead for sync framing, but that's not counted
in voice calls, either.)

So, for even the highest common end-user rates, VAN users should only
pay about 1/8 of the equivalent voice surcharge. And that's making
some mighty generous assumptions.

I say pay the surcharge ... but only a fair fraction of it. I call this
"faircharge".


Jack Powers          [e-mail]    [e-mail]
Opinions are my own. Mistakes are someone else's.

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 11:41:05 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Adam Ashby)
Subject: British Telecom Figures


I am surprised not to have seen mention of this yet, so I will!

British Telecom released its half-yearly figures recently and
announced a profit of L1.7 billion (1.7 billion pounds) for the six
month period, that comes out to about L100 every second.

For those that want the figures in American - its a lot of bread, man!
just multiply by 1.7 to get dollars.


                  Adam Ashby
               [e-mail]
                [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rudi Westerveld)
Subject: Vacant Chair: Telecommunication Networks
Organization: Delft University of Technology
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1991 15:36:21 GMT


CHAIR IN TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORKS.

Delft University of Technology (the Netherlands),
Faculty of Electrical Engineering announces

A vacant chair in Telecommunication Networks.

The full professor will be appointed in the Telecommunications and
Traffic-Control Systems group, where teaching and research
responsibilities are shared by three chairs. Key areas of attention in
this group are: tele-information systems, including data networks and
mobile communications; radio location, navigation and traffic-control
systems; teletraffic theory (ATM); systems integration.

The successful candidate will assume responsibility for the area of
network architecture, including protocols, interfaces and switching
techniques, and for the systems engineering disciplines necessary for
design and management of major communication infrastructures.

He/she is required to have an outstanding research record and
practical experience within this area. He/she should demonstrate
strong didactic skills and the ability to stimulate joint research
with other disciplines, in addition to directing and personally
advancing the research of the chair.

Send nominations or applications (including a C.V. and a list of
publications) in confidence to: Prof. J. Davidse, Dean of E.E., P.O.
Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands, quoting vacancy No.
ET9125/2731.

More information available from Rudi Westerveld at Telecommunication
and Traffic-Control Systems group.  E-mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 17:01 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Costs of Phreaking (was Two Cell Phones on Same Number)


> Some major carriers that employ this as well as alternative methods of
> combatting fraud have six and seven figures in lost revenues. Must be
> passing it on to the ratepayers!

I run into this line of argument over and over again, in discussions
of both telephone phraud and software piracy.  Some Three Letter
Acronym (TLA) is said to have lost 7.4 jillion dollars in revenue and
therefore must pass this cost on to honest, hard-working, God-fearing,
apple-pie eating American customers.

When phone phreaking was at its worst, historically, what did it
REALLY add to The Phone Company's (TPC's) costs?  If you look at TPC's
own stats, they were at the time routing millions of calls a day,
maybe even tens of millions.  At the worst, there were MAYBE a
thousand people who knew how to really phone phreak ... which means
that even if they all got home from school, opened a can of Old Coke,
and hacked into a long distance trunk, and tied that trunk up from
then until the school bus came in the morning, then the whole
aggregate of them were using less than one tenth of one percent of the
system's PEAK capacity.  And mind you, almost all such phreaking, by
all accounts, occurred at off-peak times.

Did TPC have to add capacity to the network because the phreaks were
using it up?  Hardly.  Sure, TPC had to spend some money to beef up
their security ... but they should have been doing that, anyway.  So
what costs were there to be passed on to the ratepayers?  Arguably,
TPC has MADE money over the years off of the phreaks ... because some
customers were dumb enough to pay when TPC billed them for phreaked
calls.

Same argument in software piracy.  Another TLA, the SPA, is fond of
claiming that billions of dollars are lost each year to software
piracy.  Hey, when Joe Starving College Student (who despite having
four names like most of the Social Register, is really poor, and can
barely afford the payments on his off-brand clone CPU) "steals" a copy
of Well Known Spreadsheet to help him run his D&D game, how much has
his "theft" of WKS technology cost the TLA who owns it?  They would
claim that they "lost revenue" ... as if there was any way that Joe
would have run out and spent the Big Bucks for their WKS even if it
was as hard to copy as a Nintendo cartridge.  Fat chance.  No, the TLA
has MADE money off of this "theft," because when Joe Student enters
the "real world," their Well Known Spreadsheet will be the one he
knows, and wants on his desk.  Then whatever TLA hires Joe can pay the
TLA who owns the WKS for a copy, and everybody benefits (except maybe
for the attornies who might have been employed if somehow the TLA had
found Joe and brought him up on criminal charges).

You think I'm making this latter example up?  Word*Star was the ruling
force in MS-DOS word processors for a *long* time, long after it was
no longer the technological leader.  Where did they get that
dominance?  Their software was small and easily copied, so it had a
huge base of well-trained potential corporate users.


J. Brad Hicks  ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
Subject: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is)
Date: 7 Nov 91 17:31:27 GMT
Organization: University of Western Ontario


Hi, in the USA you have MCI. Are the letters and acronym and if so,
for what?  Also, in Canada, there is a company called MTI but I am not
sure who they are, what they do, and if MTI is an acronym either.  I
know it is telecommunications realated but I was looking for more
info ... thanks a million.


[e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
The Western Business School BBS  --  London, Ontario


[Moderator's Note: MCI = Microwave Communications, Inc. Sprint =
<S>outhern <P>acific <R>ailroad <I>nternal <N>etwork <T>elecommunications.
The railroad was the original owner of Sprint, which was its internal
telecom department. I don't know about MTI. In the Telecom Archives
you will find three glossary files of interest. (ftp lcs.mit.edu).

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 11:25:47 PST
From: [e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin)
Subject: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes?


     I know that some places use 200 for test numbers, but I've never
seen any use for 300, 400, 500, and 600. Are these area codes
allocated, identified, or accounted for in any way?

     Also, I hope someone will explain 710 (Government Special
Services), else explain why no information is forthcoming regarding
710.  Is it classified information or something?  I've tried dialing
many numbers in 710, and I always get the intercept: "Your call cannot
be completed as dialed."


Doug Martin      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I've been asking for a couple years for someone to
explain 710. No information has ever been given out (at least to me
for use here.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Streeter)
Subject: Video Dialtone vrs. Info Services
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 20:09:08 GMT

This may be a dumb question.

If I understand recent FCC rulings correctly, both local and long
distance phone service providers are now allowed to provide a pathway
into the home for full-motion video provided they do not have a
financial interest in the production of that video (the so-called
'video dialtone').  Phone companies are also allowed to provide
information services within their own service areas.  My question is
this: is there a provision in all of this which prevents the
information services from providing full-motion video?  I use the
phrase 'full-motion video' to signify what we typically call
'television programs.'  How are we to discriminate between the types
of messages which are and are not allowed?

Have I confused recent rulings on the MFJ with FCC actions?  Has all
this been hashed out and placed in the Telecom Archives?  Inquiring
minds.


Tom Streeter                                |   [e-mail]
Dept. of Mass Communication                 |   704-251-6227
University of North Carolina at Asheville   |   Opinions expressed here are
Asheville, NC 28804                         |   mine alone.

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

Subject: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 16:47:31 +0100
From: [e-mail] (|S| Juergen Ziegler)
Date: 4 Nov 91 15:47:29 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG (Informatik Rechnerabteilung)


Hi TD-readers,

Here in Germany you can receive, on a channel which is primarily
operated by the French program 'TV5-EUROPE', the US-program 'C-SPAN'
several hours a day. For language training I usually watch that
program. Last Friday I watched 'Journalist Roundtable' where they
accept phone calls.

While watching the program I was quite stunned by poor audio quality
from most callers within the US as compared to a phone call from a
correspondent who was calling from Madrid, Spain.

The audio from the intra-US callers had a 'metallic' sound. So there
was a relatively loud high-frequency spectrum compared to a virtual
not existing low-frequency spectrum. The sound reminded me of an
'speaking' toy from Texas Instrument (I do not know the name), which
was sold several years ago.

But the audio from Madrid was perfect for a phone call. It was definitely
a phone call.

What was the reason for this odd thing?


Juergen

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 16:24 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking


I'm not surprised that this wasn't caught earlier, because the
{Philadelphia Inquirer} buried this item way back on page 18 in the
Business section.  You may recall that the PA PUC was ready to allow
Bell to offer CID with no blocking (except for police officers,
domestic violence intervention agencies, and a very few others) when
the Commonwealth Court ruled that it violated the state wiretap law
and constitutional rights to privacy.

Well, Bell was appealing this decision before the State Supreme Court
on October 24 and surprised everyone by saying that it would be happy
to offer all customers free and unlimited ways of blocking the
service.  Apparently, the seven justices were dwelling on the fact
that they would, in effect, be handing out their private phone number
to anyone they happened to call.

Justice Rolf Larsen: "Let's say I call all the attorneys in a case to
arrange a conference call.  Now they all have my number.  I'm
inundated with calls.  You know how attorneys are."

D. Michael Stroud, Bell's VP and general counsel, said that callers
could press *67 to make a call untraceable.  "I think that would cure
every issue raised by every oponent," he said.

Opponents of Caller ID were caught of guard.  David Kluz of the
Coalition Against Domestic Violence called it a "gaping surprise."  He
told that justices that if Bell had taken that stance earlier, his
organization might never have opposed Caller ID.


(summarized from the {Philadelphia Inquirer}, 10/25/91)

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

Date: 7 Nov 91 13:56:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Question on Easments


I have a question as to how does LEC determine what a easment is
worth?

My family has some land, and 20 years ago we gave the Public Works
Dept. in our town a easment for sewer and water ONLY.  Then, the LEC
"snuck" in some buried lines without a easment or permission.  Ten
years later the LEC's contractor drives onto our property with their
tractors ripping up the ground to install a new fiber optic cable.  We
say, "stop!"  They say they now have a "perscriptive easment" for this
half mile strip down our property.  We settle for about $3,500 dollars
in paving work done by one of their contractors.

My question is, since they intalled the cable without our permission
(we didn't even know it was there) and, then went to install new
cable, did they have a right "with the perscriptive easment" to do
that?  And, were we suckered on what a half mile long easment is
worth?  Any ideas?


Thanks,

Neil Kruse   ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: I think what they were trying to say is the law in
many or most places grants easement rights to utilities as long as
they act within reason, repairing/replacing roadways, grass, etc when
finished with their work. Comments, anyone?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Gauthier)
Subject: Max Cable Lengths for V.35
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jon Gauthier)
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 22:22:08 GMT


I've been looking for information about length restrictions on V.35
cabling, but can't seem to find anything documented.  I know I can
look it up in the CCITT Red or Blue books, but I figured this is
easier than finding it in our company library ...

Specifically, max lengths for V.35 at T-1 rates (1.544Mb/s) and at
double the DS-0 rate (128kb/s) given in the electrical specs.  Can
anyone answer this?


Jon L. Gauthier [phone]       exujlg@.exu.ericsson.se
LAN/WAN Systems Programmer           Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
EXU/IS/T                             P.O. Box 833875
                                     Richardson, TX 75083-3875

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #900
******************************