Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss901-950

Internet Message Format | 1991-11-22 | 882KB

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab23309;
          8 Nov 91 9:54 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01254
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 08:04:18 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18023
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 08:04:08 -0600
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 08:04:08 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #901

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Nov 91 08:03:22 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 901

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Alliance Signal Quality (Jim Hickstein)
    Cell Service in Franklin Co, Mass. (Scott Reuben)
    AT&T is Just Like All the Rest (Rob Knauerhase)
    Electrical Specs Needed on WE Princess Rotary Phone (Ralph W. Hyre)
    Looking for BISYNC Source Code on PC's (Parag Rastogi)
    Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Les Mikesell)
    Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Sean Williams)
    Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done (Jack Decker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 22:27:19 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jim Hickstein)
Subject: AT&T Alliance Signal Quality


I recently used AT&T's Alliance conferencing facility to make a call
that connected points in Massachusetts, California (me), and Tokyo.  I
was very disappointed with the result.  The trunk to Tokyo seemed not
to go over the usual, high-quality path, and there was a very high
level of background noise when someone in Tokyo talked (accents are
bad enough in person ...).  This could have been due to ambient noise
in the room with a speakerphone on their end (the rest of us were
using handsets), but it was still very distressing.

Also, the "negotiation" involved, when changing the party doing the
speaking, took a long time and seemed to get confused.  Is this TASI
trying too hard to reduce bandwidth?  It seemed to switch rapidly
between the two talkers for a while, like on the order of 20Hz, until
one of them stopped talking.

I called their customer service number and asked the simple question:
Did this call use AT&T facilities, specifically the crystal-clear
transPac fiber trunks, to Tokyo?  The answer was Yes, but I somehow
doubt it.  Is Alliance an integral part of an AT&T tandem somewhere
(it said it was in Reno), or is it a "service" that AT&T resells on
behalf of a "provider" who may very well use other carriers.  (This is
ridiculous on the face of it, but at this stage I'm ready to
disbelieve anything.)  Could I have forced AT&T with an equal-access
code (10288) in front of the 011+81 ...?  What other, competing
conferencing services do better in this regard?  Does my use of
Alliance count against our SDN volume?  If so, it may be harder to go
with someone else, but quality is my first consideration.

Really, it was almost totally useless.  Should I just bridge three
calls into my PBX next time, or would that entail too much loss from
one end to the other?  I am originating the call from San Jose, the
midpoint geographically, so maybe this wouldn't be too bad.

Honestly, this can't be *that* hard!  Haven't they been doing it for a
hundred years?

A Disgruntled Customer.

P.S. To its credit, it did recognize that one of my parties didn't
supervise, and it did the right thing (it said it didn't work, and that
I should try again), so it can't be totally fly-by-night.


Jim Hickstein, Teradyne/Attain, San Jose CA, [phone] FAX -0252
[e-mail] ...!{decwrl!teda,apple}!attain!jxh

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

Date: 8-NOV-1991 05:38:54.24
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cell Service in Franklin Co, Mass


For those driving on I-91:

This past Monday, Franklin County (Mass) Cellular turned "on" their
tower(s?), so that coverage on the "A" side in Western Mass on I-91 is
now complete. (Although the rest of the county doesn't have service --
yet).

You can drive from New Haven, CT, all the way to the Mass/VT border,
and be continuously covered. Franklin Co. Cellular basically resells
to Metro Mobile, and has the same SID (00119), so you don't really
know you are not technically using Metro Mobile. All your features
work, you can get calls, *711 yields a Metro Mobile roaming recording,
*611 gets Metro Mobile custuner service, so that fact that the towers
are owned by Franklin County Cellular is more or less academic. (Let's
just hope they get the billing correct!)

Also, Cell One/VT presently has service to just north of Brattleboro
(about 15 miles north of the border), and by January should cover all
the way down to Mass. Cell One/VT offers an economical $3/month plan
($.75 airtime) which is basically aimed at light callers who want to
avoid roam charges. If you make calls on more than one day in VT, you
will save money with this plan.  (Barring special roam plans like
SNET/CT's 60-cent-per-day-no-roam0-charge plan ... I think Rochester
Tel offers something like this as well (?) )

Since both systems are run on Motorola EMXs, it shouldn't be any
problem to have through-paging between Metro Mobile/CT-RI-Western Mass
and Cell One/VT.  This would be an impressive coverage area indeed!

The "B" side is also making progress. SNET also seems to have
service in Franklin County now (but not as clear in all places as
Metro Mobile/Franklin County Cellular), and US Cellular in Keene, NH,
is expanding to the Hanover area this winter. (Presently, they resell
Cell One/VT, which covers White River Jct/Hanvover, while Cell One/VT
resells US Cell for its customers who wish to roam into the Keene
area.)

Finally, in July I mentioned that all the switches in the Northeast
that run on Motorollas will allow you to use your call-forwarding
features in any other Motorola based system. A few new systems were
"added" (software upgrades?), so here is the complete list:

Cell One/Boston (00007)
Metro Mobile/CT-RI-Western Mass-New Bedford Mass (00119)
Cell One/South Jersey (00173/00575/01487)
Metrophone/Philly (00029)
Cell One/Wilmington (00123)
Cell One/Atlantic City (forgot the SID)
(note the absence of NY after the July switch change)

There is also a new system is Jersey somewhere (not Ocean County
Cellular), which is supposed to connect to Cell One (aka Metro
One)/NY. I dunno if it is Ericsson or Motorola, so can't tell how it
will be integrated (if it will) into the Northeast EMX system. They
only have 54 customers, so they will be depending on a good deal of
roamer traffic! :) Anyone know about this system? What's the SID?

Is Cell One/DC Motorola based? If so, odd how Cell One/Wilmington
doesn't link up with the DC-Baltimore system -- it seems to me like
there would be a lot of cross-traffic, even though one STILL gets cut
off crossing the river near Havre de Grace (sp?).

Happy Roaming!


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

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 23:05:58 -0600
From: Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest


This evening I got a bright yellow glossy envelope, emblazoned with:

"We really meant it when we said your check was in the mail."

    I was somewhat suspicious, especially since all the identification
was a small mention of a PO Box in Roseland, NJ on the back of the
envelope.  There was even a _real_ (not pre-printed) 10-cent stamp on
it.  Imagine my surprise to see that inside was a $20 check from AT&T
 -- all I have to do to get the cash is switch to AT&T.

    So it seems the "big guys" aren't all that far ahead of the
upstarts in marketing tactics.  This offer is very similar to the MCI
deal mentioned here before, except this check states on front and back
that signing it means they can switch you, and it clearly states
"Check void if altered."  Unlike MCI, however, they don't promise to
pay any local switchover fee.

    Is there a marketing school somewhere that's producing the people
who think this up?  MCI mails out checks if you switch, Sprint mailed
me a $10 check in June that's only good after October 1, and now AT&T
is in on the game.

[Now off to the archives to see if anyone figured out a legal way to
get the money without switching ... :->  Not really.]


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Subject: Electrical Specs Needed on WE Princess Rotary Phone
Date: 7 Nov 91 23:00:06 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


Our local (CBT) phone center is selling the handset only for Princess
phones with a rotary dial and switchook in the handset.  Can anyone
briefly explain the handset-base circuitry so I can asses whether to
buy one to experiment with? (I have several applications where I can
use a 500-style handset, but I'm worried the dial circuitry might
interfere with the audio.  This is for my old hobby of abusing
communications and computer equipment.)  My guess is that the handset
has a hybrid circuit (2-4 wire converter), using the other two wires
for the switchhook.  Is this right?  Does the device resemble a butt
set, electrically?


Mic ==
     + 2-4 wire converter ==
Spkr ==                   4 wires from handset to base [base] phone line
                          +=
Pulse Dialer/Swithhook ===+

Please reply by mail if you:
    1) know the answer to the question
or
    2) have a trimline base you'd like a used handset for ($9.80)
    [There are two black ones and one red one left.]

Thanks,


            - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
E-mail: [e-mail]    Snail: Box 85, Milford OH 45150-0085
Phone: [phone]        Radio: N3FGW

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Looking for BISYNC Source Code on PC's
Date: Thu,  7 Nov 91 14:07:01 PST


I am looking for bisync code. I am wondering if someone knows whether
any public-domain source code for bisync protocol on PC's exist. I can
modify it to run for my application. Any pointers in this regard are
requested.

Thanks.


Parag Rastogi  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase?
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 19:00:26 GMT


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

> Like yourself, I have yet to get anything from AT&T Mail on this, in
> the mail or otherwise.

I haven't seen anything other than the article here either, but I had
been expecting some sort of rate structure change after the internet
link became official.  They only charge for messages sent, so for
messages coming from the internet, they not only don't get paid but
they lose mony on your 800-number call to pick them up.  If you are on
some internet mailing lists, there could be substantial traffic.  I
didn't expect the low-usage accounts to pick up the tab in the form of
minimum monthy charges as the other message implied, though.


Les Mikesell   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (S.E. Williams )
Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase?
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 23:18:31 GMT


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

> 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

I wrote a note to AT&T Mail's Customer Service regarding the same
thing, and here's what I got back in the mail (Captured directly from
my buffer):

>From [e-mail] Thu Nov  7 04:38:45 1991
Received: by ultb.isc.rit.edu (5.57/5.3 (Postmaster DPMSYS))
        id AA19105; Thu, 7 Nov 91 04:38:43 -0500
Date: Thu Nov  7 04:37:58 EST 1991
Original-From: attmail!atthelp (Customer  Assistance )
Phone: [phone]
Subject: Help Ticket ID: 16594
To: internet!ultb.isc.rit.edu![e-mail]

Your original message was:

Dear AT&T,

I just received your letter regarding the new billing structure in the
mail today.  Am I correct in assuming that AT&T mail now has a minimum
monthly usage of $20.00?  (or was that $25.00)

If so, is AT&T doing this to get rid of its "little" customers?  I can
see no reason for staying with AT&T mail, since MCI mail has no such
monthly fee.

Regards,

Sean E. Williams
Telecommunications Technology Program
Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY


In Response:

Sean,
You may call 1-800-242-6005 regarding the new billing structure.

Thank You,
Tom
!atthelp

                           ----------

Well, that's it!  I guess we'll have to call the number to find out.
By the way, AT&T did return my original letter, and put in the "Your
original message was:" and "In Response:" lines.  I have not edited
the letter.

Regards,


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

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 17:28:34 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How

In a message dated 1 Nov 91 19:16:11 GMT, the Moderator interjects:

> [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]

That is a REAL good question, Pat.  I know that in the early days of
Compu$erve (circa 1984-85 or thereabouts) they used to give demo
accounts to Radio Shack stores.  Of course, the employees soon found
out about them and then friends of employees found out and pretty soon
they were all over.  I *THINK* that perhaps Compu$erve may have
started restricting access for these accounts, so they would only be
honored if the call came in from a certain node and then only during
business hours.  I suppose that a cellular operator COULD restrict
access for a certain account to only one cell site (the one nearest
the store) but for some reason, that's NOT the way I'd bet!

But we don't even HAVE cellular service up here in the North Woods
yet ... in fact, I live only about 40 miles from a place that has no
telephone service at all, except that one resident purportedly has a
cellular phone and is receiving service from Traverse City, which
(even though most of the hop is over Lake Michigan) must set some sort
of record for service distance ... it's almost exactly 100 miles from
Traverse City to this location (East Lake in Mackinac County, about 10
to 15 miles east-southeast of Trout Lake, if anyone wants to look it
up on a map).  Does cellular service really "reach out" that far?


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


[Moderator's Note: Two points: The *really* early days of Compuserve
came in the period 1980-82, and yes, they were eaten alive by fraud,
hackerphreak style, during that period. I think the CB Simulator
program started around 1981-82, and some of those guys would go to the
local RS store, buy a Compuserve 'starter kit' which came with a $200
credit limit automatically in those days no questions asked, then stay
online all all day and night until the system went down at 5 AM local
time next morning. Phalse names and billing addresses provided for the
signup information, of course. After polluting the account with a few
days of being continuously online CB'ing, they'd ditch the account and
go get a new starter kit the next weekend for more fun. The starter
kits cost $20 as I recall, and could be milked for several hundred
dollars in charges before CIS would cut them off. Regards cell service
'going the extra mile', I've found the service from Tulsa, OK can be
used 50-60 miles away in southeastern Kansas with no hassle.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #901
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05375;
          9 Nov 91 18:55 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31644
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 16:47:41 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30852
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 16:47:30 -0600
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 16:47:30 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #902

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Nov 91 16:47:24 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 902

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest (Mikel Manitius)
    Re: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere (Rolf Meier)
    Re: Costs of Phreaking (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone (Paul Cook)
    Re: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst (Marcus Adams)
    Re: Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines (Andrew Klossner)
    Re: Question on Easments (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications (John Higdon)
    Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number (Steven J. Edwards)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 15:25:35 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)
Subject: Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest


> [ ... ] There was even a _real_ (not pre-printed) 10-cent stamp on
> it.  Imagine my surprise to see that inside was a $20 check from AT&T
>  -- all I have to do to get the cash is switch to AT&T.

I really thought it was funny when my friend received such a $20 check
from MCI to switch -- she was already an MCI "Dial 1" customer!

Are these things legally binding?

I've often managed to desposit checks into my account without signing
them by using an ATM. The problem is they'll probably switch you anyway,
and the trouble of getting it fixed isn't worth the $20.


Mikel Manitius        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: We've covered this before here. The intent of the
check is clear. When you deposit it, you agree to the terms involved.
Alterations usually make the check void.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rolf Meier)
Subject: Re: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 15:32:35 -0500
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(|S| Juergen Ziegler) writes:

> 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.

> What was the reason for this odd thing?

You have several problems when talking between Europe and America.

First, the digital encoding standards are different, and a conversion
must be made.  The American standard is called mu-law and the European
is A-law.  Not doing the conversion can certainly account for reduced
speech quality, but even if it is done there will be some impairment.

Second, there will be echo cancellation required due to the distance.
This can result in some degradation as well because these circuits are
not perfect.

Third, the voices you heard may have been put on a speakerphone, which
causes a "rain-barrel" effect.

The combination of at least these three impairments (there may be
others, such as impedance mismatches) account for what you heard.
Each one will only make the other impairments sound that much worse.
For example, a speakerphone might sound ok when everything else is
perfect, but add some imperfect echo cancellation, and the effect is
pretty bad.


Rolf Meier       Mitel Corporation

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 17:34:15 EST
Subject: Re: Costs of Phreaking
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


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

> 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.

[ goes on to argue that phreakers didn't come close to using up the
network, so there is no cost.]

Toll fraud has become a major industry involving your "jillions" of
dollars of lost revenue and expended costs by all of the major
carriers, TLA or otherwise.  This is not some "innocent" student
fiddling with DTMF boxes.  This is folks who found an easier bet than
dealing drugs -- selling calling card numbers in the Port Authority
bus terminal.

There are very real costs associated with toll fraud.  The calls
generally get billed, and then get written off.  There is a cost
associated with that process.  Also, a whole lot of the toll fraud
industry centers around international calling.  Something like half
the price of an international call is paid out directly to the foreign
PTT (usually == foreign treasury).  That is a lot of money for even a
TLA to have to eat.  Half of a large fraction of the "jillions".  If
you think is is pocket change, I invite you to cover it.  I could use
a better raise this year.  :^)

Also, I find it very disturbing that your discussion of phreaking and
software piracy is cast solely in terms of whether or not the victims
can afford it.  Does nobody think about simple honesty anymore?  I
must be naive.  I actually have reported and paid tax on income that
appeared on no W2 and no 1099, because it was the right thing to do.
Paying for your phone calls and paying for your software is the right
thing to do.  Anything else is stealing.  Stealing is wrong.

Is that such a complicated concept?


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

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 22:13 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone


"Ken J. Clark" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'm not sure when AT&T introduced Touchtone(R) to the market place.

They came up with the scheme in the 1950s, but it wasn't brought to
market until the mid-1960s.

> Do they still hold it as a registered trade mark?  Anyone?

No.

> 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.

I don't think this used tone signalling.  I believe it was a
mechanical device that put out rotary dial pulses.  Back in the 1930s
one would have to use vacuum tubes or vibrating reeds to generate tone
signals.


Paul Cook    Proctor & Associates    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcus Adams)
Subject: Re: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst
Date: 8 Nov 91 23:12:51 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


It's interesting that they are issuing PINs to the students for the
touchtone registration system. Here at USC, they use your student ID #
(your social security number if you have one) and your birthdate for
access.  I'm amazed that no one has complained about the obvious lack
of security in this system around here. I guess people here are so
happy not to have to wait in four hour lines to get their classes.

I do know a guy who, in order to get even with an ex-girlfriend,
called up the touchtone registration on the last day of drop/add (last
day to make changes in your schedule without getting charged for it)
and added 16 classes to her schedule for a total of 44 credit hours.
She got a bill for it a couple weeks later, at $475 a credit hour, for
over $20,000 over her normal tuition.


[Moderator's Note: Gee, what a witty, brilliant and funny thing to do
to someone. He must have been rolling on the floor with laughter after
doing that, the same as I am now reading about it.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Re: Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines
Date: 8 Nov 91 23:19:51 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


TELECOM Moderator noted:

> 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."

They're also great for modem dial-out lines when you want to be sure
that, when the modem goes off-hook, it isn't accidentally answering an
incoming call from a cracker who is going to mimic the CO and collect
a password.


Andrew Klossner  ([e-mail])
                 (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)


[Moderator's Note: But I covered this category in "people who can't
keep their hands off the phone"  :)   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 14:07:57 -0800
From: Rich Greenberg <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Question on Easements
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1991 22:05:56 GMT


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

> I have a question as to how does LEC determine what a easment is
> worth?

 [ LEC snuck in some cables]

> tractors ripping up the ground to install a new fiber optic cable.  We
> say, "stop!"  They say they now have a "perscriptive easement" 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 easement" to do
> that?  And, were we suckered on what a half mile long easement is
> worth?  Any ideas?

You have most likely gotten as much as you can expect out of them.

They are wrong about the "perscriptive easement" provided that you
truly didn't know about it.  They get this easement only if you knew
and didn't protest for some specfic length of time (may vary
state-state).

Keep in mind that they are "TPC", and they don't have to care.
(And they have lots of lawyers on staff.)


Disclaimer: The above writings are the ramblings of one human being
        and have nothing what-so-ever to do with Locus Computing Corp.
   ---> Rich Greenberg,  [e-mail]    TinsleTown, USA  310-337-5904
Located in Inglewood, Ca, a small city completely contained within Los Angeles

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

Subject: Re: CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications
Date: 7 Nov 91 01:23:12 PST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


[e-mail] (David Singer) writes:

> 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!

You can practically get that now. Simply order direct WATS (delivered
on T1) from almost any major carrier and you will get a rate around
$0.09/min. The monthly will be slightly more than $200/month, but then
you can have up to twenty-four outbound circuits for your calls as a
bonus.  Then call to your heart's content anywhere in the country
(including within the LATA) for about $0.09/minute, day and night.

California regulations may prohibit carriers from claiming that they
can carry intraLATA calls, but I can tell you that they can and do for
many enlightened companies. GTE may be able to stop MCI, Sprint, et al
from telling you how to save big time on your intraLATA calling, but
they cannot stop me from giving you that information. And I will be
more than happy to tell you all about it.


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

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 15:38:39 EST
From: [e-mail] (Steven J. Edwards)
Subject: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number
Reply-To: [e-mail]


    Four months ago I obtained an unlisted telephone number by New
England Telephone as part of the service for a new residence.  I was
told at the time that this number had not seen recent use and was not
assigned to anyone else, nor was it present in the NET telephone
directories or from NET directory assistance (555-1212).  There was a
fairly hefty tariff associated with installation (about US$50, just
for a software entry; all hardware was in place).  There was also a
cost of about US$25 for a service request for getting an unpublished
and unlisted number, along with a monthly tariff of about US$4 for the
same.  These expenses were justified at the time by an NET service
representative as being necessary for "the high level of service
traditionally supplied by New England Telephone".

    The number was to be used mostly for automated computer
telecommunications, so I had no desire for unwanted incoming voice
calls.  After noting some problems with the computer connection over
the first three months' usage, I installed a voice answering machine
and recorder on the line.  I set the outgoing tape to answer with the
complete telephone number dialed so wrong number dialers would realize
their mistake.  Much to my surprise, I would come home after work and
find a number of calls for people I did not know from people I did not
know.  Furthermore, a number of these calls surprisingly contained
rather intimate details of people's business and private lives.  The
callers obviously thought they were dealing the correct number because
of the outgoing message.

    I had been unable to track the origin of these calls until
yesterday evening, as most of the callers thought that the party they
were trying to call knew their return phone number.  Finally, one
caller did leave her return number (she was not at her regular number,
I suppose).  I contacted her and was able to get the correct spelling
of the name of whom she thought she called.  I was also told that she
had gotten the number from NET directory assistance.

    A quick check of the new 1991-1992 Nynex White Pages phone
book for my area found my "unlisted" number listed on page 164 under
another person's name!  Another entry with the same last name, but
different first name, was located.  Furthermore, a call to directory
assistance proved that their computer was still supplying this false
information.  It took a nearly thirty minute long conversation with
three different people at NET directory assistance to convince them
that they were giving out false information.

Because of my knowledge of the first names referenced in messages left
on my recorder (along with other information inadvertently recorded),
I correctly guessed that this was a husband and wife living at
different addresses and they had recently moved into a single
residence.  I called the other (correct) number and confirmed that
this was all a result of a big screw-up by NET.  I also took the
opportunity to relate several of the topics referenced in the supposed
confidential calls.  The intended recipients were quite surprised, to
say the least.  Fortunately for them, I am not a crook; however, if it
had been a crook that had their old phone number, the opportunities
for fraud may have been too tempting to resist.

    First moral of the story: if you ask for an unlisted number,
don't assume that you'll get one that was not very recently in use by
another party.

    Second moral of the story: if you change residences, make sure
that your old listing is deleted by the directory provider and is
correctly handled by directory assistance.

    Third moral of the story: never leave personal or otherwise
confidential information on a recording answering machine unless you
are absolutely certain that only the intended receiver will replay
such recordings.


[The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
      == Steven J. Edwards           Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
      == [phone]              300 Concord Road         MS 820A ==
      == [e-mail]     Billerica, MA 01821          USA ==

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #902
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06807;
          9 Nov 91 19:43 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01763
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 18:04:27 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01523
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 18:04:18 -0600
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 18:04:18 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #903

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Nov 91 18:04:12 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 903

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Subject Index Updated Through Issue 900 (TELECOM Moderator)
    The Information Wars (John Higdon)
    Estonian Phone Net (Lars Aronsson)
    New Zealand Toll Price War (Pat Cain)
    Centrex Multiline Station Sets (Jeff Sicherman)
    Cellular Phone Rates (Popular Commuications via Steven M. Palm)
    Digital PABXs Vs BISDN Switches (Basic Question) (Krishnan Sakotai)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 15:57:32 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Subject Index Updated Through Issue 900


The TELECOM Digest subject index for volumes 9-10-11 in the archives
has been updated to include subject lines through issue 900 of volume
11.  At the end of the year, I will update it again to include the
final issues for this year.

The file 'index-vol.9-10-11.subj.Z' is compressed, and you will need
to take it back to your site using ftp, and THEN uncompress it to use
it. As before, I recommend you use grep -i for the best results in
searching for subjects, author names, or file locations. The file is
is strict alphabetical order, ignoring the 'Re:' which appears at the
start of some messages. Within each subject, author names are in order
by the *full* name, ie Fred Smith comes before John Higdon. The series
of numbers at the left reference the volume and block of issues in the
archives where the subject will be found. After locating which volume
and block of issues is desired, you would then pull that file and
again grep for the subject within that block.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 13:24 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: The Information Wars


Tom Lantos, a VERY consumer-oriented (overly so, in my opinion)
congressman from the Bay Area has come down four-square against the
entry into the information business by the RBOCs. He succinctly stated
his reasoning in an article written for the {San Francisco Chronicle}
that appeared in today's paper and which I faxed to the EFF earlier
today.

Pacific Telesis' response has been a radio commercial which I just
heard aired over a San Francisco classical radio station. Later today
I will transcribe the spot, but for now let me tell you that it is
typical of the underhanded tactics PacTel uses to ruthlessly get its
own way. It attacks Lantos by name, accusing him of "siding with the
newspaper interests" in "blocking your right to the free access of
information". It goes on to claim that senior citizens and students
will be particularly hurt by not allowing PacTel to enter into the
information business.

So here you have a government legislator actually looking out for his
constituency for a change and he gets attacked by an expensive (this
was a highly-produced spot) ad campaign. The advertisement concludes
by saying that it was paid for by Pacific Telesis and not paid for by
telephone customers. Oh, really? And where DOES Pacific Telesis get
its money? Off of spaghetti trees? I will believe that line when I can
examine a complete, certified audit of Pacific Telesis (in other
words, never).

This matter is even more serious than Pac*Bell's confiscatory ratepayer
money-grab. Pacific Telesis' entry into the information providing
business will give new meaning to the term "Orwellian". Some
organizations, such as the EFF, seem to feel that letting the RBOCs get
a foot in the door is essential to the emergence of the necessary
technology to get a "universal", national data network launched. This
is dangerous naivete, in that, as demonstrated by history, the telcos
only offer that technology that serves their own immediate marketing
benefits. For instance, Pacific Bell only offers a form of ISDN that is
useful in the marketing of Centrex, its own counter-product to the
vendor-provided PBX. Since the gains of offering general purpose ISDN
are not immediately apparent, it is not available.

Indeed, I asked a Pac*Bell spokesman about Pac*Bell's timetable in
offering a residential ISDN and he responded with a sneer and told me
that there was really no demand and that "there were no plans or
timetables yet." If Pacific Telesis is allowed into the information
business AND ISDN fits into those plans, then, yes, you will see an
offering. But you can rest assured that the offering will only benefit
Pac*Bell's marketing strategy and will not conform to the idyllic
visions expressed in a recent newsletter from the EFF.

Our pulp media is having difficulty staying awake through all of this.
To most, this is a non-issue that deserves, if anything, space on page
sixty-seven. However, PacTel has taken the gloves off with its
political radio spots. Yes, you read that correctly, these are
political spots and I am going to investigate the matter of "equal
time". If PacTel wants to come out of the closet with its media attack
on Tom Lantos, I will be very happy to join the fray. I may not have
the financial resources commanded by Pacific Telesis (courtesy of
millions of Pac*Bell ratepayers), but I have some history and some
facts on my side.

Shall we see what the people think?


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


[Moderator's Note: When telco says they (and not their rate payers)
are paying for something, they mean the costs are being charged
against profits paid to their stockholders.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Aronsson)
Subject: Estonian Phone Net
Organization: Lysator Computer Club, Linkoping University, Sweden
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 17:23:28 GMT


         Sweden's Televerket Invests Billions
            in Estonia's Telephone Network

The following is my translation of an article in ELTEKNIK, a Swedish
magazine for electrical engineers. To reprint this further, you should
obtain permission from ELTEKNIK's office in Stockholm, Sweden.

I have translated to the best of my knowledge and any factual errors
might very well be mine.

Ref:    Gote Andersson: "Televerket satsar miljarder i Estland",
    ELTEKNIK Aktuell Elektronik, No 19/1991, 31 Oct 1991, pp. 7-8,
    Copyright (C) ELTEKNIK Aktuell Elektronik, Published by
    Ekonomi och Teknik Forlag AB, Stockholm, Sweden, ISSN
    1101-6965.

For reprints and copyright information, contact Marianne Janskog,
international phone no. [phone], postal address ELTEKNIK,
106 12 Stockholm, Sweden.

First some explanations that might be useful. TELEVERKET is Sweden's
governmental telephone company. Until recently it had a total monopoly
on all kinds of telecommunication services, but in the last five or
ten years that has started to change. Today, Televerket operates
almost like a private company, although still whole-owned by the
Swedish government. When Televerket makes investments like the one
described below, it is done with money earned from selling services
and not with taxpayers' money. Telefon AB L M ERICSSON is a Swedish
telephone equipment manufacturing corporation since more than 100
years, and AXE is the name of Ericsson's family of automatic digital
telephone exchanges. GOTLAND is the largest Swedish island in the
Baltic Sea. The Swedish currency is KRONOR, and there are
approximately 6 kronor to one US dollar. The abbrevation AB in Swedish
company names means the same as British Ltd and US Inc. TELI is
Televerket's whole-owned telephone equipment manufacturing company.
One important part of Teli's operation is licensed assembly of
Ericsson's AXE exchanges. As to my knowledge, Ericsson's factories
only assemble for export.

Now to the article:

           TELEVERKET TO INVEST BILLIONS IN ESTONIA
    Becomes part owners of the Baltic nation's telephone network.

              by Gote Andersson

Televerket is now getting involved in our eastern neighbor Estonia,
where the telephone network is to be modernized. When Televerket
enters as a part-owner of its Estonian counterpart, this is the first
deal of its kind in Europe.

The Estonian telephone network will in the next few years be extended
using AXE technology. A fiber optical cable is planned from Gotland to
Estonia's capital Tallinn.

Preliminary, half a billion Swedish kronor [500 thousand million,
almost 100 million US dollars] will be invested each year.

The modernization of Estonia's telecommunications network up to
West European standards is expected to total between five and six
billion Swedish kronor [about 1000 million US dollars].

 - This is a long term investment. Only in ten years time can we see
any profit. During the first period, all profits will be reinvested in
Estonia, says Viesturs Vucins, CEO of Televerket's whole-owned
corporation Swedish Telecom International AB (STI).

A kind of agreement, a so called Memorandum of Understanding, has been
signed by Televerket's head Tony Hagstrom and his Estonian counterpart
Toomas Somera. Televerket got this agreement in tough competition with
the US company AT&T.

Right now, the Estonian telecommunication administration is
negotiating with Televerket about the contents of the contract to be
signed by the two. A joint-owned corporation will be founded and the
Estonian government will keep at least 51 per cent of its shares.

Estonia will [thus] get an all-new telephone company, preliminary
called ESTELCOM. This company will own and operate Estonia's telephone
network. The Estonian government will transfer its ownership of the
nation's telephone network to Estelcom, while Televerket will add
know-how and hard currency for the investments during the first years.
STI will act as the Swedish part-owner of Estelcom.

Estonia already today has a relatively widespread telephone network
compared with other Soviet and East European areas. The nation has 1.6
million inhabitants and approximately 300 000 telephone subscribers.
This corresponds to 20 per cent of the population, compared to the
whole of the Soviet Union (14 per cent), Poland (8 per cent), and
Hungaria (9 per cent).

The modernization of the national telephone network among other things
means that a digital network will be built in parallel with the
existing analog network. Telephone traffic will then be moved part by
part from the old analog network to the new digital one.

Apart from a modernization of the domestic network, Estonia also needs
more network capacity for international calls. This will be solved by
the planned under-sea fiber optical cable to Gotland.

The idea is that Estelcom will buy equipment from Televerket's
traditional sources on an open market.

This will benefit Ericsson and Teli, among other companies.
Televerket's engineers will assist as experts in the modernization of
Estonia's telephone network.

The agreement between STI and the Estonian telecommunication
administration is the first of its kind in Europe. But it is not
unique in the world.

Argentina, Chile, and New Zealand have already sold their
governmental telecommunication administrations to foreign
corporations.

In Europe, private corporations have started new telecommunication
operations like cellular (mobile) telephone networks. Televerket is
presently discussing also with Latvia and hope to reach a similar
agreement there, says Viesturs Vucins of STI to ELTEKNIK.

End of translated article.


Lars Aronsson, Lysator computer club, Linkoping University, Sweden
     [e-mail]    Voice phone at home [phone]

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

Subject: New Zealand Toll Price War
From: Pat Cain <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 01:38:44   Y
Organization: The Sideways Machine, Lower Hutt, New Zealand


This weekend the two major New Zealand phone companies (which are
primarily American owned) are having a price war.

Telecom (Ameritech and Bell Atlantic), the ex-state owned company,
'own' the domestic and business market.  Telecom also owns the cellular
network.

Clear Communications (MCI and Bell Canada), the new player on the
scene, provide an alternative tolls service (by dialling 050).  They
offer slightly cheaper rates than Telecom, have discounts for prompt
payment, and round calls to the nearest six seconds (Telecom round to
60 seconds).

Recently Clear announced a move to attract new subscribers.  A
'special weekend' with a maximum rate of 19c per minute for toll calls
anywhere in the country.  Normal rates are between two cents and $1.40
per minute.

A couple of days after the Clear announcement, Telecom announced their
maximum rate would be only 15c per minute.

And Clear countered this by reducing their rate to 15c per minute also.

Telecom are spending vast amounts on advertising, we see new TV
adverts from them almost each night.  It must be pretty hard for a new
player like Clear to compete with them.  Still, It's nice to see some
competition like this that actually benefits the consumer.

The Telecom chief, Peter Troughton, said that most toll rates were
artificially high and that toll calls between most main centres could
easily be halved.  Though it remains to be seen whether this will
happen.


Pat Cain  <[e-mail]>
PO Box 2060, Wellington, NZ.

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 16:34:56 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Centrex Multiline Station Sets
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  I would appreciate recommendations (brands, models, vendors,
distributors) for Centrex compatible Multiline Station Sets - i.e.
sets that allow you to see the status of lines (<5) on a Centrex
system and access lines and features with one-touch controls.
Speakerphone would also be nice. In general, would like it 'look and
feel' similar to a key system from the users' point-of-view.

  Please no flames about the superiority of key systems in general or
how bad centrex is. Email would probably be best as I doubt this has
general interest. Thanks.


Jeff Sicherman

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 19:19:32 CST
From: "Steven M. Palm" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Rates


I saw a reader's letter in a recent issue of {Popular Communications},
and it so piqued my interest that I just had to post it here to get
some feedback on it.

         -------------- text of letter --------------

I found it fascinating to learn about the cost of cellular phone calls
in your informative April issue.  I'm in the U.S. Navy and after a
recent trip to several nations in Asia, I have some information on the
cost of using a cellular overseas.  In Hong Kong, the monthly charge
for having a cellular equals a few cents over US$6.  Only
international calls are billed.  Why are cellulars in the U.S. so
expensive?  I could see why hardwire phones are expensive because of
the costs of constantly maintaining and repairing the lines.  But
cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to
maintain.  Should be much cheaper.  Why do people put up with such a
ripoff?


Troy L. Faulkner, KB9AZZ/NNN0FIC
FP, San Fransisco, CA

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

[e-mail]   Steven M. Palm

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

From: [e-mail] (Krishnan Sakotai )
Subject: Digital PABXs Vs BISDN Switches (Basic Question)
Organization: University of Lowell Computer Science, Lowell MA
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 00:41:29 GMT


I am trying to keep pace with the fascinating developments in the ISDN
technology and have a few basic questions:

1. What are the exact differences between a Digital PABX and a "so called"
BISDN switch?

2. If a company wants to have ISDN capability within its geographical
boundaries can the Digital PABX be used as the central switch (with
necessary s/w modifications) or should it install a special ISDN
switch? We are talking of Video/voice/Data transfer.

3. With the advances in ATM technology and the like can we see the
conventional PABX market dying a quick death? This is of course based
on ** my understanding** that the ISDN switch technology is a superset
of the Digital PABX.  Is there anything wrong with my assumption?


Thanks,

Krishnan

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #903
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09091;
          9 Nov 91 21:08 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05397
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 19:34:57 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03178
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 19:34:47 -0600
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 19:34:47 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #904

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Nov 91 19:34:32 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 904

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    VarTec Offers Long Distance Calls For One Cent! (James E. Hartman)
    Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer? (Felix Finch)
    Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman (John Higdon)
    Who is U. S. Long Distance? (John R. Levine)
    New Zealand Man Convicted in Coca Cola Phone Threat Case (Pat Cain)
    Information Needed on Bypass (Neil Kruse)
    Crank Call Traced to County Office (Jack Winslade)
    Books Wanted on Cellular Phones (Gary Deol)
    Re: Touch Tone on Old Switches (James Parkyn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: VarTec Offers Long Distance Calls For One Cent!
From: unkaphaed![e-mail] (James E. Hartman)
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 19:23:06 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy


On Friday, 8 November, I received a letter from VarTec Telecom,
partially quoted below:

RECEIVE 1 CENT LONG DISTANCE CALLS WITHOUT CANCELLING YOUR EXISTING LONG
DISTANCE SERVICE!

Dear Southwestern Bell Customer:

We have some great news for you.  Effective immediately, anyone within
your Southwestern Bell service area is eligible to receive 1 cent long
distance calls with the new FREQUENT CALLER program from VarTec
Telecom(sm)!  Simply use the new VarTec Telecom Toll-Saver(sm) number
when you make long distance calls, and you will automatically be
enrolled in the 1 cent FREQUENT CALLER program, the first of its kind
anywhere.  By using our Toll-Saver number, you'll save 15% to 21% on
nearby Texas calls and up to 36% for other Texas calls.  Interstate
Toll-Saver rates are [bold on] GUARANTEED to be lower at all times
than the lowest comparable 1+ rate [bold off] for either US Sprint,
MCI, or AT&T.  Plus, when you use our Toll-Saver number, you'll begin
receiving long distance calls for just 1 cent!*

[Paragraph stating there is no sign-up requirement and no minimum
usage or service charge deleted.]

HERE'S HOW IT WORKS:

Simply use the VarTec Telecom Toll-Saver number when you make long
distance calls by dialing [bold on] 10811 plus 1 and the area code (if
required) and the number of the person you are calling.  [bold off]
For every ten U.S. long distance calls you make, you will receive
another long distance call for only 1 cent!  Your 1 cent calls can be
up to 10 minutes in duration and can be made to anywhere within the
continental U.S. (excluding Alaska).

[Paragraphs stating calls over 34 miles are automatically discounted,
calls will be billed on the SWB bill, and generic sales pitch deleted.]

Yours sincerely,

A. Joe Mitchell, Jr.
President

P.S.  Be sure to put the enclosed Toll-Saver stickers on your
telephone book cover and telephone(s) for handy reference!  Please
call us toll-free at 1 (800) 583-XXXX if you need additional
Toll-Saver stickers or have any questions regarding this service or
other VarTec Telecom long distance services.

* The FREQUENT CALLER program is subject to certain rules and
restrictions.  Please call VarTec Telecom for details.  Savings
comparisons are based upon AT&T, MCI, and US Sprint intrastate/
interlata as well as Southwestern Bell intralata basic 1+ direct
distance dialing tariffs in effect as of 7/1/91.  International calls
are billed at basic AT&T international direct distance dialing rates.

(sm) VarTec Telecom and Toll-Saver are service marks of VarTec
National, Inc.

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

A number of stickers were enclosed with the 10811 number printed on
them.

I tried calling 10811 1 700 555 1212, and I got a very bored male
voice stating:

Message 13, Dallas, Welcome to the VarTec Long Distance Network.  Thank you
for allowing us to be of service.

Since my roommates and I make a considerable amount of in-state calls,
and the propaganda suggests that I will have my calls "discounted,
including all those expensive nearby Texas calls!", I figure I'll try
a test -- calling a friend both on 1+ (routed through SWB) and through
these guys and see.

More info to come ...


[e-mail] (James E. Hartman)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, [phone]

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

From: crowfix.crowfix![e-mail] (Felix Finch)
Subject: Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer?
Organization: Scarecrow Repair, Dutch Flat.
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 03:50:12 GMT


Last week I answered the phone to hear a recorded pitch for home
equity loans.  I swallowed my bile, kept my temper, and waited to give
my name and phone number.  Two days later, someone called back.  I
said it was a bad time to call, could I call him back later.  After
several rounds of No, I won't be in tomorrow night, or Saturday, It's
hard to catch me at work, etc, he finally gave me one name (first or
last? I don't know) and a phone number.  No company name.

    I called Pac*Bell, and the rep was too new to really know what
to do (I think).  Rather than ask for a supervisor, I called the PUC.
Amazement of all amazements, I got a live operator on the second ring,
who transferred me directly to a very helpful live person.  I told her
about the call: no human at first, just the recording ("That's
illegal!" she said gleefully), and when I hung up and waited ten
seconds before lifting the receiver, the recording was still rattling
away ("That's illegal too!"  She sounded positively happy!).

    The telemarkedroid called back a day or two later, so I said I
had turned him in to the PUC (wished I could have turned him into a
frog :-).  "Oh you did?"  "Yes, you started with a recording, not a
human ..." and he hung up before I could finish.

    Well, did I do good, huh?  Did I, Huh?

    Aside from amazement at how simple everything was (two minutes
total), what exactly happens in cases like this?  Have I actually done
him any harm, or will he just slip out of town, or what?


     Felix Finch, scarecrow repairer / uunet!crowfix!felix


[Moderator's Note: *If* the PUC bothers to contact him (doubtful,
since they act on a large number of complaints; not the complaint of
any one individual), they will tell him of your complaint that the
call began with a recorded message. He'll say there must have been
some error in his call processing and that he is sorry for any
inconvenience caused. They'll tell him not to do it again, and that,
as they say, will be that.  Then he'll continue on as always. If there
are sufficient (several hundred ?) complaints, they may take further
action against him.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 14:55 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman


Here is a transcript of Pacific Telesis' radio message to the people.
As an exercise, see if you can find anything misleading about it:
(Hints follow quote)

Sound Effects: Crowded courtroom and gavel striking. "Order, order"

Announcer: On October 7th, 1991, The United States Court of Appeals
issued an historic opinion. It granted Americans the right to receive
a sweeping array of information services through the universal public
telephone network.

Sound Effects: "We Object -- We Object"

Announcer: And yet some congressmen have joined America's largest
newspapers and cable conglomerates in pushing special interest
legislation that would take these rights away from the American
public.  Why is a pro-consumer congressman like Tom Lantos protecting
the newspaper industry from full and fair competition, and at the
expense of all consumers, including senior citizens, and students? If
you agree that your rights to information should be protected, tell
Tom Lantos.  Tell him America's future is too important to leave on
hold.

This advertisement is brought to you by the people of Pacific Telesis
and is not paid for by telephone customers.

[End of Spot]

For those of you who just tuned in, notice the first paragraph. The
court did not grant any right to the American people. "The People"
have always had this right. What it granted was the legality of RBOC
conglomerates to barge their way into this already booming industry.

I am unaware that keeping the medium out of the message business is
taking "rights away from the American public". Pro-consumer Tom Lantos
is not protecting anyone other than the consumer by opposing Pacific
Telesis' entry into the information game. And of course, if you have
no case, just bring up old people and students (whatever they may have
to do with the issue). I don't think that keeping the RBOCs from
monopolizing the information industry is exactly putting "America's
future on hold".

As for that final affront, again, let me see the audited figures. An
awful lot of money mingles in that pocket.


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

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

Subject: Who is U. S. Long Distance?
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 18:31:20 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


A legal notice in the {Boston Globe} yesterday reports that an outfit
from Texas called U.S. Long Distance is filing to do business as an
interexchange carrier "including operator services."  Are they a real
long distance company or just an AOS?


Regards,

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

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

Subject: New Zealand Man Convicted in Coca Cola Phone Threat Case
From: Pat Cain <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 01:38:44   Y
Organization: The Sideways Machine, Lower Hutt, New Zealand


Recently a man in Auckland was convicted for threatening Coca Cola NZ
Limited.  He threatened to poison Coke unless he was paid a large
amount of gold.  He managed to put a rust removal substance in bottles
of coke 'further up in the supply chain'.  Details of exactly how he
did this were supressed by the court in order to stop others doing the
same.

Anyway, the first threat he made was from his own telephone.  Although
his phone was not being traced at the time, police were quickly able
to find him by searching the call logs at the exchange.

They monitored the man for several weeks and arrested him when he
attempted to pick up the gold from the edge of a road.

The 'Coca Cola crisis team' who flew out from the States to deal with
the threat praised Telecom and the police for dealing with the matter
so well.  Apparently the police are solving more crimes and catching
more nuisance callers by searching the call logs.  I guess this will
just force criminals to use payphones!


Pat Cain  <[e-mail]>
PO Box 2060, Wellington, NZ.

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

Date: 8 Nov 91 12:45:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Information Needed on Bypass


I am a graduate student majoring in Telecommunications Management.  I
am writing a paper on Bypass and in need information that you just
can't find in books.  I know about the various bypass technologies,
what I need to know is why did you choose to implement bypass?  Was
the major reason cost? How was the LEC unable to accomodate your
needs?  Why did you choose a specific hardware vendor?  Why did you
choose a specific long distance carrier, or did you choose to bypass
all common carriers?  What I am really looking for is a "case study"
on what factors played a role in your decision to bypass the LEC.

I'll welcome any replies on the subject. (I have a SMTP interface to
the network so I am unable to access any archives)


Thanks in advance.

Neil Kruse    [e-mail]

Tandem Computers
10501 N Tantau Ave.   (loc 201-02)
Cupertino CA  95014

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

Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 22:35:54 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Crank Call Traced to County Office
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


And now another Telecom Tidbit from Omaha, nestled on the bank of
the great gray-green greasy Missouri River, all sought about with
fever trees, home of Ma Bell's first panel office, and currently the
junk phone call capital of the world ... :-(

(Quoted and paraphrased [they talk faster than I can type] from
television station WOWT.)

'If an obscene call was made from a private phone in the Douglas
County Court House, who made it?  It appears that question will never
be answered, at least not enough to file any charges.

A victim of an obscene phone call recorded the number on his call
identifier.  It was a private line in the office of an appointed
public servant at the Court House, but after a police officer called
that number and identified himself, the alleged obscene calls stopped.
An official trace could not be made.'

(A previous report stated that the officer responded to the initial
complaint and did not recognize the number as one originating from the
city-county office complex, a Centrex-CO installation.)

'Omaha Police say that the initial officer could have handled the case
better.  Still, detectives opened an investigation into the alleged
call, but after two days they could not find sufficient evidence to
prosecute anyone for harassing calls.  Police interviewed the public
official who denied any involvement.'

JSW note (and opinion): It would have been much easier to key this in
from a newspaper article, and I have been searching for one, but after
three days now, our single remaining local paper hasn't taken the
effort to run one.  I find this strange, because when SOME officials
misbehave, they are quick to jump.  I guess they are too busy trying
to decide whether to censor 'Doonesbury', as they did once with
'Cathy'.  <meow !>


Good day!       JSW

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

Subject: Books About Cellular Phones Wanted
From: [e-mail] (Gary Deol)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 12:21:19 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems, Edmonton, AB, Canada


I was looking for some books on cellular phones (technical manuals
etc). I was wondering if anyone could recommend some books, and
places where I can purchase them (mail order).


GaryD (My first Usenet msg (snif..snif) :^)
Gary Deol              [e-mail]
Edmonton Remote Systems:  Serving Northern Alberta since 1982


[Moderator' Note: Your first message? Welcome to the zoo. :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (James Parkyn)
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 21:18:28 GMT


I had a friend who was served by a rotary dial crossbar office in
Santa Ana California that he knew would soon be updated to include T-T
service that would be hardwired into every phone in the CO. He
acquired a non-Bell System T-T phone and checked the line until his
tones could break dial tone and then never used his rotary dial phone
again. Not long after he received a call from a PacTel representative
DEMANDING (emphasis meant to highlight PacTel's heavyhanded approach)
that he pay for the service or she would disconnect him from the T-T
service. He simply laughed at her and said "Go ahead and try!" and
then hung up on her to really get her upset. They never did bill him.


[Moderator's Note: Isn't this a little like saying that since every
home is equipped with water faucets, you are entitled to use the water
supply without paying ... and if they don't want you to use the water
they can simply come out and dig up the pipes where they connect to
your home or otherwise lock off the supply? They detected use of the
touch tone service (like a water meter detects use of the water
supply) and they asked your friend to pay for the service he was
using.

It is instances like this which make me wish I was a telco service
rep. I would have called your friend back; apologized for us
'accidentally getting cut off'; reminded him that he had no property
rights in his telephone number and that his number could be changed at
anytime the Company found it expedient to do so in the conduct of its
business; and that he was being moved to an exchange where the Company
found it expedient to place his service: one on which his use of touch
tone *could* be controlled; ie, an ESS. Almost as an afterthought I
would ask if he had reconsidered his earlier position and was willing
to either (a) use it and pay for it, or (b) refrain from using it.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #904
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11968;
          9 Nov 91 22:18 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03847
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 20:39:32 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08161
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 20:39:20 -0600
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 20:39:20 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #905

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Nov 91 20:39:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 905

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Ethan Miller)
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Linc Madison)
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Charlie Mingo)
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Eric Gasior)
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (John R. Levine)
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Gary Segal)
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (709 is a Bad Idea) (Dave Leibold)
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Bill Martens)
    Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (Bill Huttig)
    Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (ANSWER) (Carl Moore)
    Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (Tony Olekshy)
    Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced (Joe Isham)
    NYC Area Code Split (Was Area Code on Jeopardy) (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? (Joe Isham)
    Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? (Dave Leibold)
    Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! (Rolf Meier)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (ethan miller)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Date: 6 Nov 91 22:05:15


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

> 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.

Not likely.  202 (Washington DC) covers 63 square miles, and 212
(Bronx & Manhattan) covers 64 square miles.  I'd guess those are the
two smallest area codes in land area.  If 212 splits and covers only
Manhattan, it will cover just 22 square miles.  Until then, I'd say
202 is the geographically smallest area code.


ethan miller   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 04:08:43 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Stewart M. Clamen
([e-mail]) writes:

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

>> This area code is bordered by only one other, whether N/S/E/W

> I believe 418 (Quebec City and environs) is totally surrounded by 819.

Nope, 418 borders 819, 207, 506, and possibly 709 (Sherbrooke PQ,
Maine, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland (Labrador), respectively).


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 07 Nov 91  07:54:29
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


[e-mail] (Steve Thornton) writes:

> Then there are 808, Hawaii, and 902, Nova Scotia/P.E.I.,
> which border nothing.

   I don't know about Hawaii, but Nova Scotia shares a sixty-mile
border with New Brunswick (506).  Perhaps you had New Brunswick in
mind when you were typing "nothing"?

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Gasior)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 14:35:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(david.g.lewis) writes:

> 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

And don't forget:

201: Northern New Jersey
908: Most of Central Jersey (Part of it even borders on NYC (Staten
Island)
???: Southwestern Connecticut (is it Fairfield Co.?)

(Does Allentown, Pa. count as part of the NY Metropolitan area yet?)


Eric Gasior

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

Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 7 Nov 91 12:29:47 EST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


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

> Then there are 808, Hawaii, and 902, Nova Scotia/P.E.I.,
> which border nothing. Don't forget 709 Newfoundland ...

Hmmn, I am dismayed to find that Canadians don't know their geography
any better than Americans do.  Residents of Nova Scotia will be
surprised to learn that they live on an island, particularly
considering how many of them drive across the border into 506, a/k/a
New Brunswick, every day.

Newfoundland is indeed an island, but Labrador isn't, and has a long
border with Quebec, probably touching both 418 and 819, the World's
Largest Area Code.  The exact location of that border is the subject
of a long running desultory argument between the Newfoundland and
Quebec governments, but they both agree that there's definitely a
border there somewhere.

I cheerfully agree that Hawaii is surrounded by water.

How about some suggestions for the geographically smallest area code?
Will the 212/917 and 213/310 splits change your answer?


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

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Gary Segal)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Date: 7 Nov 91 19:18:08 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


Answer: This area code is home to the first ringer of freedom.


Gary Segal                  Motorola Inc.
[e-mail]    Cellular Infrastructure Division

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

Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 21:42:23 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (actually, 709 is a bad idea)


Well, it looks like I had a few too many cold ones ... winter days
that is ...  709 is not an island unto itself as it would include the
Labrador area which in turn borders on Quebec (stuff like 418 and
819) ... so forget that after all.

However, 800 and 900 don't seem to be surrounded by too many North American
area codes :-)


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Martens)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Date: 9 Nov 91 02:10:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Martens)
Organization: Info Connections @ Mt. Fuji


Well, having read ten of these messages so far, I am quite disturbed.
I and others pay good money for these news groups to be transfered to
us and yet when we start to read, expecting questions and answers to
be technically oriented and informative, we find a bunch of moronic
idiots playing games! (Nice job of moderation PAT!@!!@!!)

Kill the riddle and let's get on to something a bit more useful to the
rest of us who pay to have this stuff transfered around the world.


[Moronic Idiot's Note: I'm sure the other moronic idiots here enjoyed
reading your message as much as I enjoyed presenting it. Seriously,
since the cost of moving the news around is a financial burden for
you, let me know where to send payment so you can be compensated. I
assume you have change for a dime?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Huttig)
Subject: Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code
Date: 7 Nov 91 14:13:44 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

> Of course, if you think about it, the clear winners in the largest
> area code sweepstakes have to be 800 and 900! :-)

If I remember correctly from one of the files in the Digest archives it
says that 700, 800 and 900 are not area codes but SAC's Specail Access
Codes or somthing like that.

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 9:31:00 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (ANSWER)


NO, Alaska is 907, not 908!  908 was implemented only this year, by
splitting 201 in New Jersey.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tony Olekshy)
Subject: Re: Largest North-South Area Code
Date: 8 Nov 91 05:11:10 GMT
Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.


The problem is that 819 ends part-way up Quebec, then restarts at the
North West Territories.  Since the intermediate space can hardly be
counted as part of the run ;-), 403 still wins.  Furthermore, 403 is
clearly the largest area code in terms of land surface area (even
though that wasn't original question).  Finally first at something,
writing happily from 403-land, now part of the world's largest
country, by some accounts.


Yours etc,

Tony Olekshy.    Internet: [e-mail]
BITNET: [e-mail]  uucp: alberta!oha!tony or [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 19:31 CST
From: [e-mail] (Joe Isham)
Subject: Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX


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

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

>> 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.

> 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?

It looks like the Corpus Christi LATA was split, with most of the area
switching to 210; there's a small area along the Rio Grande north of
Zapata that's in the Corpus Christi LATA which appears to stay in 512.

Here's a crude approximation, as best I can gather from the news
release. Map is *not* to scale:

                              ----
                             |  * \  <-- Lampasas
                             |      \
                             |       \_____
        _________----------+              \
          |                   \  * Austin    \
          |                    \* San Marcos  \__
          |      New Bruanfels *\                \
          |                       \_____          \
          |       San Antonio *  * Seguin\ [ 512 ] \
          |                               \         \
          |_                              /          |
            \ * Del Rio                  / Victoria /
             \                         /    *     /
              \         [ 210 ]      /          /
               \                    |         /
                \                   |     * / Corpus Christi
                 \                 /       /
                  \               |       /
                   \              | *    / Kingsville
                    \             |     /
                     \ * Seguin   \____/
                      \               |
                       \              |
                        \____________*| Brownsville

> 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!

I suppose they split the NPA the way they did to keep the number of
exchanges in each new area more or less the same.  Austin is growing a
lot faster than San Antonio, though, so it'd make sense for the new
210 to start off with fewer exchanges.


Joe Isham - [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 7:26:47 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: NYC Area Code Split (Was Area Code on Jeopardy)


In article [e-mail] (Scott Dorsey) writes:

> 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?

 From what I understand, AC 212 will be Manhattan only, Bronx going to
718 and 917 will be for cellular and pager service.  This was noted in
the newspapers a few months ago, and the Telco could change this.

It appears that 917 will overlay the whole city but I don't want to be
held to that.  I don't have my phone book handy but I seem to remember
seeing something about the split mentioned (if my little grey cells
are working correctly, I'm still not fully awake).


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

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 19:37 CST
From: [e-mail] (Joe Isham)
Subject: Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes?
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX


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

>     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."

and the Moderator noted:

> I've been asking for a couple years for someone to explain 710. No
> information has ever been given out.

Hmmm ... If the government were to go public with this information, it
might provide a valuable public service: unified phone numbers for all
government agencies around the country.  Social Security might be
assigned the phone number 710-SSA-1000 (772-1000), and a customer
dialing that number would be connected to the nearest Social Security
office.

Well, it makes sense so the government probably won't do it. :)


Joe Isham - [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 15:23:38 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes?


 From my previous readings on the "Notes on the Network" publications,
it seems that Bellcore (and its predecessor(s)) considers the N00
codes to be Special Area Codes, or SAC's, which they do not want to
give out for normal telephone service. SAC's are intended for such
things as 800 (toll-free), 900 (tolled/premium) and 700 (special long
distance carrier uses). 200 as you mention is used for testing in many
places, but this is up to individual telephone companies to set up and
does not seem to be an officially-assigned code as such.

>     Also, I hope someone will explain 710 (Government Special
> Services).

All I can think of are the Autovon or FTS services, but Autovon
actually used its own set of area codes like 312, 313 (or 712, 713 for
data).  Others in the N10 series (810, 910) were used as TWX
teletypewriter codes, and it could be that Canadian TWX operations are
holdouts on the 610 code (which could really be better transferred to
the regular telephone system or made obsolete by faster data services).

But there are a number of area code issues that have been bugging the
Digest and are FAQs for which I have no easy FGAs (Frequently Given
Answers). Perhaps someone should get the address of Bellcore's NPA
Assignment person (I don't have the information handy, and the nearest
copy of "Notes on the Network" I can find is several hundred km away
from me). Perhaps the NPA Assignment person should be formally asked
(by the Moderator, or someone on the Digest with formal telecom ties,
etc) about what 710 is, and perhaps deal with some other questions
such as how the original set of area codes was assigned (ie. the rhyme
and reasons).

As a start, could someone with access to the "Notes" please find an
address for the appropriate contact? Then, things can be taken from
there.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rolf Meier)
Subject: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now!
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 10:08:07 -0500
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


These endless area code postings should be reduced.  This information
is available in any phonebook or even in some desktop diaries.  The
moderator reduces signatures to a single line in order to save
bandwidth, and yet posts arguments about which area code belongs in
which city.


Rolf Meier                        Mitel Corporation


[Moronic Idiot's Rambling: We are getting carried away with this! One
last riddle, then we will stop. Which area code is the most underused of
all? Only a small percentage of available prefixes in it are used, yet
the others aren't likely to be assigned elsewhere. Geographically, it
is pretty tiny also.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #905
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13246;
          9 Nov 91 23:09 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09261
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 21:32:43 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09754
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 21:32:31 -0600
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 21:32:31 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #906

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Nov 91 21:32:24 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 906

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements (John Higdon)
    Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea (Robert J. Stratton III)
    More on LEC Competition (David W. Barts)
    Re: British Telecom Figures (Steve Thornton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements
Date: 7 Nov 91 01:05:14 PST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


[e-mail] (kirk davis) writes:

>    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?

Pac*Bell's only responsibility was to drop direct-bury cable into a
trench that was open during the initial construction. Pac*Bell does
not trench on private property for drop purposes, period. Pac*Bell DID
do it correctly in the first place.

Sorry, but this IS the drill. Just recently, an associate had to
provide a trench to the edge of his property so that a 25 pair cable
could be dropped by Pac*Bell. BTW, drop cable is almost never put in
conduit.


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

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 11:14:27 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements


[e-mail] (kirk davis) writes about Pacbell wiring a house for
six pair, but only installing a two pair buried drop.  Now he wants a
third line.

> 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?

Most likely they didn't run conduit because there was never a trench;
instead they installed the cable with a vibratory lawn plow.  This
uses a vibrating ripper to burry the cable with minimal surface
degradation, and at a lower cost than trenching.  Even fiber is now
often installed in rural areas with vibe plows pulled by D6's and the
like.

Around here (South Central Bell), you pay for most any drop.  It might
not be as expensive as you think, though.  Vibe plows are relatively
fast, clean, and your roots will not be a problem.  Last year I got
600 feet of C wire plowed in for about $150 including the network
interface and a phone jack (free), and this was about 15 miles from
the CO.

What ever you do be sure to have enough pairs run for future use.


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

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

From: "Robert J. Stratton III" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea
Organization: Express Access, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 13:37:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (David W. Barts) writes:

> 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 question your use of the term "natural monopoly". By definition, any
monopoly created through government fiat is NOT a natural monopoly. I
strongly suggest that you take a look at larger cities where LEC
bypass is beginning to thrive (Metropolitan Fiber in NYC might be a
good example), and tell the LEC bypass customers that they would be
served better by waiting significantly longer for orders, and having
service delivered by copper rather than fiber.

Your conjectures about cabling costs apply pretty well to CATV as well
as telephone service, and I would direct you to look at the
(regrettably) few municipalities which have allowed competition
between CATV systems. The consistent result has been better service
and cheaper rates for subscribers. When one or another of the
competitors has died in these circumstances, it was because they
didn't serve the consumers' needs. The resulting situation is a
natural monopoly. The important factor to consider is that the field
is always open to a young upstart coming in to do battle again,
usually to customers' benefit.

[long explanation of the "impracticality" of RF-delivered telephone
service deleted -- I'm inclined to agree in part ...]

> 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."

With all due respect, this is a complete canard. The idea of
competition is that customers have a CHOICE. They should be able to
select the company that best fills their need from a variety of
providers, and those companies which disregard the customers' needs
will die off. I know we've suffered under government-mandated
monopolies for a long time, but I had no idea people had been so
conditioned to forget what competition is.

Any provider expecting to gain any subscribers would have to have
gateways to the other companies. The company with the best
rates/connectivity would undoubtedly gain the lion's share of the
market.

As regards your emotional conjecture involving denials of 911 service
 -- Nice try. It didn't work when the government tried it with Craig
Neidorf's trial, and I suspect it won't work here either.

> 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).

Those standards do not have to be promulgated by governmental bodies.
Technical fora have proven time and time again to be superior in this
regard.

> 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.

[M-x sarcasm-mode-on]
WHY do you think this is?? Could it perhaps be that customers can't
use their dollars to vote for the people who best serve their needs??
[M-x sarcasm-mode-off]

> 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).

The major obstacle to be overcome is not in the companies, but in the
lazy consumers who are unwilling to take any responsibility for
choosing products and services appropriate to them, as opposed to
begging for Uncle Sam to make their decisions for them. I, for one am
willing to take that responsibility, and view those who won't with
contempt.

> Local dialtone competition just doesn't make sense to me.

You're welcome to keep whichever provider you want, but don't force
your choice on those of us who'd like to receive services that fill
our needs.

[Author's note: I'll be surprised if PAT publishes this, knowing his
love of Mother, and his contempt of Judge Greene. C'mon PAT, prove me
wrong!]


Bob Stratton           | SMTP: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Express Access         | PSTN: [phone]
Greenbelt, Maryland    | For info on Express Access, write "[e-mail]".


[Moderator's Note: You obviously do not read the Digest very well or
you would realize I rarely reject articles simply because I do not
agree with them. I think you have me confused with my competitor, {The
Washington Post}. Display any *real* disagreement with Kay Graham and
see how often she lets you say anything in her publication, or its
companion rag, {News Weak} magazine.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 23:57:35 -0800
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: More on LEC Competition


My!  I certainly stirred up a hornet's nest, didn't I?

So far, I have read about a dozen replies to my initial posting on
this subject, plus another one or two that touch on it tangentially.
There are doubtless others sitting in PAT's mailbox being considered
for posting as I write this; my decision to reply at this time is is a
compromise between my desire to respond to as many postings as
possible at a single time, and the desire to respond in a timely
fashion.

First off, a number of respondents posted that a fiber optic cable
plant, owned by a third party (the LEC and the customer being the
first two parties), could be used to implement LEC competition.  This
is an interesting possibility I hadn't thought of (though I should
have as US West is busy stringing fiber in my neighborhood).  But the
possibility of LEC competition and its desirability are two different
things, as we shall see later.

There is evidentially some confusion over the term "natural monopoly"
in some responses to my posting.  This is understandable, as the term
is used to signify two different things.  One is where a single
supplier controls virtually all of a resource or good in a given
market for that good (e.g. De Beers and gem-quality diamonds).  The
other is where one supplier can supply a good or service better or at
less cost than multiple suppliers.  It is this second sense of the
term that I am referring to.

Notice that this definition does not preclude competition in a natural
monopoly; it simply states that a competitive market will supply a
more costly or less superior good than a single supplier will (and
this will be the case no matter which supplier you pick in the
competitive market).

On the subject of competitive markets, at least one contributor (Hi,
John!) has stated that the marketplace is "the most effective
regulator of them all."  Markets do indeed propel society towards a
goal, but this goal is the profit maximization of individual firms,
which, alas, does not always mean what is best for society as a whole.
To take an example from this Digest, when pay phone customers began to
recognize most COCOTS for the rip-offs that they are, the market
responded.  But it did not respond by directing resources into
ensuring properly-operating pay phones charging fair prices.  It
responded instead by channeling resources into developing the closest
possible legal mimicry of a legitimate pay phone.  Why?  Because the
latter realizes higher short-term profits for the COCOT owners than
the former.

Another interesting fact about markets and competition is that they
are not free.  They incur costs.  Yes, they also incur benefits.  I
agree that in many cases, the benefits exceed the costs, but in this
respect the telephone network presents a special case.  This is
because size, _in and of itself_, is a desirable attribute in a
telephone network.  The more people I can talk to with my phone, the
more useful it is to me.  There are not many industries in which this
can be said -- usually size affects efficiency of production in some
indirect manner (usually related to management structures or local
availability of a raw material).  The fact that I am wearing shoes
made in a big factory does not in and of itself make them better than
ones made in a small or medium-sized one.

Sure, steps can be taken to ensure connectivity between systems.  But
now what we're doing is: 1) spending much effort breaking the whole
into pieces, then 2) spending more effort and resources to make the
system that resulted from (1) look essentially the same as before (1)
was applied.  And this is supposed to be better and more efficient.  I
now propose a humble solution to the traffic problem in our cities:
Build walls across the streets.  Then, establish a Bureau of Gates and
Overpasses to ensure people can get across these walls. The street
system is now much improved.  Is it just me or does this logic sound a
little silly?

Several posters have mentioned the undesirability of subsidies for
various components of the telephone network.  But such revenue
transfers are a fact of life no matter what we do.  Right now, if I
decide to purchase a Sony TV, Sony can use the profit it earned from
this sale to support research and development of a new line of
computers.  Revenue has been transferred from the TV sector to the
computer research sector.  Or perhaps Sony deposits the money in a
bank that lends the money to a factory in Hong Kong that makes dolls.
Now the revenue hasn't even stayed within the same company.  The real
issue is not: "do we have revenue transfers or don't we," but "will
all revenue transfers be directed by market forces (maximization of
private profits) or won't they?"  And as we have seen earlier, market
forces do not always act in the best social interest.

But I digress.  Returning to the subject at hand, the issue has been
raised that sure, the idea of "cream-skimming" is a bad scenario, but,
the fact that it is occurring at the present time shows that regulated
monopoly does not prevent it, and therefore the argument that
competition would cause cream-skimming is invalid.  Sure, there's
cream-skimming going on right now, and it disgusts me.  But LEC
competition would just create more cream skimming.  The solution to
some of a bad thing is to have _more_ of it?  Somehow this doesn't
make sense to me.

Cream-skimming, of course, is but one of the plethora of assorted
little nasties that regulated LEC's subject their customers to, and a
number of respondents have asked (or implied) "Why do you want
_this_."  I don't.  I can't step inside John Higdon's head and
precisely measure his level of disgust, but I suspect mine is about
the same as his.  Just last spring, US West decided it was in my best
interest to spend some of the revenue it had earned from my phone bill
and spend it in a lobbying effort sneaking a bill I didn't want
through the state legislature.  The old "We're The Phone Company(R),
and we know what's Best for You(TM), so shut up and obey" attitude.

But it is nothing new that under the present system, monied interests
can use their influence to corrupt the legislative process in order to
warp the laws to their own benefit.  However, discussions on how to
deal with this problem are probably more appropriate subjects for
another newsgroup.


David Barts  N5JRN            UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
[e-mail]        Seattle, WA  98195

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

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 00:32:14 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures


Adam Ashby wrote:

> 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.

Nearly US$ 3 billion. Seems like rather a lot, wouldn't you say? Not
bad for a company that was described in a recent issue of {The
Economist} as "the least efficient large corporation in the world". I
can't find the article but I recall they were referring to the fact
that BT has over ten times as many employees per line as any other
Western telecom outfit. This suggests that our poor English friends
must be paying some kind of rates.


Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617
[e-mail] / [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #906
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16648;
          10 Nov 91 1:19 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12118
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 23:17:50 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08912
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 23:17:38 -0600
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 23:17:38 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #907

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Nov 91 23:17:35 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 907

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Steve M. Kile)
    Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Fred Linton)
    Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption (Seth Breidbart)
    Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption (Jay Ashworth)
    Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 (Bob Frankston)
    Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 (Steve Elias)
    Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Thing (Tim Gorman)
    Re: MCI and FAX Detection (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase?
Date: 8 Nov 91 15:30:35 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> ...  Is this just an unsubstantiated
> rumor, speculation based upon the integration of EasyLink?

> [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...

We received a one-page paper letter from AT&T EasyLink Services/AT&T
Mail.  It was sent first class mail, and it was received on or about
October 28.  It contained a list of rate adjustments for a variety of
services.  Buried in the third or fourth paragraph was the notice of
the minimum monthly billing amount of $25, applicable to all user
accounts.  It was worded so as to suggest that we were somehow getting
'even more' for our money.

I called AT&T Mail on Friday, November 1, and asked if our monthly
billing for the UUCP connection would now be subject to a $25 minimum.
I was told that it would.  I then audited our usage and billing for
the last 12 months, and made a business decision -- I called again,
and canceled the service effective Nov 1 (probably subjecting this
company to a $25 bill for November for nothing!).

If anybody cares, I'll type in the text of the letter.


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


[Moderator's Note: Why don't you do that ... it appears many people
have not yet received the formal notice. I know it has not showed up
in my mailbox yet. The many small users of the service need to be
notified in time to cancel their accounts if they wish to do so.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase?
Date: Sat,  9 Nov 91 15:00:46 PST


Several weeks ago I received a letter and AT&T Mail Rate Summary sheet
in the U.S. Mail.  The letter announced "several important changes to
the rate structure for the AT&T EasyLink Services product suite will
take effect on December 1, 1991 ..."

In the section "Core Services" two items caught my interest.  Monthly
Usage minimum $25.00 and Monthly Service Fee $3.00 per user ID.  The
letter further advises "if you have any questions, please contact your
Account Representative or a Customer Service Representative on
1-800-242-6005.


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

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

From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase?
Date: 8-NOV-1991 12:40:13


Toby (and other TELECOM readers),

The "rumor" of an impending AT&T Mail rate change came to me in the
form of a mailing from AT&T Easylink in Georgia, posted late in
October, and arriving at the end of October, containing one sheet
entitled (approximately) "New rates beginning December 1, 1991"
(sorry, I'm at work and that sheet's at home).

Towards the middle of that sheet, under the rubric "Core Services", is
listed the $25 per month service minimum.  Not quite certain whether
that was a charge to be applied to my attmail account, or perhaps only
to EasyLink accounts, I checked (several times) with the AT&T Mail CAC
and with the EasyLink billing folks to whom the attmail CAC referred
me, and was on every occasion assured that, yes indeed, in the
consolidation of AT&T Mail with EasyLink (which, you will recall, AT&T
had acquired from Western Union), a unification of billing rates and
procedures was going to be undertaken, in the course of which that
monthly minimum requirement would be imposed beginning December 1 (but
read on, for a bit of a reprieve on that).

I posted, after at least three such confirmations, what I had thus
learned.

Since then, in the course of attempting to learn whether AT&T might
perhaps exempt participants in their Moving Ahead Program from that
(rather hefty) new-to-attmail minimum usage requirement, I was urged
to phone the toll free EasyLink numbers

    1 800 242 6005
and
    1 800 328 8268

for more uptodate information, as the AT&T Moving Ahead agent I spoke
with claimed total ignorance of both AT&T Mail and EasyLink.

 From the first of these numbers, I learned that quite a few attmail
subscribers were so upset by the new rates that they had already
cancelled their service, and that "upper management" was now
collecting the names, phone numbers, and attmail ID's of all callers
(to that first phone number) who wished to register their disapproval
of the new rates in general, and of the new monthly minimum in
particular.

 From the second of these numbers (which had been given me by the
voice I had spoken with at the first), I learned that:

1 (Here's that reprieve): Under current plans, the new rates will only
go into effect for any given attmail user with the month in which
attmail used to bill the former Annual Fee, and in no event before
December 1991;

2: Communication of customer concern direct to EasyLink "upper
management" might prove fruitful in aborting the new-to-attmail (but
old-to-EasyLink) monthly minimum -- the following addresses (and
addressees) were suggested (and I sought and received assurance over
the phone that my making these names available to TELECOM's readers
would not be frowned upon):

    Mr. Terry Miller
    56 Marietta Street
    Atlanta, GA  30335
    FAXno: 1 404 653 8200

    ...!attmail!helpbilling

    Steve Graham
    Phone: [phone]

3: distinctly to be DISCOURAGED -- any mass communication of customer
concern either to the AT&T CEO (whom I therefore won't name here) or
to the EasyLink CEO (whom I will likewise not name here).

Toby, if you haven't received such a "Rate Changes Effective Dec. 1 1991"
sheet from AT&T Mail yet, I'll be glad to send you a photocopy of mine.

Fortunately, my attmail "billing aniversary month" is February, so there's
still a few months in which AT&T may decide to waive that minimum billing
component, if they discover that it is driving enough "little users" like
me reluctantly away from their service.


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: For $25 a month, subscribers have to fax each other
copies of the letter? Call and have them send you your own copy. And
answer this for me, Fred: *Who* told you correspondence with the
Chairman's office was to be discouraged? One of those two people you
mentioned above? They are to function as /dev/null to keep the Chairman
 from having to view uncomplimentary comments about the new rates, is
that it? His duties are far too important to include reading mail or
having actual contact with customers, eh? I think not. If Robert Allen
(who is by the way listed in the AT&T Mail online directory) can't
deal with email from his customers, that's his problem; but honestly I
don't think he has any problem with email at all. I think it is the
little Napoleans under him who get their underwear in knots when
customers ignore them and go to the top decision maker.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 21:41:39 GMT


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

>  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.

Some years ago, when I lived in New Haven, a local utility (I don't
remember exactly which one) got into serious trouble for altering the
amounts on checks when people underpaid their bills.  I believe the
technical name for this is fraud.  In my opinion, the situation here
is the same.


Seth

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

From: [e-mail] (Jay Ashworth)
Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 23:05:55 PDT
Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida


If they really mis-encode your bill, I expect you can sue them.  If they
do it to enough people, (and get caught enough times), perhaps their bank
will yell at them for you.


Cheers,

Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!Jay.Ashworth
Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root.

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

From: <frankston![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5
Date: 8 Nov 1991 09:54 -0500


No new details on the outage except to note that I did get a good view
of New York.  And another one.  And another one.  Seems to plane was
circling over NY/NJ instead of closer to Logan.  I suspected something
unusual when circling that far away.  It was a Tuesday night and that
was no reason for really massive congestion.  Is it just that they
couldn't talk beyond NY so stayed there until they were in contact
with Logan?

The flight attendant said that there was a power outage but the
captain's announcement was simply that there was congestion.

At least it was a clear night with a great view, especially the final
time we flow right over the city at a relatively low altitude.

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

Subject: Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 12:03:06 PST
From: [e-mail]


This ATT outage write-up was in the {Wall Street Journal}.

A transmission system was being fitted with new hardware "to correct a
potential problem with overheating," an ATT spokesman said.  However,
an investigation showed that the technicians "missed a step" in the
maintenance procedure, causing the system to fail, he said.


eli

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5
Date: 9 Nov 91 07:14:58 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve
Elias) writes:

> 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

We lost the data line to our NY office, and so I called it in and got
a ticket number. She said it probably was due to the 360 T3s that were
out due to a DACS failure in Blackstone MA. She also said something
like the following as she read from a status report: "Two disk drives
are on site to be replaced but that may not solve the problem. A team
from Bell Labs is enroute". There was also something about: "patched
overhead to bypass problem for some circuits".

I called somewhat later for status and was told everything was
restored.  I informed them that OUR line was not.

1/2 hour later it came back up and I called in to cancel the trouble
ticket so they wouldn't kill the circuit again. It had been out for
about four hours.

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

Date: 07 Nov 91 10:05:32 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Thing


[e-mail] (Frederick G.M. Roeber) writes in TELECOM Digest
V11 #894:

> In short: living in the boonies has costs.
> 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?

 From a macro viewpoint, one of the major values of the phone is being
able to call people. Anything which decreases the number of
subscribers on the network decreases the value of the phone to
everyone. If urban subscribers never called suburban or rural
customers (or vice versa), this would make sense. That is not a valid
assumption, however.

 From a practical viewpoint, agriculture (in other words rural
subscribers) has gone very high tech in the past several years. Those
farms who want to maximize revenue depend heavily on telephone access
to market data as well as to market buyers/sellers. This includes
telecommunications options such as modem and fax usage. Since these
high tech operations are also the ones that provide most of the food
for the world, anything that increases their costs also increases the
cost of food to everyone. It is, therefore, quite practical from my
viewpoint to keep their costs as low as possible.

Now, again from a practical viewpoint, how do you differentiate
between rural subscribers who are involved in agriculture and those
who are not?  Will we put in place acreage ownership restrictions in
order to obtain subsidized telephone service? Will it have to be full
ownership or will participation in a partnership suffice? What impacts
will this have on the plight of the family farm in todays society?


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

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

Subject: Re: MCI and FAX Detection
Date: 7 Nov 91 01:44:38 PST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


tim gorman <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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.

> 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.

Be very wary of the MCI "fax service". Clients are coming out of the
woodwork lately complaining about a sharp increase in fax transmission
failures, overly long transmission times, etc., etc. and a resultant
increase in overall costs of fax usage as a result.

Upon investigation, I have, in an overwhelmingly high percentage of
cases, found that the customer was previously sold on "MCI Fax
Service", which is nothing more than establishing MCI as the PIC on
the fax machine line. For some reason, yet to be determined, MCI seems
incapable of delivering fax data properly. I am aware of no particular
problems in transmitting fax over normal MCI connections, however this
"fax service" seems particularly troublesome.

What I generally recommend to a sizable customer is to put the fax
machine on a PBX extension (as I do at home) and allow the fax to use
whatever routing is used by the voice callers. If there is DID, it
even saves the cost of a separate outside line!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #907
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08193;
          10 Nov 91 10:01 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23854
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:23:08 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24582
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:22:59 -0600
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:22:59 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #908

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Nov 91 08:22:47 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 908

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Faircharge: Answer to VAN Surcharge? (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers (Bob Clements)
    Re: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers (John Higdon)
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality (Andy Sherman)
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality (Martin McCormick)
    Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? (Jack Decker)
    Re: Maximum Output for Canadian Handheld Phones? (John R. Covert)
    Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls (Greg Porter)
    Re: PacBell Proposed Increases (Ethan Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Faircharge: Answer to VAN Surcharge?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 18:04:11 GMT


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

> 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.

It all depends on the method used to get access to the VAN provider.
If you're talking about a subrate DDS line (and I don't even know if
switched subrate DDS exists ...) or a packet switched access connection
to the VAN, I agree.

However, if you're talking about putting a modem on your voice line
and dialing up a VAN, which provides a modem on the far end and
handles the PAD function internally, I disagree.  In this case, your
modem is using the same 64kbps (if the call is carried digitally by
the network) as is a voice call.  You're modulating (say) 2400 bps
data onto an analog access line.  The local switch samples this analog
signal and digitizes it at a rate of 64kbps.  The fact that the
"capacity" as *you* see it is 2400 bps is irrelevant to the network --
the analog signal you send is digitized into 64kbps.


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

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

Subject: Re: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 14:04:59 EST
From: [e-mail]


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

> 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.

But what else do they get by switching to an 800 number?  They get the
phone numbers of all the people who call them.  Then a quick pass
through a database gets them the names and addresses.  That's
ready-made, salable marketing information, keyed by interests (by the
type of program that was on when the call was made or the product
being advertised).  This probably pays for the added cost of the 800
number.

Of course, they never mention that calling them will give them your
number ...

Readers (and, I believe, the Moderator) of this list have stated that
the provision of caller billing number data is one of the important
reasons they have 800 service.

[Disclaimer: Of course, I don't KNOW for a fact that your particular
radio station is doing this.]


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: With or without the availability of billing number
data I would still want to have my 800 lines. But having the ID of the
caller available to me is an added plus.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 00:29 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers


[e-mail] (Linc Madison) writes:

> 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.

408/986 is not a choke exchange (I ought to know; I have some numbers
in that prefix), but it was an RCF to the San Francisco number. I'm
also glad they got rid of it; it was close to my DISA number and I
think it caused me some headaches! But anyway ...

> 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.

They probably got tired of paying international-sized rates for each
and every call that was forwarded to the city. They might have done
one of two things here. Either they got a "Pacific Bell Custom 800
Number" (dumb move) or they got an MCI (or other carrier's) 800 number
and are using it for intraLATA traffic (very smart move). I know of
another station in the state that did the latter and has saved
beaucoup bucks on listener calls. Either way, it is possible to limit
the area code accessability.

> 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.

Not if it is from an OCC. If it is bundled in a T1 package with other
WATS trunks, then it basically costs them nothing except for about
$0.10 per minute usage (billed in six-second increments, no less).
This is one hell of a lot cheaper than what they were paying for that
RCF from Santa Clara, which forwarded calls at the full-screw-um dial
rate.  Even if they fell for the PBC800 number, they are still paying
less -- less per month and less per call.

Frankly, I always thought the station was very dumb for having that
986 RCF. It really wasn't very creative (or cheap). And as I said, it
was very close to one of my numbers. Good riddance :-)


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 10:12:56 EST
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


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

> 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.

I've heard tell that this is a common problem with new T1 facilities
or T1 facilities into new switches (such as Higdon's problem).  The
way I've heard it told is that a common problem is human error: the
switch is tested with the trunk cards supplying their own timing and
that people forget to reset them to synchronize to the network when
the trunk is put into service.  Floyd, you're on the operational side
of this business -- any truth to this?


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

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 10:24:04 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality


I am sure glad to hear several people mentioning the problem of clock
synchronization when talking about line noise.  We have an Ericssen
MD110 PBX connected to trunks leading to a DMS100 Southwestern Bell
switch via a digital interface of which I have no practical working
knowledge.  We do, however have the strangest problem.  Sometimes,
when calling in on any data line using 1200 or 2400 baud, we get a
connection which sounds perfectly normal to the ear, but produces a
rhythmic pattern of garbage characters which march across the screen.
The pattern frequently looks like {i{i{i and occurs every two to five
seconds.  If data are being received when this happens, the whole line
is garbage.

When speaking with our Telephone Services Department, they are quite
eager to solve the problem but say that they can't find anything
wrong.  They usually will take the offending modem out of service and
everything appears OK.  I have suspected for a long time that this was
some kind of sync problem because of the rhythmic nature of the trash.

Another interesting fact is that it is always worse on the originating
end of the connection.  This would make since because the higher
frequency carrier would be disrupted more by the phase shift than a
lower frequency carrier.  What really makes the problem tough is that
the act of breaking the connection frees that particular modem and
that particular trunk, making it all but impossible to truly recreate
the situation for testing.  Next time we have a rash of these
problems, I'll forward some of these messages to our Telephone folks
and at least alert them to something to look for.  The sound quality
of the Ericssen switch for digital calls on campus is supurb and the
sound quality of the DMS100 is pretty good.


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

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 17:29:32 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot?


In a message dated 1 Nov 91 17:09:42 GMT, [e-mail]
(John R. Levine) writes:

> 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.

I think it's bad for the simple reason that it encourages packet
networks to "cherry pick" the major population centers and ignore the
rural areas.  If they had to use 950 or 10XXX access just like any
other OCC, we'd probably have access to at least one of them here in
the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.  Look at the phone number access list
for SprintNet (as just one example) ...  they have virtually stopped
adding new indial cities (even though we were promised an access node
here about two or three years ago), and there are an awful lot of
towns with under 50,000 population that don't have any access yet.
SprintNet has broken so many promises (especially to users of its PC
Pursuit service) that I dobut they will be able to mobilize another
massive letter-writing campaign like they did the first time around
(when the FCC wanted to charge them just like any other OCC).

Now, perhaps packet networks SHOULD be treated differently, but on the
other hand, I can see the distinctions between voice and data starting
to blur already (as there is more and more talk about digitizing
speech)... suppose a packet network starts offering, say, 19.2K
throughput and people start hooking up voice-to-data converters and
sending voice conversations digitally...  should the packet network
providers still be treated differently?  Where do you draw the line?

 > 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.

I've been hoping for something like this for a long time, but it will never
happen as long as the packet network providers find it cheaper to run FX and
private lines to the major cities.  I really galls me every time I call up
SprintNet's PHONES list and see that people in Moscow (no, I don't mean
Idaho!) can get into SprintNet for the price of a local call, but many people
in our own country cannot.  Why do our regulators allow this?


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

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 08:32:09 PST
From: John R. Covert  07-Nov-1991 1134 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 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.

Correct.  I doubt that it is different in Canada, since the station
class bits in the AMPS protocol are specifically allocated to 0.6
watts, 1.6 watts and 3.0 watts.

> Since Canadian full-powered cell phones can put out four watts instead
> of three as is the limit in the US...

Where did you get this information?

> 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)

Can't be.  There are exactly eight power levels defined in the
protocol (three bits are used), and the highest one is 3 watts.  0 is
off, 1-5 are the power levels up to 0.6 watts, 6 is 1.6 watts and 7 is
3.0 watts.

For this reason, I think your information about Canadian phones being
allowed to transmit four watts is incorrect.


john

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 10:51:43 PST
From: [e-mail] (greg porter)
Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls


The Pacific Bell White Pages on page A46 state that:

"Federal and State tariffs state that for a telephone conversation to
be recorded, on of the following conditions must be met:

1. All parties being recorded must give their prior consent to being
recorded; or,

2. All parties being recored must hear a "beep" tone approximately
every 15 seconds.

Exemptions to these provisions apply to commercial broadcasting
purposes when the person being recorded has been informed."

                      -----------

This is how it is in California. I'm sure a call to your local
telephone provider would be able to answer your questions.

Being able to record a conversation can be handy, especially when it
comes to legal matters.  My fiance got hit by a drunk driver and his
insurance company refused to pay up or take any action for over a
year.  So her parents bought a recorder that gave the legal tones ...
and wa la ... they had results with in two weeks.


 Greg Porter     INTERNET:  [e-mail]
                 UUCP:  ucdavis!csusac!porterg
         All the standard disclaimers apply

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

From: [e-mail] (ethan miller)
Subject: PacBell proposed increases
Date: 7 Nov 91 11:52:02


In article <[e-mail]> Scott Fybush <ST901316@PIP.
CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> writes:

> 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.

PacBell is trying to do the same thing.  Although their pamphlet
states "the average residence customer's monthly phone bill will
decrease by $0.11 (0.3 percent)," I don't believe it.  For that to
happen, the average customer will have to spend $36.66 on local calls.
Since local flat rate (in Berkeley) is about $13/month, that's almost
$25/month on "long-distance" calls.  At current evening rates, that
would be about three hours of long-distance per month.  Remember, this
is PacBell long-distance, not inter-LATA long-distance.  I find it
hard to believe that most people spend that much.

In addition, PacBell now wants to charge for directory assistance
outside a caller's area code.  So much for the "415/510 split will
*not* affect your rates" claim.  They also want to phase in, over a
two year period, 16% increases for Basic Exchange Services and 40%
increases for Private Line Services.  To offset the increase, they'll
chop rates on Toll Services and Switched Access Services.

Am I the only one who thinks PacBell wants to compete in other markets
and is trying to charge its customers (who have no choice) so it is
able to?


ethan miller  [e-mail]   include <std/disclaimer.h>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #908
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09219;
          10 Nov 91 10:52 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24102
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 09:10:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23043
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 09:10:07 -0600
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 09:10:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #909

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Nov 91 09:10:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 909

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card (Jack Decker)
    Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet (Wade Rogers)
    Re: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies (David Lewis)
    Re: Who Benefits From Local Competition? (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index (Dave Niebuhr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 17:27:25 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card


In a message dated 31 Oct 91 19:18:36 GMT, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> 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.

The original message has scrolled off my system, but as I recall your
assertion was that the END OFFICE had to be FGD capable in order to
reach Sprint's 800 number.

> 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?

I can't answer this directly (maybe someone else can help out here)
but I do know this: In many smaller central offices, especially those
operated by independent telephone companies in rural areas, the switch
doesn't know about "Feature Groups." All it knows is that IF the first
digit dialed is NOT a "1" or a "0", you're making a local call,
otherwise you're making a toll call.  When you dial a "1" or a "0" it
seizes a toll trunk or operator service trunk (usually provided by the
Bell company serving the area) and all additional digits you dial are
simply "passed through".  After you've dialed ten more digits (or you
"time out" on a 0+ call), the ANI equipment (which is probably the
most modern piece of equipment in the office!) fires off a set of
in-band signaling tones that communicate your phone number to the toll
equipment at the other end.

Now, please note that the "1" or "0" is NOT sent out on the toll
trunk. Thus, if you dial "10222" the fist digit that goes out on the
toll trunk is the "0".  The problem, as I see it, is that if you tried
to dial a "10XXX +0 +" call (operator assisted) the intital "1" would
cause the call to go out on a DDD trunk, not an operator service
trunk.  Also, I'm not sure that the ANI equipment could cope with the
extra digits.  And, many small independents really don't care much
about offering Equal Access (though that attitude is thankfully
changing).  If they can get a call out of the local CO, that is all
they care about.  Some even go so far as to let the Bell company do
their billing for them (one Michigan company I know of used to have
bills that looked EXACTLY like Michigan Bell bills, except that the
Bell logo was absent from the computer-printed bill pages).

So I think that there are technical reasons that 10XXX calls aren't
handed off, and the primary one that I can think of is the use of the
leading "1" or "0" to indicate whether the call should go out via a
DDD or operator trunk (which ARE technically different ... for example,
operator trunks can "hold" a connection path after the caller hangs up
in many CO's).  On a 10XXX call you don't know whether the call will
be DDD or Operator-assisted until the SIXTH digit, and most older
Step-by-Step offices have no facilities to store and forward digits ...
as I noted, once you dial the initial "1" or "0", you are essentially
gone as far as the local CO is concerned.

Now, I am talking Step-by-Step here, which is what the offices I was
referring to have.  You are talking XY which as I understand it, is
still a common control switch with some limited digit storage and
translation capabilities ... if so then your question might be more
valid for that kind of switch.  But I SPECIFICALLY mentioned a
Step-by-Step switch in my post.

>> 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.

Well, again, I'm speaking from my perspective in the North Woods of
Michigan.  People up here are just now discovering FAX machines, and
computer modems are mostly still a mysterious device used by people in
Big Cities.  Even the local State University (smallest in the state)
has not fully entered the computer age (they are one of only two or
three state U's that are NOT connected to MichNet).  Believe it or
not, most people, and even most business owners up here almost never
have the need to make an international voice call, let alone an
international data call.

>>> 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.

I'm not saying it isn't a valid benchmark FOR YOU.  What I'm saying is
that you make the all too common mistake that we all make at times,
which is one of thinking that our view of the world is one that is
shared by the majority of people (after all, to admit otherwise would
be to admit that one is sort of an oddball, and who wants to admit
THAT?!?)  :-)

> 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?

No, I don't.  But I would fault a Mercedes owner for constantly trying
to tell everyone else that the only respectable thing to do is buy a
Mercedes (even those whose needs would be satisfied by a Volkswagen),
and for constantly making disparaging remarks about all other cars.
John, you do tend to take occasional swipes at the OCC's without
realizing that some people may have valid reasons for choosing an OCC
over your beloved AT&T.


> 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.

Okay, I won't fault them for providing (usually) excellent service
(we'll just forget about some of their recent outages <wink, nudge>).
And, hey, we won't talk about the following item that appeared in this
Sunday's "Business Briefs" section of the local newspaper:

"AT&T admits charge lag"

"NEW YORK (AP) - American Telephone & Telegraph Co. said it has
continued to charge some former customerts for a discount calling plan
for months after they switched long-distance phone companies.

"The charges involve AT&T's Reach Out America, Reach Out State, and
Reach Out World calling plans, which allow customers to buy an hour or
half-hour of long-distance calling per month at a reduced rate.

"AT&T said Tuesday it has continued to charge the monthly fee for the
Reach Out plans to some customers even after they switched to MCI
Communications Corp., Sprint or another phone company."

Point is, even AT&T can screw up, yet they are very quick to point out
the faults of their competitors.  I wish MCI or Sprint would run an ad
that says something like "Subscribe to an AT&T Reach Out plan, and you
may continue to be billed for the service for months after you try to
cancel ... or subscribe to [MCI PrimeTime|Sprint Plus] and you'll save
more money and if your calling patterns ever change, WE'LL let you
cancel with just one phone call!" You just KNOW that AT&T would not be
above running that sort of ad if it had been MCI or Sprint that had
screwed up!


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


[Moderator's Note: This has been an interesting thread, but since it
is now just Mssrs. Decker and Higdon arguing between themselves,
perhaps they will continue it in private email, space and time being
at a premium here this weekend.   PAT]

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

From: eplrx7![e-mail] (Wade Rogers)
Subject: Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet
Organization: DuPont Engineering Physics Laboratory
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 19:28:31 GMT


[e-mail] (Krishnan "krish" Sakotai ) writes:

> 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?

And in yet another similar vein, is there such for the CCITT H.261
compression standard?


Wade T. Rogers             | E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
eplrx7![e-mail] | Engineering Physics Laboratory
uunet!eplrx7!rogers        | P.O. Box 80357
[phone]             | Wilmington, Delaware 19880-0357

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 21:21:30 GMT


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

[description of inaccuracies in transcriptions deleted]

> 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).

This is getting a little off telecom, but ...

If the meeting was recorded by a CSR (Certified Shorthand Reporter)
and then transcribed, chances are the reporter would be very willing
to take a written copy of your remarks.  Just be reasonable in the way
you go about it -- saying something like "my remarks have a lot of
technical terms and I wanted to provide you a copy as a reference."
The reporter will not copy your written remarks verbatim, but will use
it as a reference for any unintelligible comments or confusing terms.
(My fiance' is a CSR and does a fair number of depositions for
malpractice cases -- and if you think *telecom* has some difficult
terminology ...)

Of course, if the reporter is so bad that he/she's making the mistakes
you mentioned, there's no guarantee about what will happen ... and if
the remarks are recorded on tape and transcribed from the tape, all
bets are off.  A CSR affirms that the transcript is an accurate
representation of the notes and seals the transcript to that effect.
A transcription from tape isn't affirmed or sealed, generally.  A
non-certified reporter will fall somewhere in the middle -- better
than a tape, because the reporter will at least have been there, but
not as good as a CSR.  (Of course, I admit to being prejudiced in
favor of CSRs ...)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Who Benefits From Local Competition?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 21:31:55 GMT


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

> 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.

Chuck Buckman, General Manager of Teleport Communications Chicago, has
proposed a "Universal Service Tax" -- a percentage of revenues to be
paid by all telcos to the local (presumably state) government, which
would turn around and pay it to telcos serving these "underpriviledged"
areas.  I'm not saying that's the only (or even best) solution, but
again, let's not climb back inside the Natural Monopoly shell when
alternate, creative solutions have potential.

> 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.

Can you say "Divestiture", boys and girls?  Let's see -- AT&T divested
itself of the local Bell operating companies largely so it could enter
into the unregulated computer business.  Next, the seven RBOCs will
divest themselves of the local Bell operating companies so they can
enter the unregulated information services, long distance,
manufacturing, real estate, financial, etc. businesses.  Then, I guess
the local Bell operating companies will themselves divest themselves
of the local telephone operations so they can enter some other new
unregulated business.  The poor guys in the BOCs are going to start
feeling like unwanted relatives.


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

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 17:16:12 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index


In <[e-mail]> PAT 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 like it but found it more workable if I sorted it by Issue/Group,
e.g. 9/701-750
     9/751-800

This was a very trivial operation and was more convenient for me.

However, as another poster mentioned, it is a useful tool when
researching previous articles concerning a specific topic or topics.

Good Work.


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


[Moderator's Note: My intent in gathering up all those subject lines
in alphabetical order was to provide a tool for people searching
through back issues by whatever search key. Whether you grep for
author names, titles, or file name (and all articles in that volume by
alpha order for example), the index should help you locate what you
want. You still have to then go back to the archives and pull the file
with the collection of issues desired, but at least with the index you
now know where to begin looking. I've updated it through issue 900,
and it can be obtained in compressed form from the Telecom Archives
using anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu.     PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #909
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10395;
          10 Nov 91 11:41 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16061
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 10:05:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27972
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 10:05:24 -0600
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 10:05:24 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #910

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Nov 91 10:05:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 910

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Information Wars (Mike Godwin)
    Re: The Information Wars (John Higdon)
    Re: The Information Wars (Peng H. Ang)
    Re: The Information Wars (Mitch Kapor)
    Re: Video Dialtone vrs. Info Services (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires (David Cornutt)
    Re: Question on Easements (Marc T. Kaufman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Information Wars
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 20:06:28 EST


John Higdon writes:

> This matter is even more serious than Pac*Bell's confiscatory ratepayer
> money-grab. Pacific Telesis' entry into the information providing
> business will give new meaning to the term "Orwellian". Some
> organizations, such as the EFF, seem to feel that letting the RBOCs get
> a foot in the door is essential to the emergence of the necessary
> technology to get a "universal", national data network launched.

This is not really our position. Instead, we have argued that since
the RBOCs are likely very soon to enter this arena, their entry be
conditioned upon, among other things, investment in technology that
facilitates more high-bandwidth connectivity to the home -- available
to *all* would-be information-service providers.


Mike

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 17:44 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: The Information Wars


In the previous message in this issue Mike Godwin writes:

> This is not really our position. Instead, we have argued that since
> the RBOCs are likely very soon to enter this arena, their entry be
> conditioned upon, among other things, investment in technology that
> facilitates more high-bandwidth connectivity to the home -- available
> to *all* would-be information-service providers.

A laudable goal to be sure. But as in the case of, for instance,
voicemail providing the telco makes that technology available to
competitors at a ridiculous price. No one can pay that price and still
be competitive with the telco. The telco claims that the charge
represents the "true cost of providing the service", and has to offer
absolutely no substantiation for that claim.

My fear, backed by history and current practices, is that the telcos
will engineer any technology to their own exclusive advantage. Yes, we
may eventually get high-bandwidth connectivity to our homes, but only
the telcos will be able to afford to send anything on it.

Competition is a dirty word to the RBOCs. The only way they want to
play is to have some overriding advantage that will guarantee a "win".
A "win" to a telco is not the providing of advanced services or
filling customer needs but the making of a LOT of money. Ask anyone
now currently in competition with a telco with a product that depends
on the local exchange network and find out how Baby Bell plays. Go to
voicemail providers and discover how much each pays for FX circuits to
the offices they wish to serve; or ask about mysterious problems on
PBX trunks when the local telco is actively pushing Centrex on the
vendor's customer. Then discover how low the price is for voicemail
from the telco -- it makes you wonder how they can do it so cheap. The
answer, of course, is that pot of gold called the "regulated
ratepayer". And the price will be low until all those other folks
disappear. But then ...

No Mike, this has got to happen either via regulatory strangle-hold
mandates and edicts to the LECs, or through some other means entirely.
If you think that anyone can "play house" with Baby Bell and come out
ahead, then we have not talked enough. And remember, the Bells write
the tariffs for the PUCs, not the other way around.


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


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

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 21:54 EST
From: "Peng_H.Ang" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Information Wars


> typical of the underhanded tactics PacTel uses to ruthlessly get its
> own way. It attacks Lantos by name, accusing him of "siding with the
> newspaper interests" in "blocking your right to free access of
> information".

I would have thought that the correct attribution tag would be a form
of "said" rather than "accuse." PacTel on this point is correct.
Lantos, bless his heart tho' I don't know him, is siding with
newspaper interests and, on the face of it, blocking access to
information.

May I offer a counterpoint that I do not seem to have encountered in
this debate about telcos and info services. The info services market,
particularly at the consumer level that the telcos are interested in,
is heavily concentrated. The mass market consumer videotex has just
five key players, starting with CompuServe and Prodigy. I think
CompuServe is wonderful but its prices are a different matter. Well,
recently, with Prodigy gaining market share, CompuServe introduced a
"basic" service where for $7.95 a month you get several "popular"
services plus 30 email messages. (Sounds familiar?)

I'm sure that CompuServe would that have done that without the
qualified success of Prodigy. Of course CompuServe could also be
pre-empting the telcos' move -- by lowering prices it is erecting a
barrier to entry.

I look forward to the telcos' entry in shaking up the consumer
information services market. Yes, the FCC and PUCs will have to watch
them closer.  But aren't we all technological optimists in believing
that the greater the access to information techology and services, the
better the country will be?

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:44:18 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Mitch Kapor)
Subject: Re: The Information Wars


John Higdon says:

> Some organizations, such as the EFF, seem to feel that letting the
> RBOCs get a foot in the door is essential to the emergence of the
> necessary technology to get a "universal", national data network
> launched ...

This mis-states our position.  We believe that the deployment of a
ubiquitous, affordable platform based on ISDN is the sine qua on for
the emergence of innovative information services.  These services
would practically all be created by entrepreneurs and new entrants
into the field.  If such a platform were created, which would be a
historically unprecedented event, and assuming other developments such
as the emergence of competition in the local loop and other
safeguards, then we believe it would not be inappropriate for RBOC's
to provide content as well as conduit.

For more information on our ISDN platform proposal, send mail to
[e-mail].


Mitch Kapor [e-mail]
Electronic Frontier Foundation

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

Date: Fri,  8 Nov 1991 11:33:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Video Dialtone vrs. Info Services


> 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?

That someone might be confused by regulations in this areas is not at
all surprising -- they ARE confusing!  Perhaps I can straighten things
out a bit.

In the U.S. political system, there are many independent sources of
political power and regulation.  Rules may be issued as laws by the
Congress; as regulations by quasi-independent regulatory commissions
such as the FCC; or by the courts as judicial decrees.  Moreover,
because we are a federal republic, there may be State as well as
National rules from each of these three types of agencies.  When you
have several rules regarding the same thing, it is the _most binding_
rule which is important.

With respect to video and information services, there have been three
major sources of limitation.

1.  The MFJ, which prohibited the Regional Holding Companies (RHCs)
(but not other local exchange carriers) from providing information
services -- whether data or video, and whether in their service area or
outside of it.

2.  The Cable Act of 1984, Congressional legislation, which bans the
provision by any local exchange carrier of "video programming" within
their local exchange area. Video Programming is ambiguously defined in
the act, but it generally refers to cable-like service: provision of a
limited number of one-way video channels.  The Cable Act also
specifies that providers of "video services" need to secure a
municipal franchise.

3.  FCC rules.  There are two main sets.  1) Computer Inquiry 3, which
establishes the rules for participation by any "dominant" LEC (i.e.
the RBOCs) in the provision of "enhanced communications services"; and
2) the FCC's own rules banning provision by LECs of video programming,
which were written into the Cable Act of 1984.

There have been several recent changes in these rules, which I will
describe, and then I will try to explain which remaining rules are
binding.

One.  Judge Greene, at the direction of the Appellate Court, has
removed all restrictions on the provision by the information services
by the RHCs.  Thus, the court is no longer a limiting factor.

Two.  The Cable Act of 1984 remains in place.

Three.  The FCC CI3 rules say that the RHCs can provide enhanced
services, including information content, through a separate
subsidiary, and subject to open standard interfaces for other enhanced
service providers (Open Network Architecture).  This separate
subsidiary need not be completely at arms length, however.  It can
share equipment with the parent, for example; accounting rules are to
be relied upon to allocate the cost of the equipment properly between
the two.

The FCC has recently asked for comment in a Notice of Proposed Rule
Making on the idea of Video Dial Tone; the decision is so recent,
hoever, that the text of it has still not been made available to the
public.  Like 976 services, Video Dial Tone would provide switched
transport on a common carrier basis to video information sources.  A
result of this process may be a recommendation to Congress to amend
the Cable Act of 1984.

Implications.

1.  Since the MFJ was the only rule which applied to LEC provision of
information OUTSIDE of its service area, the RHCs are free to buy up
cable companies outside their service area (as Pac Bell has already
done with a special waiver from the court prior to the general
decision).

2.  Under CI3 rules, the RHCs are free to provide any other kind of
non-video information inside their service areas.  As a result of the
MFJ changes, they are also now free to provide information *content*
as part of an enhanced service: e.g. instead of just providing
electronic mail, where they don't provide any of the content, they can
provide an electronic white pages and yellow pages as well.

3.  With respect to video information, the situation is still not
settled.  At the moment, the Cable Act of 1984, and the lack of
official adoption, _yet_, by the FCC of its Proposed Video Dial Tone
rules means that the RHCs may not provide video information within
their service areas.  As the FCC Video Dial Tone docket proceeds, we
will see if legislative change by the Congress to the Cable Act is
needed, or whether Video Dial tone, as a *switched* service, falls
outside the prohibitions of the Cable Act, and can be authorized by
the FCC unilaterally.  In the latter case, the RHCs will be able to
offer video information content, subject to the combined rules of the
Video Dial Tone proceeding and CI3.  The FCC has also made the claim
that information providers who make use of a Video Dial Tone service
do not need to secure a municipal franchise; a claim which we can
expect municipalities to contest in the courts.

Lastly, some States may attempt to put in their two cents worth as well.
 For example, by demanding more severe structural separation
restrictions -- as opposed to mere accounting rules -- for the RHCs
enhanced services subsidiary.  The District of Columbia has already
proposed such rules.

For a detailed treatment of these issues see the forthcoming book on
Fiber to the Home by David Reed from Artech House publishers.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Cornutt)
Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 03:06:08 GMT


Thanks for an interesting article, Al.  Now let me ask you a question
about cutover.  I'm looking at a flyer from Tekelec (I called them
about info on their FDDI analyzer; now they're sending me all kinds of
neat stuff).  Among the goodies that they sell to folks who are in the
business of implementing telecom systems is something they call simply
the Cutover Device.  From the description of it, and my limited
knowledge, I take it that it's intended for cutting over toll
switches.

It appears to be a device with which two switches can be connected to
an SS7 net so that they appear to be one device.  On command,
apparently it starts routing call setup requests to the new switch,
while still handling messages concerning existing traffic to/from the
switch which is being cut over.  I assume that it keeps track of
remaining calls on the old switch and notifies the operator when all
traffic has been cut over.  Is this an accurate summary?  Am I correct
in the assumption that it is only for toll switches, or can it be used
for COs too?  (And if so, how are the individual pairs cut over?  Come
to think of it, when all the analog systems are gone, presumably there
won't be any pairs coming directly to the switch, just trunks.  At
that point, will you even need a device like this any more?)


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] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Question on Easements
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date:  8 Nov 91 17:08:58 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> My family has some land, and 20 years ago we gave the Public Works
> Dept. in our town a easement 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 easement" 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 eaesment" to do
> that?  And, were we suckered on what a half mile long easement is
> worth?  Any ideas?

Well, as to what it's worth: it depends on how much you value water
and sewer service ...

It's not unheard of for utilities not specifically named in the
easement to use right-of-way granted to other utilities (sort of like
sub-contracting to provide telephone lines alongside the water pipes).
The requirement on your side is that you not build any structures (or
plant large trees) over the lines, because the utility has the right
of access, and can remove them if needed.  On their side, I think they
have to restore the land to a "reasonable" state; which does NOT
include replanting specimen trees or reinstalling fences.

The bottom line is that if you take them to court to make them stop,
the local governing body will probably take the easement by emminent
domain.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: Does anyone remember the story in the Digest a
couple years ago where IBT claimed easement rights in this lady's home
 -- in her bedroom, mind you -- because the former occupant had been
an answering service, and pairs multipled from all over the
neighborhood were connected in a huge terminal box in her bedroom?
Maybe I should run that story again.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #910
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12040;
          10 Nov 91 12:48 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24628
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 11:09:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19955
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 11:09:02 -0600
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 11:09:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #911

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Nov 91 11:08:56 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 911

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" (Eric Skinner)
    Re: Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking (Craig R. Watkins)
    Re: AT&T Alliance Signal Quality (Bryan Richardson)
    Re: New NETel Rates For Metro Boston Customers (John Higdon)
    Re: Desperately Need Telco Line ... Concluded (Joe McGuckin)
    Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch Tone (Bud Couch)
    Re: British Telecom Figures (Peng H. Ang)
    Re: Touch Tone on Old Switches (Bud Couch)
    Re: AT&T Online Translation Service (David McKellar)
    Re: Controlling LD Access (Barton F. Bruce)
    10xxx Compliance Update (Barton F. Bruce)
    Books on LANS and Communications (Mark Allyn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 13:45:21 EST
From: Eric Skinner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind"


In Digest 11/877, Albert Pang ([e-mail]) writes:

> 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 annoying.  Anybody outside of Bell Canada area has the same
> problem?

(Someone else mentioned it a few issues later, too).

I noticed the same thing, and called Bell repair (611) on the date of
the time change to see what the story was.  You won't believe the
answer.

Yes, the time of the call *is* delivered with the Caller ID
information and if the time on the phone hasn't been set since
power-on (of the phone), the phone resets the time to what it's just
received with the Caller ID information.  The rest of the time, the
Maestro ignores the time information.  This strikes me as completely
ridiculous.  Unless they're allowing for the case where my CO is in
another time zone (which would screw up billing, no?) there is no
reason for the Maestro not to ALWAYS reset the time and date.

This is the story I got from 611 -- apparently they had already
received a flurry of calls.  They recommended I unplug the phone and
let the next call set the time.  I sighed and set the clock manually
(through what I might add has got to be one of the worst menu
interfaces I've ever seen).


Eric R. Skinner     [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking
Date: 8 Nov 91 10:32:59 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


"Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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.

I just tried *67 here in Bell of PA land (814.238) to see if it would
defeat "Return Call" (*69).  I got "... your call cannot be completed
as dialed ..." when I tried *67.


Craig R. Watkins    Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.        Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]        UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

From: [e-mail] (Bryan Richardson)
Subject: Re: AT&T Alliance Signal Quality
Date: 8 Nov 91 17:31:21 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


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

> I recently used AT&T's Alliance conferencing facility to make a call
> that connected points in Massachusetts, California (me), and Tokyo.  I
> was very disappointed with the result.  The trunk to Tokyo seemed not
> to go over the usual, high-quality path, and there was a very high
> level of background noise when someone in Tokyo talked (accents are
> bad enough in person ...).  This could have been due to ambient noise
> in the room with a speakerphone on their end (the rest of us were
> using handsets), but it was still very distressing.

While not an expert in transmission, I would guess that was the
quality of the speakerphone at the remote end (and any ambient noise)
was what made the connection sound so bad.  A simple test would have
been to have someone on the far end pick up the handset -- the noise
is likely to disappear.  This has been my overwhelming experience with
speaker-phones in general and on teleconferences in particular.

> I called their customer service number and asked the simple question:
> Did this call use AT&T facilities, specifically the crystal-clear
> transPac fiber trunks, to Tokyo?  The answer was Yes, but I somehow
> doubt it.  Is Alliance an integral part of an AT&T tandem somewhere
> (it said it was in Reno), or is it a "service" that AT&T resells on
> behalf of a "provider" who may very well use other carriers.  (This is
> ridiculous on the face of it, but at this stage I'm ready to
> disbelieve anything.)

Most definitely you were using AT&T facilities throughout the call.  I
don't know if it is possible to guarantee what transmission
capabilities were used to route the call (I don't even know what the
choices are), but if there was more than one choice, then the choice
is made when the call is routed based on current traffic, etc ...

The Alliance bridges are AT&T's, and service is NOT provided by
another company.  In fact, some SDN customers purchase or lease their
own private Alliance bridges for their private networks.

If I remember exactly, the four public bridges are in Reno, Chicago,
Dallas, and White Plains, connected to respective 4 ESS switches in
those cities.  Calls are routed from the 4E to the bridge, and
outbound traffic from the bridge is handled like any other AT&T call.
Most certainly, prefixing 10288 (or anything else) would have yielded
an announcement along the lines, "Your call cannot be completed as
dialed ..."

[stuff deleted]

>Does my use of Alliance count against our SDN volume?

I don't know for sure, but it depends upon your particular contract
and how your PBX is set up to handle 0 + 700 traffic.

> A Disgruntled Customer.

Sorry you were dissatisfied.  To truly determine if the bridge is at
fault, try calling only domestic locations (and no speakerphones).  If
the problems still result, call AT&T Repair (whose 800 number escapes
me at the moment).


Bryan Richardson     [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University

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

Subject: Re: New NETel Rates For Metro Boston Customers
Date: 7 Nov 91 14:38:51 PST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


Scott Fybush <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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.

Sinner, get down on your knees and thank your personal diety for small
favors. A twenty-four mile call within a California LATA costs about
THE SAME as a call to the east coast.


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

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

From: oilean.oilean![e-mail] (Joe McGuckin)
Subject: Re: Desperately Need Telco Line ... Concluded
Organization: Island Software
Date: 8 Nov 91 00:33:56


Well, a minor net-miracle happened and I was able to contact the
person who I had been looking for. I'd also like to thank those people
who offered me their help in designing my project.


Joe McGuckin      oilean![e-mail]
Island Software   [phone]

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch Tone
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 18:59:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave
Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes:

> 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.

I seriously doubt that you were on one of the earliest DTMF exchanges
in 1965. When I went to work for North Electric in 1966, they had had
DTMF receivers designed and in place on both the NX-1D and NX-2
switches. I think that their trademark name for it was "Key Call".

Given the fact that they were certainly not Bell Labs, I would guess
that the technology had been around for at least three or four years
by then.  The typical design cycle for a trunk modification was on the
order of eight months.

 From this, it is also obvious that an electronic exchange is not
required for DTMF; it makes economic sense for any common control
switch, where register holding time can be decreased.


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

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

Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 14:31 EST
From: "Peng_H.Ang" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures


I saw the British Telecom profit figure on the news wire but what
really puzzles me is why the British are so upset about the L100 a
second profit?  Isn't this the expected result of privatization? That
BT would become more profitable.

I'm aware that there are some gripes about the lack of true
competition. But is that a major problem in terms of level of service,
price, etc? Or is it that they are ok but they could do better?

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: Touch Tone on Old Switches
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 19:38:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/
ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com writes:

> 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

True for SXS and XY, but not correct for Crossbar. The DTMF receiver
was connected to the register (the equipment that collected the dial
pulses and told the switch which links would have to be made to
connect the call) via a switch matrix. This gave any register access
to any DTMF receiver. When the caller went off-hook, the register
would be connected to that line. There were two possiblilites as to
how the DTMF receiver was attached. In one, a class mark was used, and
only lines so marked got the receiver. In the other, a receiver was
always attached, but would be disconnected from the register if a dial
pulse was received. In this manner, a limited number of DTMF receivers
were necessary to serve a large office, but could be added as demand
increased.  Eventually, enough DTMF service was supplied that the
total number of registers could be decreased, since each was used for
a significantly shorter time.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (David McKellar)
Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service
Organization: DMN
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 15:18:22 -0500


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

> 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.

I wonder if they have thought about how to know which of the 140
langauges the caller is speaking?  Does somebody at the translation
service answer the phone, listen and think "That sounds like an
oriental language ... I'll try the Chinese translator" or "That sounds
Eastern European, maybe its Hungarian."  etc. ?

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Controlling LD Access
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.
Date: 9 Nov 91 06:14:15 EDT


In article <[e-mail]>, [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? (of course removing a default

Generally, yes. It is one of several types of screening that are
available.

Often it is put on a phone in a rentable ski condo. Local calls are
just included in the rent, but no 'sent-paid' LD calls are possible.
One can dial toll calls that are CC, third party billing, or collect.
Also one generally wants yet another service they offer that adds you
to the database that indicates collect into you and third party
billing to you is disallowed. The operator service positions simply
won't allow such calls to be billed to you!

There are other variations. If you have SMDR and call accounting, you
may wish to allow 1 + LD, but NOT sent-paid 0+ simply because you can't
determine what the operator was asked to provide.

Sadly, the names and USOC codes vary.

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10xxx Compliance Update
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.
Date: 9 Nov 91 06:14:15 EDT


Some late breaking screening news:

AT&T has now written new software to support special screening needed
for 10xxx service from hotels, prisons, etc. It disalloes 10xxx1+ (the
site should be able to pick the carrier for calls billed to it) and
allows normal 1+ and any 10xxx0+ billed elsewhere. Obviously the 011+
and 01+ situations are handled properly.

These mods have cost AT&T over $7 mil and are being *GIVEN* to all
operating companies using AT&T switches.

AT&T is compiling lists by LEC and LATA of other 10xxx related
screening codes and ordering info. AT&T is trying to get this all out
to anyone that needs it as rapidly as it becomes available. They are
having detailed tarriff searches being done, and will include whatever
local names are used for individual features.

The team responsible for all of it is still on the road doing their
10xxx seminars mostly for the consultant community. The one I was at
also had folks from large companies and someone from MCI present.

The 10xxx compliance is happening. The FCC *HAS* been making test
calls from publicly accessible phones, and clearly will do more as the
various 'must comply dates' roll by.

It is quite possible that we may be able to get a lot of the AT&T info
available here on C.D.T, but one major component of their session
handout was FCC stuff that was simply copied and which they don't have
in machine readable form.

Oh, yes, another part of this is that the new laws (this is not just
FCC's doing -- your letters to your elected ones occasionally do work)
additionally require 950 or 800 access to ALL carriers, so AT&T *WILL*
do one of them!

Apparently, since not all LECs pass ANI on all FG-B trunks, AT&T will
be using the 800 route for compliance.

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

From: bcsaic![e-mail] (Mark Allyn)
Subject: Books on LANS and Communications
Date: 10 Nov 91 01:54:15 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services ATC, Seattle


I have received flyers in the mail promoting the following two books:

1. Handbook of Communications Systems Management
   Auth: James W. Conard
   Pub: Auerbach Publishers  Price $125

2. Handbook of Local Area Networks
   Auth: John P. Slone & Ann Drinan
   Pub Auerbach Publishers  Price $125

I would like to know if anyone out there has used these books or
others on the same topic from the Auerbach outfit. As you can see,
these books seem pricy and I would like to get some idea of their
usefullness before I shell out these kind of bucks.

Are these folks as good as O'Reilly (who created the X books) and
Addison & Wesley (who published the 4.3BSD Bible)?


Thanks,

Mark Allyn

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #911
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28890;
          10 Nov 91 22:24 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27427
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 20:40:28 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25531
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 20:40:17 -0600
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 20:40:17 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #912

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Nov 91 20:40:16 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 912

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done (Jay Ashworth)
    Re: What's AT&T's Number? (John R. Levine)
    Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) (David Ash)
    Re: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number (John Higdon)
    Re: Cellular Phone Rates (John Higdon)
    Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest (Paul Guthrie)
    Re: Inpartiality and Due Process? (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: New NETel Rates for Metro Boston Customers (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere (Ken Dykes)
    Re: British Telecom Figures (Graham Toal)
    Re: Last Week at the FCC (Harold Hallikainen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only?
Date: 9 Nov 91 06:26:12 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

You may find there are some LD companies that only allow calls from
pre-subscribed customers and that bill directly to such customers, not
via the LEC. They would have to be agreeable to having/billing you as
the customer without changing your parents PIC, and you would have to
use their 10xxx access code. Or if your parents don't often make LD
calls, perhaps the PIC change would be tolerable to them. You would
get their random LD calls on your bill, then.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jay Ashworth)
Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 23:09:27 PDT
Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida


Some references I've seen say that many cellular phones have the ESN
burned into a ROM/PAL _on the CPU chip_.  For obvious reasons, (if
they aren't obvious, hang aroung here for awhile, you'll catch on ...
 :-) this would make reprogramming the ESN _quite_ infeasible.


Cheers,

Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!Jay.Ashworth
Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root.

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

Subject: Re: What's AT&T's number?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 9 Nov 91 17:20:01 EST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


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

> ... an AT&T calling card center (813-654-6000)
> ... 816 - 654 - 6004 (call collect from overseas)

Is their number 813 (Florida) or 816 (Missouri)?  To clarify things, I
called AT&T and asked them what the number is, and they said
205-470-7619.  Hmmn.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (David Ash)
Subject: Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 00:19:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: MCI = Microwave Communications, Inc. Sprint =

I thought that it long ago was changed so that now it stands for Mass
Communications, Inc.  It was originally Microwave Communications, Inc.


David W. Ash      [e-mail]
HOME: [phone]   WORK: [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 17:24 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number


[e-mail] (Steven J. Edwards) writes:

> First moral of the story: if you ask for an unlisted number,
> don't assume that you'll get one that was not very recently in use by
> another party.

And the fourth, unmentioned, moral of the story: do not ever expect
that by getting an unlisted number that you will be protected in any
way from junk, nuisance, or other annoying calls. After spending a
quiet two weeks away from civilization I returned to my usual
telephone annoyance: wrong numbers.

I have essentially three incoming voice lines: a listed public line
(in the .signature if you are interested), a very private line known
only by a very tight handful of associates, and an even more private
800 number which has its own dedicated appearance. The public line
gets almost no wrong numbers whatsoever, nor does it appear to be
particularly susceptable to solicitation calls. (The {San Jose
Mercury} was an exception: it went down the list in numerical order
and nailed all my lines, modems, fax and all.) Whenever that line
rings it is almost assuredly for me from someone with legitimate
communications.  And this, even though the number is published in the
telephone directory, is available from directory assistance, and is
appended to almost every one of the hundreds of e-mails that I send to
people all over the world every week.

The "private" line is a zoo. It rings at least four times a day with a
call for someone I have never heard of. There is no pattern, common
name, or any other thread than I can possibly follow to track down a
potential source of misinformation. This line also seems to attract
all the charities, insurance offers, and long distance companies with
their stupid pitches. Why not change it, you ask? Simple: this is much
better than the ten + calls I received a day on the previous "private"
number.  In other words, I have no assurance that changing the number
would net any positive results; and indeed could be a lot worse.

Thankfully, the 800 number also appears to be "clean". It has a double
exposure: the 800 number itself and the POTS number of the physical
line. Even so, about one wrong number per month is all that I
experience from it. (My previous 800 number was cross between that of
the Hilton hotel chain and the San Francisco-based Red and White
Fleet.  You have no idea how many room and tour reservations I took
before getting tired of the game!)

I have heard many talk about the sanctity of unlisted numbers and how
necessary they are to avoid annoying calls. If this is the goal, a
great deal of disappointment is likely.


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

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 18:16 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates


"Steven M. Palm" <[e-mail]> writes:

> cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to
> maintain.  Should be much cheaper.  Why do people put up with such a
> ripoff?

Good question. But in Hawaii, apparently they don't. I do not have the
rate card in front of me, but GTE Mobilnet offers five-island coverage
for about half the going rate here in California. And not only are the
per-minute rates very, very low, the monthly base rates are also quite
attractive. Under one plan (that also has reasonable per-minute
charges) the monthly service is FREE. That's right -- if you don't use
it, you don't pay. What a novel concept. I wonder how they can
maintain all that ether out there without a monthly fee. Gee! No, GTE!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Guthrie)
Subject: Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 07:26:12 GMT


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

>> [ ... ] There was even a _real_ (not pre-printed) 10-cent stamp on
>> it.  Imagine my surprise to see that inside was a $20 check from AT&T
>>  -- all I have to do to get the cash is switch to AT&T.

> I really thought it was funny when my friend received such a $20 check
> from MCI to switch -- she was already an MCI "Dial 1" customer!
> Are these things legally binding?
> I've often managed to desposit checks into my account without signing
> them by using an ATM. The problem is they'll probably switch you anyway,
> and the trouble of getting it fixed isn't worth the $20.

This will be an interesting thing for me to try.  I just hope I get
one of those checks in the mail.  I live in an apartment complex with
it's own PBX which charges for LD service itself.  I don't have a
chance to switch.  (At least they charge "AT&T rates", though).


Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul or [e-mail] or attmail!balr!pdg

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 6:20:17 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: Inpartiality and Due Process?


In Volume 11, Issue 898, Message 1 of 6 [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> 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.

This is the same way that NY Tel gets its pound of flesh from its
ratepayers.  Instead of a Public Utility Commission, we get the Public
Service Commission which is also known as the UTILITY Service
Commission.

The supposedly powerful State Consumer Protection Board (created
during the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant fiasco) can't seem to make any
reasonable headway against the PSC in keeping rates down anywhere.

One answer that was suggested in New York was to make the
Commissioners elected, not appointed which would give the people some
form of control.  That dies each time due to the intense lobbying by
you-knnow-who.


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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 6:31:48 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: New NETel Rates for Metro Boston Customers


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott
Fybush) writes:

> 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?

This sounds like what NYTel did a few years ago when they went from (I
think) calling areas based on mileage to regional calling.  For the NY
Metro area there is NYC, part of Westchester County, a very small part
of Connecticut, Nassau County, and the West Suffolk and East Suffolk
home regions.

Calls in the primary area (my community and all adjacent exchanges
including in another region) are in Flat rate pricing and calls to the
rest of my region are at (currently) 10.2 cents for the first minute,
2.2 cents per minute after that.  Discounts apply for certain hours.

Calls to other regions incur higher rates with the exception of those
exchanges that border mine.

Since most of my calls are in my flat rate area, this is the best
choice for me since I can call as often as I want and talk as long as
I want (a wallet saver if you have kids).


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

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

From: thinkage![e-mail] (Ken Dykes)
Subject: Re: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere
Organization: Thinkage Ltd.
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 11:22:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(|S| Juergen Ziegler) writes:

> Hi TD-readers,

> 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.

In North America (US and Canada) the subscribers may attach/supply
their own telephones.  They are more often than not the cheapest piece
of garbage you can possibly manufacture.  Ie: toys

> 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

Speaking toy.  Yes, that's the description! :-)

"Real" phones have either some sophisticated audio technology, or
before modern electronics, some neat acoustical/material design
features.  These solutions are sadly missing on what are essentially
disposable phones.

Imagine magazine publishers giving away a "free phone" with every six
month subscription ... the phones won't exactly be expensive to
manufacture or package.

I have one of these phones, and a normally annoying "bell tap" I
actually use as a feature.  I live on a non-electronic exchange
(519-886) which, when it "connects" the line, but before the first
ring is sent, will cause a brief "chirp" on the cheap phone.  I pick
up before the first ring and surprise the unsuspecting caller.  They
always say "But! It didn't even ring!"  I pretend I'm psychic :-) :-)
(My exchange has synchronized ringing with callers in the same local
area.)


Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada    [43.47N 80.52W]
  [e-mail]  [e-mail]  thinkage!kgdykes
  [e-mail]  [129.97.128.1]   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You mean the News Weak Magazine and Telephone
Company sells inferior instruments? You mean their phones have about
as much quality inside them as their magazine has inside it?  Regards
advance notice of incoming calls, I used to do the same thing as
yourself about twenty years ago when I had service on one of the last
stepper switches in Chicago. 312-WEbster-9 phones frequently gave a
little 'ding' from the bell while the caller was still riding the
switch-train, crashing and banging along on the track to connection.
They cut Webster and the rest of Chicago-Wabash (Cannonball) straight
over to ESS in 1975. The one holdout was 312-LOngbeach-1, and it went
ESS in 1977.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures
Date: 10 Nov 91 18:56:50 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peng_H.Ang)
writes:

> I saw the British Telecom profit figure on the news wire but what
> really puzzles me is why the British are so upset about the L100 a
> second profit?  Isn't this the expected result of privatization? That
> BT would become more profitable.

Yes. That would indeed be the case if the majority of Britons approved
of the privatisation in the first place.

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 13:57:24 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Last Week at the FCC
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


    This "Last Week at the FCC" posting was great!  Can we see
them every week!  Is the actual text of each item available on line
turh internet? (especially Notices of Inquiry, Notices of Proposed
Rulemakings, Report and Orders, and Policy Statements).


Harold

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #912
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29668;
          10 Nov 91 22:53 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01440
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:09:36 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31453
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:09:25 -0600
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:09:25 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #913

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Nov 91 21:08:22 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 913

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea (David G. Lewis)
    Re: More on LEC Competition (John Higdon)
    Re: More on LEC Competition (Norman Yarvin)
    Re: The Information Wars (Roy M. Silvernail)
    Re: The Information Wars (Harold Hallikainen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 16:59:02 GMT



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Robert J. Stratton III) writes:

> I strongly suggest that you take a look at larger cities where LEC
> bypass is beginning to thrive (Metropolitan Fiber in NYC might be a
> good example),

Actually, Teleport Communications in NYC might be a better example.
MFS only began operations in NYC in late 1990, while Teleport
Communications has been operating there since 1985 and turning a
profit since 1988.

[This is not meant to imply any preference on the part of AT&T towards
Teleport, MFS, or NYT, or any endorsement on the part of AT&T of this
"bypass" business ...]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (David W. Barts) writes:

> Another interesting fact about markets and competition is that they
> are not free.  They incur costs.  Yes, they also incur benefits.  I
> agree that in many cases, the benefits exceed the costs, but in this
> respect the telephone network presents a special case.  This is
> because size, _in and of itself_, is a desirable attribute in a
> telephone network.

Wrong metric.  *Size* is not the desirable attribute.  The number of
people to which I can connect is the desirable attribute.  This
returns us to the interconnection argument -- if I operate a small,
efficient, highly localized telephone network, and I'm interconnected
with all the other local telephone networks in my LATA and with all
the IXCs having presence in my LATA, my customers can reach as many
people as can the customers of the large, ubiquitous Phone Company
located in the same area.  Size is *not* a virtue in and of itself.

> The more people I can talk to with my phone, the
> more useful it is to me.

Exactly.  Which is not the same as saying "the larger the phone
network to which my phone is connected, the more useful my phone is to
me."

> Sure, steps can be taken to ensure connectivity between systems.  But
> now what we're doing is: 1) spending much effort breaking the whole
> into pieces, then 2) spending more effort and resources to make the
> system that resulted from (1) look essentially the same as before (1)
> was applied.

A) Who said anything about breaking the whole into little pieces?  I
don't advocate breaking up the existing local exchange carriers, be
they Bell or otherwise (my humorous remarks about an ongoing chain of
divestiture in a previous post notwithstanding); I merely advocate
permitting other carriers to freely and fairly compete with them.

B) Some would state that we already did this.  Lessee, to enable the
system of multiple IXCs and multiple divested BOCs to work as well as
One Bell System, the industry had to invent equal access signaling,
settlements and separations, subscriber line access charges, minutes
of use access tariffs ... but how many people would argue that long
distance service was better before divestiture?

> Several posters have mentioned the undesirability of subsidies for
> various components of the telephone network.  But such revenue
> transfers are a fact of life no matter what we do.  Right now, if I
> decide to purchase a Sony TV, Sony can use the profit it earned from
> this sale to support research and development of a new line of
> computers.  Revenue has been transferred from the TV sector to the
> computer research sector.

Yes, but (as I'm sure John H will point out) Sony is not guaranteed by
the government an 11% + profit on the sales of TVs.  Sony's got to
compete in the marketplace to sell those TVs, whereas LECs don't have
to compete in the marketplace to sell phone service.

Please, keep up the discussion.  This is interesting.

Note that, of course, these opinions in no way represent those of
AT&T.  They pay a lot of other people to have opinions about this kind
of thing.  They just pay me to do ISDN.


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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 00:11 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: More on LEC Competition


David W. Barts <[e-mail]> writes:

> My!  I certainly stirred up a hornet's nest, didn't I?

Yes, but the problem is that most of what you say, while true, misses
the mark by a few degrees. You fail to address the actual reality of
the situation.

> To take an example from this Digest, when pay phone customers began to
> recognize most COCOTS for the rip-offs that they are, the market
> responded.

You could not have picked a more irrelevant analogy here. The issue of
COCOTs is strikingly unique. One (as a customer) does not have
occasion to "shop". I cannot recall a time when I woke up one morning
and said to myself, "Self, we are going to shop for COCOT service
today. We are going to find the best possible service for the least
cost." I also do not remember getting on my bike and going from street
corner to street corner looking for the "best possible" COCOT. (I have
gone looking for the worst, but that is another story.) In short, the
pay telephone actually IS a natural monopoly. Or at least a business
that requires a helluva lot more regulation than it has received.

> The more people I can talk to with my phone, the
> more useful it is to me.  There are not many industries in which this
> can be said -- usually size affects efficiency of production in some
> indirect manner (usually related to management structures or local
> availability of a raw material).

But a telco IS limited in size. In case it has escaped your notice,
telcos operate in a very strictly defined geographical area. Pac*Bell
cannot "grow" as a telco, only as a conglomerate. AND it must
interconnect with all the IECs and other surrounding telcos. This
interconnection that worries you so much is the least of a telco's
problems.

Then you say regarding interconnection:

> And this is supposed to be better and more efficient.  I
> now propose a humble solution to the traffic problem in our cities:
> Build walls across the streets.  Then, establish a Bureau of Gates and
> Overpasses to ensure people can get across these walls. The street
> system is now much improved.  Is it just me or does this logic sound a
> little silly?

No, your logic sounds silly. I don't know about your city, but mine
has many traffic signals and even some gated railroad crossings.
Apparently, you feel that things would go a lot more smoothly if the
signals and gates were all removed, right. If you manage to pull this
off, give me some notice so I can get out of town.

But to deny people choices because you do not feel that
interconnection can be effecient is very short sighted. This whole
country abounds with interconnected computers, networks, telcos, IECs,
e-mail systems, etc., etc. We have become very good at interconnection.
Within minutes after I finish typing this message, I know it will be
available to PAT and probably yourself within minutes.  It will pass
through many machines, all owned by different people and companies but
it will arrive bit-perfect. Likewise, the interconnection of telephone
companies is not a problem.

Using your logic, maybe we ought to put the Bell System back together
again. That was the largest telephone company of all time. Was it
effecient? Was it progressive? Was it reasonably priced? Was it
responsive to customers? If your principle is sound, it should work in
reverse, no?

> But such revenue transfers are a fact of life no matter what we do.
> Right now, if I decide to purchase a Sony TV, Sony can use the profit
> it earned from this sale to support research and development of a new
> line of computers.

This is where you really missed the boat. What you say is true, but
what you forgot to mention is that you do NOT have to buy Sony. You
can buy Sanyo, Toshiba, Panasonic, or even Emerson. If you do not like
the way one company distributes its money internally, buy from someone
else. Currently, I am unable to do that with my dial tone supplier.

> But it is nothing new that under the present system, monied interests
> can use their influence to corrupt the legislative process in order to
> warp the laws to their own benefit.

Right-O. But when Macy's California went to the Supreme court to
overturn a state tax law that had they succeeded would have put a lot
of elderly people out of their homes, they got a flood of
correspondence from customers including some cut-in-half charge cards.
Macy's decided that customer good will was worth more than any tax
savings in Concord that would have been achieved in court. It dropped
the case.

Do you think for one minute that Pac*Bell gives one molecule of
excrement about what its customers think? Can you imagine the horse
laughs when the letters pour in about taking dial tone business
elsewhere? One of my little fantasies is calling Pac*Bell some day and
telling the rep that I have no more use for the company's services.
"They are overpriced and underfeatured. I'm going with XYZ Telecom."


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Norman Yarvin)
Subject: Re: More on LEC Competition
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 23:26:45 GMT


[e-mail] (David W. Barts) writes:

> Sure, steps can be taken to ensure connectivity between systems.  But
> now what we're doing is: 1) spending much effort breaking the whole
> into pieces, then 2) spending more effort and resources to make the
> system that resulted from (1) look essentially the same as before (1)
> was applied.  And this is supposed to be better and more efficient.

All it takes to connect different systems is a precisely defined
interface standard.  Guess what?  The telcos already have interface
standards.  Even in a monopoly situation, using standard interfaces
and modular design has been found practical.  So this cannot be
regarded as an extra cost.

There are other aspects which are slightly less clear.  For instance,
suppose a customer finds a problem.  Whose equipment is at fault?
Well, how is the problem found today?  One subsystem after another is
checked, until the problem is found.  How would it be found under
competition?  The same way, except that the systems would be owned by
different companies.  For instance, the customer might complain to the
first, which would confirm that its circuits were working properly,
then pass it on to the second, which would pass it on to the third,
which would find the problem.  The only additional effort needed would
be the handing off of problems from one company to another, but this
handing off has its parallel in existing practice too, since systems
of different types or in different places already use different
repairmen, and problems have to be handed off between them.

In fact, competition might very well improve the speed with which
problems could be isolated to one particular system, because it could
be observed that the problem only occurred when the call was routed
through one particular company.  This may be the main reason why
repair coordination is not a problem in the existing competition in
long distance services.

As for "social good", is it not a social good of the first order to be
able to walk away from a company with which one does not want to do
business?

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

Subject: Re: The Information Wars
From: cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:57:11 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Peng_H.Ang) writes:

> Lantos, bless his heart tho' I don't know him, is siding with
> newspaper interests and, on the face of it, blocking access to
> information.

How do you come by this viewpoint?  The telcos are not yet making this
information available.  Yet the selfsame types of information are
available through current sources, from CompuServe and Prodigy down
through the hobbyist BBS's.  We have the access now.

> The info services market,
> particularly at the consumer level that the telcos are interested in,
> is heavily concentrated. The mass market consumer videotex has just
> five key players, starting with CompuServe and Prodigy.

I don't see this concentration.  The info services that most annoy the
RBOCs are in the free hobbyist market, since they cannot price their
yet-to-be-offered services at less than free.

> I look forward to the telcos' entry in shaking up the consumer
> information services market. Yes, the FCC and PUCs will have to watch
> them closer.  But aren't we all technological optimists in believing
> that the greater the access to information techology and services, the
> better the country will be?

The phone companies' track record belies your optimism.  I, for one,
do not believe that allowing the RBOCs to become information providers
will increase access to either technology or information.  Allowing
the network to provide the content, as well as the transport
mechanism, surely means that the network will wish to transport its
own products (where the profit is highest), rather than third-party
products (where they can only recover for transport).  And if they can
only recover for transporting third-party product, does it not stand
to reason that the charges for that transportation will grow?

Yes, I'm a tecnological optimist, and I believe in the widest possible
access to information.  The telcos' bludgeoning of the info-services
market isn't what I had in mind.


Roy M. Silvernail   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:38:44 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: The Information Wars
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


> Pacific Telesis' response has been a radio commercial which I just
> heard aired over a San Francisco classical radio station. Later today
> I will transcribe the spot, but for now let me tell you that it is
> typical of the underhanded tactics PacTel uses to ruthlessly get its
> own way.

> Our pulp media is having difficulty staying awake through all of this.
> To most, this is a non-issue that deserves, if anything, space on page
> sixty-seven. However, PacTel has taken the gloves off with its
> political radio spots. Yes, you read that correctly, these are
> political spots and I am going to investigate the matter of "equal
> time".

    The "equal time" provision of which John speaks is proabaly
the "Fairness Doctrine" (FCC Rule 73.1910, Federal Register volume 39,
page 26372).  As I recall, the FCC has removed this requirement on
radio stations (though, for some reason it's still in my copy of the
Rules).  The Fairness Doctrine did require stations to give a
reasonable opportunity for people with opposing viewpoints to present
their views.  This was applied here in San Luis Obispo to allow (as I
recall) the Mothers For Peace and the Abalone Alliance to air
announcements (at no charge) in response to paid announcements by
Pacific Gas & Electric regarding the NRC licensing of the Diablo
Canyon Power Plant.

        Since then, Florida (again, as I recall) imposed a Fairness
Doctrine on newspapers, requiring them to provide "equal space."  A
court threw that out as violating the first amendment (the government
was telling a newspaper what to print).  Since then, the FCC has
thrown out the Fairness Doctrine, reasoning that with the large number
of "voices" now present in broadcast (and competing media), that most
views will probably be heard.  They further reasoned that the Fairness
Doctrine was an unreasonable restriction on the editorial rights of
broadcasters (first amendment concerns), even though courts had
previously ruled the Fairness Doctrine was ok (I think the big case
was Red Lion Broadcasting, some time in the 1960s).  In general, the
FCC is moving toward a "print model" for broadcasting and other
electronic media (for example, a court decided the FCC "must carry"
rule for CATV systems interfered with the CATV operator's first
amendment editorial control).

    So, I don't think you'll get "equal time".


Harold

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #913
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00776;
          10 Nov 91 23:37 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04993
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:52:03 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21844
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:51:49 -0600
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:51:49 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #914

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Nov 91 21:51:46 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 914

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Question on Easements (David G. Cantor)
    Re: Question on Easements (Charles Hawkins Mingo)
    Re: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst (Marcus Adams)
    Re: TAT-10 and TAT-11 (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: The Information Wars (John Higdon)
    Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches (John Higdon)
    Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: Who Benefits From Local Competition? (John Higdon)
    TIMELY: TV Program on Phone Phraud (Jeff Wasilko)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Question on Easements
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 10:07:53 -0800
From: David G. Cantor <[e-mail]>


In TELECOM Digest, Volume 11, Issue 910, Irc Kaufman states:

> It's not unheard of for utilities not specifically named in the
> easement to use right-of-way granted to other utilities (sort of
> like sub-contracting to provide telephone lines alongside the
> water pipes).

This may happen, but the owner can protest and win.  Easements can
only be used for the stated purpose.  See below:

> The bottom line is that if you take them to court to make them
> stop, the local governing body will probably take the easement by
> eminent domain.

Exactly that happened to me.  Los Angeles County already had sewer and
water easements on my property.  It wanted to install underground
drainage facilities, etc. It filed an eminent domain suit against my
wife and myself offering to pay $2,000.00.  We didn't accept and, in a
negotiated settlement received $16,500.  This took two years, an
elaborate assessment report and a three-hour deposition.  The lawyer
received 1/3.

On the other hand, the local cable TV company happily ripped up my
(private) street without an easement to install upgraded facilities.
No resident on the street objected.  If one had, I suspect we wouldn't
have had cable TV.  Our street is a dead-end and the cable was for
residents of our private-street, alone.


David G. Cantor   Department of Mathematics
University of California   Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555
Internet:  [e-mail]

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

From: well![e-mail] (Charles Hawkins Mingo)
Subject: Re: Question on Easements
Date: 10 Nov 91 21:20:55 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


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

> 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?

> [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]

    State law may well provide telcos with the power to obtain
easements by eminent domain, but that's not what a prescriptive
easement is.

    The statutes of limitations require aggrieved parties to sue
to enforce their rights within a certain period, or lose those rights
altogether.  In the field of real estate, this led to the doctrine of
"adverse possession," where a trespasser can obtain ownership of
property by occupying it --

    (i)     openly and notoriously,
    (ii)     continuously,
    (iii)     while claiming ownership,
    (iv)     in a manner hostile to true owner (eg, not as a tenant),
and     (v)     for a period equal to the statute of limitations for
        real estate claims (usually twenty years).

    A prescriptive easement is a form of adverse possession.
Because the LEC was able to use the easement for a long period of
time, they may have acquired the right to continue to do so.  "Long
continued use engenders an inference that such use began lawfully."

    That is not to say that the LEC actually had a proscriptive
easement on your land.  The statute of limitations varies from state
to state, but ten years sounds a little short.  Some states require
that claim of ownership be made in good faith.  There is also the
question of whether having a buried cable constitutes "open and
notorious" use, and so on.

    As for the value of the easement, that depends on the degree
of disturbance the buried cable will cause you, the value of the land,
and what you were planning to do with it.

    In any case, it sounds as if you signed away your rights when
you settled, so it's all moot now.

[Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but as I don't know which state the land is
in (or many other relevant facts) this is not a professional opinion.]


Charlie Mingo                    Internet: [e-mail]
2209 Washington Circle #2                  [e-mail]
Washington, DC  20037        CI$: 71340,2152    AT&T:  202/785-2089

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcus Adams)
Subject: Re: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst
Date: 11 Nov 91 02:01:51 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


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

> I do know a guy who, in order to get even with an ex-girlfriend,
> called up the touchtone registration on the last day of drop/add (last
> day to make changes in your schedule without getting charged for it)
> and added 16 classes to her schedule for a total of 44 credit hours.
> She got a bill for it a couple weeks later, at $475 a credit hour, for
> over $20,000 over her normal tuition.

> [Moderator's Note: Gee, what a witty, brilliant and funny thing to do
> to someone. He must have been rolling on the floor with laughter after
> doing that, the same as I am now reading about it.  PAT]

Wasn't my point ...

There were fees involved that the school was trying to force her to
pay, which she claimed she wasn't responsible for because she didn't
register for the classes, and it was easy for someone to register
under her name with the system they had in place.

This relates to the discussion regarding MCI's putting personal info
on-line and making it easy to retrieve. For instance, all my personal
financial info is available 24 hours a day from Bank of America with
only my account number and a social security number. And only the last
four digits of a SS number are needed!

At what point is a company liable for the information they provide via
phone?  What are "minimum" security standards for touchtone systems
like these?

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 14:04:36 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: TAT-10 and TAT-11
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


> 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
> Both will run at 560 megabits/sec, equivalent to 80,000 simultaneous
> calls.

> Green Hill currently serves TAT-6 and TAT-7, older copper cables with
> capacities of only 7,000 conversations each.

    Are these cables running just one fiber each (or one in each
direction, or several in each direction), each running 560 Mbits/sec?

    Are the TAT-6 and TAT-7 cables still running SSB FDM voice, or
are they driven by "high speed modems" at each end, making a digital
interface to the undersea coaxial cable.  I understand the coax cables
from Hawaii coming here in SLO have all the FDM terminal equipment
replaced with a fast modem.


Harold

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 13:38 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: The Information Wars


"Peng_H.Ang" <[e-mail]> writes:

> The mass market consumer videotex has just
> five key players, starting with CompuServe and Prodigy. I think
> CompuServe is wonderful but its prices are a different matter. Well,
> recently, with Prodigy gaining market share, CompuServe introduced a
> "basic" service where for $7.95 a month you get several "popular"
> services plus 30 email messages. (Sounds familiar?)

Excuse me, but have you perhaps overlooked the literally thousands of
privately owned BBS services in this country? These are the real
backbone of the information age currently. And these are precisely the
targets of the RBOCs. SWBT does not even mince words on the subject.
It knows that it cannot compete with 'free' in terms of price
competition and therefore has ALREADY mounted its war on the private
BBS.

Many private BBSes offer mail services and a vast array of
information.  Most are funded by the owner's own resources. There is
even a handful of users on this site who pay nothing for news and mail
access.  Knowing this, the telcos are gearing up excuses to jack up
the rates on any line where they hear modem tone. SWBT's lame excuse
is, "How do we know it isn't a business operating behind that modem?"
(The dark implication there is that they can tell if you are operating
a business on a voice line because they can monitor it.)

So, if the RBOCs enter into the info business the order of attack will
be: 1) the private and small BBSes; and then 2) those other players
you have mentioned. The RBOCs have already had a crack at them with an
abortive attempt at passing an access surcharge for data networks.

> I look forward to the telcos' entry in shaking up the consumer
> information services market. Yes, the FCC and PUCs will have to watch
> them closer.  But aren't we all technological optimists in believing
> that the greater the access to information techology and services, the
> better the country will be?

Please tell me what the telcos can bring to the party that is not
already here? They have proven time and time again that they are
completely devoid of creativity in virtually every venture they have
tried. Pacific Telesis, for instance, failed with its computer stores,
its "gab lines", and even the Message Center is in trouble. After
telcos have decimated the BBSes and damaged the experienced commercial
information services, we will be left with the usual stogy "phone
company"-style drivel. And that will be so much for the information
age.


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

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 20:01 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches


On Nov 9 at 19:34, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> It is instances like this which make me wish I was a telco service
> rep. I would have called your friend back; apologized for us
> 'accidentally getting cut off'; reminded him that he had no property
> rights in his telephone number and that his number could be changed at
> anytime the Company found it expedient to do so in the conduct of its
> business; and that he was being moved to an exchange where the Company
> found it expedient to place his service: one on which his use of touch
> tone *could* be controlled; ie, an ESS. Almost as an afterthought I
> would ask if he had reconsidered his earlier position and was willing
> to either (a) use it and pay for it, or (b) refrain from using it.  PAT]

I have several comments about this (what a surprise!) First, being
Pac*Bell Land, there was, of course, no ESS to reconnect him to. So
that threat is out the window. If they would have given him free
foreign prefix service from another CO, I'm sure he would have gladly
paid for the touch-tone.

But more important was something that you obviously missed. The ENTIRE
office had been converted for touch tone. This means that each and
every originating register would have had a receiver. The long and the
short of it is that by using TT, the customer was actually SAVING the
telco money by tying up the originating register for less time. The
issue of the cost of the TT receiver is moot; the office was
universally equipped.

I once had an identical situation with a client. The telco tried to
charge my client for TT service in a crossbar office that was fully TT
equipped. I told him that unless the telco could technically force him
to pay for REDUCING THEIR COSTS, he should refuse to pay. I also
reminded him that he was not paying any less for his inferior
crossbar-provided local exchange service than customers who were
served out of ESS equipment. (His crossbar was particularly vile; much
worse than mine.) My customer got "free" touch tone service for years.

Later, another part of the CO was upgraded to a 1AESS. I advised the
client to have his number changed to get service out of the new
switch.  I also advised him that he would have to begin paying for TT
service.  "Gladly. Anything to improve the rotten service I am now
getting."

So you see, Pat, people are actually willing to pay for something they
actually get, no? Using TT signaling on a telephone line served out of
a fully-tone-equipped office is not exactly the same as stealing an
exhaustable commodity such as water. Let us try to keep a perspective,
please.


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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:57:11 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


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

> I had a friend who was served by a rotary dial crossbar office in
> Santa Ana California that he knew would soon be updated to include T-T
> service that would be hardwired into every phone in the CO. He
> acquired a non-Bell System T-T phone and checked the line until his
> tones could break dial tone and then never used his rotary dial phone
> again. Not long after he received a call from a PacTel representative
> DEMANDING (emphasis meant to highlight PacTel's heavyhanded approach)
> that he pay for the service or she would disconnect him from the T-T
> service. He simply laughed at her and said "Go ahead and try!" and
> then hung up on her to really get her upset. They never did bill him.

    At least here in SLO-town, Pacific Bell now gives everyone
DTMF service.  Those that were paying extra got a reduction in the
monthly bill.

    I also agree with the Moderator's comment that we should pay
for what we get, not just take without paying whatever we can get away
with.  If the DTMF surcharge were unreasonable, file a complaint with
the PUC, don't steal the service.


Harold

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 14:06 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Who Benefits From Local Competition?


[e-mail] (david.g.lewis) writes:

> Next, the seven RBOCs will
> divest themselves of the local Bell operating companies so they can
> enter the unregulated information services, long distance,
> manufacturing, real estate, financial, etc. businesses.

But this will only happen under court order. The last thing the RBOCs
want to do right now is divest themselves of the geese laying golden
eggs. Oh, sure, they cry and moan about how they have to labor under
regulation (that they write themselves), but when push comes to shove,
that regulated ratebase is risk-free, easy money. What will have to
happen is a Greene-style action once again. (Hear all that shuddering
in the background?) The RBOCs want it all: the might of the regulated
capital supply and the ability to branch out with a mighty big
footprint.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko)
Subject: TIMELY: TV Program on Phone Phraud
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 16:49:06 EST
Organization: Roslyn's Cafe on the road...
Reply-To: digtype![e-mail]


I just saw an annoucment for a feature program on Phone Phraud (it
looked like they will concentrate on PBX-based fraud). It's Steals &
Deals, which is on CNBC at 7:30 on Monday.


Jeff

Jeff's Oasis at Home.      Jeff can also be reached at work at:
                                     [e-mail] OR
digtype![e-mail]               [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #914
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02743;
          11 Nov 91 0:43 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14786
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 22:50:21 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14445
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 22:50:05 -0600
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 22:50:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #915

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Nov 91 22:50:02 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 915

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [Jack Decker]
    Re: Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer? (Steve Kass)
    Re: Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer? (H. Hallikainen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 00:13:41 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea


In a message dated 5 Nov 91 07:10:10 GMT, [e-mail]
(David W. Barts) wrote an article entitled "LEC Competition is a Bad
Idea" in which he made some doom-and-gloom prediction about what might
happen if competition were allowed at the local exchange service
level.  My first reaction was that it reminded me of the folks who
said it would take five years or more to put out all the oil well
fires in Kuwait following the end of the Gulf War.  It my mind, I have
a very difficult time imagining that the "worst-case scenario"
portrayed by Mr. Barts would come to pass.  However, it's a difficult
thing to argue against because we have not defined exactly what we
mean when we say "local competition."

For example, suppose we allow "competition for the provision of local
dial tone." That may sound like it pretty well defines the issue at
first blush, but consider that there are many ways that this could be
implemented.  You could allow multiple telephone companies to operate
in the same service area, each providing their own facilities (both
inside and outside plant), but there are other variations that might
be considered.  For example:

1) Requiring existing phone companies to lease point-to-point circuits
to other service providers.  Let's say that your local phone service
costs $15 per month and that (for the sake of argument) you either
have flat rate service or you make no outgoing calls.  The phone
company must recover the expense of providing and maintaining the pair
of wires that connects your home to the central office for some
fraction of that monthly charge, correct?  So you could unbundle that
from provision of dial tone say that the phone company must impute to
itself a certain monthly charge for providing and maintaining the
lines to your home (which it would recover in your monthly bill if
you're a user of the phone company) or charge to any other company
that wishes to provide phone service.

In other words, if I wanted service from the Fair Dinkum Phone Company
rather than Ma Bell, FDPC might bill me for $15 per month and then
turn around and give a certain amount back to Ma for providing the
line between my home and the FDP C switch.  Why would this be
advantageous to the customer?  Because the lines would be leased
solely on the basis of time, not usage (which is as it should be ...
lines do not age faster because they are used more!). Therefore, other
phone companies might choose to provide certain services that Ma
charges extra for free of charge.  This could be done the moment the
regulators allowed it, and Ma would still get at least some of her
due, and all the arguments about "extra cables in the streets" would
be moot.

2) Or consider an even smaller operation: Suppose the owners of
housing complexes, apartment buildings, condominiums, mobile home
parks, etc. had the right to purchase small PBX switches and sell
local phone service to their tenants?  Now, I admit that this would
open the door for the same sort of sleaze that run some of the AOS and
COCOT operations, but if it were done RIGHT, consider what you could
offer: Free calls between neighbors (even in mandatory measured
service areas), free custom calling features, perhaps direct
connections to LD carriers to bypass access charge payments to the
local telco, perhaps FX trunks to nearby exchanges that are toll calls
(I can think of one mobile home park in particular where that would be
a VERY useful feature, as it sits just on the "wrong" side of an
exchange boundary where there is no EAS across the line), and of
course, lower monthly rates since only a fraction of the normal amount
of lines from the telco would be needed (and with DID everyone could
still have an individual phone number).

3) And then there's the fear of every telco executive: That of letting
the cable companies provide dial tone.  But cable companies
(especially the ones that use fiber) actually have capacity for
MULTIPLE voice paths.  If the cable companies were to simply function
as a conduit (similar to the telco provision of the line between CO
and the customer as mentioned in #1), they could actually provide
service for MULTIPLE telephone companies on the same line.  You could
even have a small "channel selector" that would let you "tune into"
the phone company you want to use for a given call (much as "10XXX"
selects a long distance carrier).  Presumably you'd subscribe to one,
or at most two telcos for your dial tone (you might use two if they
had different coverage areas for "local" calls), but others might
allow you to place "casual calls" at a fixed rate per call or per
minute, which would be billed through your cable bill.

My point is that there are a lot of different things that COULD happen
but it all depends on HOW competition is implemented, and we're a long
way from deciding that. I believe that SOME form of competition is not
only inevitable, but will save people lots of money AND (the best
part) force telephone company executives to start to consider what
their CUSTOMERS want, rather than what they can do to gouge more money
from customers.  I just think many telephone company officials don't
realize what a thin line they are walking in that regard.  They may
think they have the regulatory process all buttoned up, but all it
would take would be for ONE citizens' group to start an initiative
petition going (with the backing of some influential citizens) to
upset the whole applecart.  In fact, voters in Maine and Oregon have
already passed initiative measures that BAN mandatory measured service
in those states!  But on the other hand, I'd hate to see too much
opportunity given to the sleaze element.

One other thing Mr. Barts seems to fear is the inability to
communicate with others who don't use the same phone company you use.
Well, it seems to me that this is a regulatory issue.  Right now I am
sitting in a Michigan Bell exchange and I can dial toll-free into a
GTE North exchange.  The fact that they happen to serve different
geographical areas now doesn't mean that it HAS to be that way.  I
suspect that in the current environment, those telcos that offer
connections to other telcos would get more business than those that do
not, so regulatory action would really only be needed to keep the
current large telcos from refusing interconnections to their
competitors.  I do grant that in some cases it might wind up being a
bit more costly (at least at first) to call someone on another
telephone company but at least you'd have the choice of which company
to use.  Right now the local telcos in some areas are trying to push
through mandatory measured service, which means you'll STILL be paying
"changes to call your neighbor across the street" but as it stands
now, you don't HAVE any choice in the matter if your PUC chooses to
allow this.  With the ability to choose, at least the calls to SOME of
your neighbors will still be free!

The bottom line is that the "natural monopoly" argument doesn't wash
in the telephone industry.  We tried it in the long distance industry,
and rates were artificially high.  Now that competition is allowed,
long distance rates have been cut to nearly half of the former levels,
despite the inflation that has caused other prices to rise (ever think
you'd see the day when you could place a three-minute cross country
call for about the price of a postage stamp?  It wouldn't have
happened without competition!).  The idea of a natural monopoly is a
socialist idea that sounds good in theory, but it often doesn't work
as well as expected in practice.  With proper legislative controls to
restrict the ability to refuse interconnections to competitors, and
some incentives/penalties to keep companies from "cherry picking"
customers in only the most populated areas, I believe that competition
at the LEC level could work very well.

In a message dated 5 Nov 91 16:20:13 GMT, [e-mail] (Mark
Fulk) writes:

> 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.

One problem I see with the argument that LEC competition is a bad idea
because the competitors might "cherry-pick" the prime areas (which
could be prevented by proper regulation) is that, given a chance, the
EXISTING telephone companies do exactly the same thing.  Just ask the
people who live in the East Lake area of the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan.  They've been trying to get phone service for YEARS, with
little success.  There's roughly 20-30 potential customers in the area
(that would actually subscribe to phone service) and many are elderly.

Most leave the area during the coldest winter months, but have said
they would even pay for sevice on an annual rate if they could get it.
The area is currently considered "unassigned", but is adjacent to both
Michigan Bell and GTE North exchanges (in fact, a Michigan Bell fiber
optic toll cable runs right along a railroad grade that goes through
the area, within a few hundred feet of some of the homes that have no
phone service).  The major problem is not in getting local exchange
service for them, but the fact that Michigan Bell is the only toll
service provider in the area and they refuse to meet any independent
telephone company at the exchange boundary to provide toll service (as
they normally do with existing independents) unless the independent
can pay them over $100,000 up front!.  Bottom line is that Michigan
Bell, which for many reasons would be the company best able to serve
the area, does not want to serve these people but apparently does not
want any other company to serve them either.

I KNOW that there are ways that very remote areas obtain toll service,
but I don't know what they are.  Our public service commission is
looking into the matter of these unserved areas (I think there is one
other in the state where a number of unserved people live) but from
the comments I've heard, they don't seem to think they can force any
company to serve the area, nor force Michigan Bell to provide toll
service to an independent telco.

For those of you who work in the telephone industry, might I suggest
that this area would be a good place to test some new switching
equipment to see how well it would hold up under HARSH winter weather
conditions.  I've always thought in the back of my mind that since CO
switch makers have to test new equipment anyway, it would be nice if
once in a while they'd do it in a currently unserved community and get
the bugs out there, and then just sort of leave the equipment behind
at the conclusion of the test.

It would also, in my opinion, be a lot more public-spirited thing to
do than giving monentary contributions to the United Way or some other
organization that may be spending your money to support political
causes you wouldn't approve of anyway.  I mean, I suppose it's nice (?)
that a major long distance company gives money to support the
environment (so some whacko organization can spike trees, and blind or
maim people who work in the logging industry?) but it would be a lot
nicer, and probably a lot more cost effective to help those few people
who still don't have phone service obtain it.  I think that would be a
real smart public relations move on the part of some firm in the
industry!

[I can see the TV spots now: "This lady, who lives in a remote area of
Michigan's Upper Peninsula, is alive today because when she had a
heart attack, she was able to call for help on her newly-installed
phone service provided by the XXX Company.  A year ago, she wouldn't
have been able to make that call ..."]

By the way, if anyone wants more information about this area, give me
a call at [phone] and I'll explain the situation as it stands
now.

In a message dated 5 Nov 91 20:06:07 GMT, [e-mail] (John Higdon)
writes:

> 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.

I fully agree with you on this point, John, but would like to toss
something into this discussion that might be helpful to many of us.

One on the many little items of information that I have in my notes is
that the November 10, 1986 issue of {Communications Week} carried an
article which stated that in the November, 1986 elections, voters in
the states of Oregon and Maine backed referendums that BAN mandatory
measured service!  In Maine, New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company spent nearly $1.2 million dollars to defeat the referendum,
but it was approved by about 58 percent of the voters anyway.

What's even more significant about this is that the measured service
plan in Maine allowed two measured service options by which customers
paid by the minute and distance of a call, and one $19 unlimited usage
plan.  All three plans capped the maximum monthly charge at $19, no
matter the amount of usage.  But supporters of the measured service
ban argued that the usage-sensitive approach to rates opened the door
for New England Telephone to radically increase rates.  They argued
that while Maine's present measured service program includes a cap, if
not subject to a ban the phone company would someday be able to remove
the cap and charge customers on a strict usage basis.

What I would like to obtain, if anyone has it in their files, is
either a copy of the {Communications Week} article cited above, or
better yet, a copy of the actual legislation that was enacted by the
voters in either Maine or Oregon (or both!).  [If anyone has hardcopy
of this and no way to scan it into the computer, please send it to me
via mail at 1804 West 18th Street #155, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan
49783-1268]

Since California is the land of the voter-initiated petition, you
might want to try getting something like this going there.  If I were
doing it, I'd not only put in for a ban on mandatory measured service,
but also the inclusion of all adjacent exchanges (and all non-adjacent
exchanges within 20 miles) as part of a customer's "local" calling
area.  Seems to me that this sort of ballot initiative would pass with
no problem in your neck of the woods (provided it's not worded in a
"funny" way so you have to vote "no" when you mean "yes" or
something).


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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 22:24 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer?


In Issue #904, Felix Finch <crowfix.crowfix![e-mail]>
writes:

> Last week I answered the phone to hear a recorded pitch for home
> equity loans.  I swallowed my bile, kept my temper, and waited to give
> my name and phone number.  Two days later, someone called back.

This gives me an idea.  The next time a recording asks for your
number, leave the number of the PUC, perhaps with the name of someone
there who might care about this kind of sleaze.  Now if I had an idea
for dealing with the recordings that ask you to call a number to
"claim your prize" or whatever ...


Steve Kass/Math & CS/Drew U/MadisonNJ07940/2014083614/[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:09:58 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


    By the way, totally automated telemarketing calls appear to
not be legal in California (according to page A40 of the San Luis
Obispo Pacific Bell directory).  Has anyone been prosecuted or
whatever for this?  Any statistics regarding the number of complaints
and what actions were taken would be interesting (at least to me!).


Harold

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #915
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05033;
          11 Nov 91 2:19 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26484
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 00:26:59 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14552
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 00:26:47 -0600
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 00:26:47 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #916

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 11 Nov 91 00:26:15 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 916

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Report on Telecommunications (Globe and Mail via David Leibold)
    German AVON Book Wanted With STD Codes, etc (David Leibold)
    Complete Communicator Technical Information Available (Russ Nelson)
    MCI F&F Responds With New Privacy Safeguards (Rob Knauerhase)
    Step by Step Switches and 950 (Bill Huttig)
    Carriers Billing For Plans After Carrier Change (Bill Huttig)
    Customer Slammed, But Rips Off Sprint For $125 in Calls (Toby Nixon)
    Calling Card Wars (J. Philip Miller)
    Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment (Donald Ekman)
    The Future of Printed Books ([e-mail])
    Re: Visual Message Indicator (Leroy Casterline)
    Re: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 20:26:52 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Report on Telecommunications


The 10 September 1991 edition of the Toronto-based {Globe and Mail}
newspaper had a special "Report on Telecommunications" section. Some
of the news items included:

- the potential for competitive international telecommunications, as
companies such as Cable & Wireless/Mercury, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc.
have the potential to offer international services to Canada.

- how telecommunications equipment played a part in the failure of
this summer's Soviet coup attempt.

- the Alex videotext service from Bell Canada seems to be close to a
shutdown according to one report; subscribers have stagnated around
the 31 000 level, and of these only 10% are actually using Alex to any
significant extent; problems included a consumer reluctance to
per-minute charges on most of the useful services, and lack of
features that would entice people to use Alex over other services such
as newspaper, voice telephone, mail, etc. Comparison was made with
France's Minitel which saw $2 billion used to give away terminals,
plus force people to use Minitel to get to directory information.

- an article on videoconferencing, plus other short articles on new
technologies and cordless/cellular services.

- ads from various telecom interests including Bell Canada, Unitel,
AT&T Easylink (Mail, Enhanced Fax).

There wasn't too much else earth-shattering, and little mention seemed
to have been made about the impending decision regarding competition
in domestic Canadian long distance services.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 14:59:24 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: German AVON Book Wanted With STD Codes, etc


In (Western portion) German phone books, reference is made to a book
called AVON (presumably a German acronym) which contains STD codes and
other telephone information that is missing from the phone book. Does
anyone on the Digest have access to a copy of a recent AVON? Does it
now contain information for the former East Germany system as well? Is
it possible to get a copy if one is outside Germany?


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Complete Communicator Technical Information Available
Reply-To: [e-mail] (aka [e-mail])
Organization: Crynwr Software, guest account at Clarkson
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 02:26:14 GMT


The Complete PC will mail you technical documentation on their
products, including the Complete FAX and Complete Communicator, when
you sign a nondisclosure agreement.  AND you can buy product at 50%
off retail price at that time.

The Complete Communicator is a combination FAX, Modem, and voice mail
product.

To get a copy of the nondisclosure agreement, send a FAX to Bert
Rankin at [phone].


russ <[e-mail]>

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

From: Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI F&F Responds With New Privacy Safeguards
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 21:52:09 CST


I was speaking with an MCI salesman this afternoon (the Friends and
Family per-minute rate beats AT&T and Sprint by enough of a margin
that I was almost ready to switch).  First, and coincidentally,
they're offering a $20 check after switching, plus $5 credit to pay
for any switching charges, as a response to the current AT&T $20-check
promotion.

However, the good news on the privacy front came when I expressed
distaste that the 1-800-FRIENDS number was open to anyone who knew your
zipcode.  With a second of paper shuffling, he said that many people
had expressed the same concern.  He found and read to me from a recent
MCI memo saying that the FRIENDS number now requires information from
the MCI bill and will recite names rather than numbers, since people
had complained that the old number gave away even non-published
numbers of people on the list.  These changes took place yesterday.

So I tried the number, and indeed, it now asks for the last three
digits of your MCI account number.  One small step for MCI, one giant
step for the security of personal information.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Huttig)
Subject: Step by Step Switches and 950
Date: 10 Nov 91 20:13:07 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


Jack Decker's discussion of step by step and 10xxx numbers left out
the fact that this is the reason that in many small areas you need to
dial 1 before 950 numbers and you might have to dial 1 before other
numbers that are not charged for (local numbers that belong to other
LEC'S).


Bill

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Huttig)
Subject: Carriers Billing For Plans After Carrier Change
Date: 10 Nov 91 20:09:23 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


Jack Decker wrote about billing for Reach Out Plans after switching to
another carrier.

What the local Southern Bell people said (North and Central FL) is
that when you have you PIC on a line changed they do not notify the
previous carrier of the change.

Also you can have the calling plans without the need of having AT&T as
your 1 + carrier.


[Moderator's Note: So in other words, the continued billing from AT&T
for Reach Out was legitimate if the customer himself did not
specifically tell AT&T to cancel his participation.   PAT]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Customer Slammed, But Rips Off Sprint For $125 in Calls
Date: 10 Nov 91 18:20:14 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


        The attached article appeared in today's {Atlanta Journal-
Constitution}. I'm sure some of you will have comments as to whether
Sprint did the right thing.  My personal opinion is that they should
have credited him for the $5 PIC change charge, and whatever MCI might
have charged him less for the calls -- but to credit him the entire
bill just invites fraud!  I'm sure Sprint is cringing at the thought
that a few hundred thousand people now know how to rip them off for at
least $125.

        I also fail to understand why MCI would cancel a credit card
of someone who simply changed PICs.  It would seem to be in MCI's
interest to leave as many of their cards as possible in the hands of
past customers.

        You should get a chuckle out of the penultimate paragraph,
too!

Toby

                            -----------

UNAUTHORIZED HOOKUP TO SPRINT RINGS WRONG NUMBER WITH MCI CUSTOMER
("Helpline" column, by Gene Tharpe, {Atlanta Journal-Constitution},
Sunday, 10 November 1991, page Q2)

        Donald Estep, assistant professor of methematics at Georgia
Tech, knows when something doesn't add up.  And he knew he had not
switched his long-distance service from MCI Telecommunications to US
Sprint.

        But US Sprint insisted he had switched service.

        Mr. Estep said the problem began in January when his wife
tried to use their MCI phone credit card and was told it had been
cancelled because their service had been switched to Sprint.

        "She called Sprint and was told we had signed up with it," Mr.
Estep said.  "She denied this and we switched back to MCI."

        During subsequent months, Mr. Estep talked several times with
different Sprint representatives about a $125.89 bill for calls made
while Sprint was handling their long distance.

        He wanted the bill reduced because of the unauthorized switch
to Sprint and because he had to pay a hookup fee when he switched back
to MCI.

        Eventually, Sprint sent Mr. Estep a copy of the form authorizing
the switch to Sprint.  He said the handwriting was neither his nor his
wife's -- and refused to pay any of the bill.  Sprint sent the bill to
a collection agency.

        Helpline wrote to a Sprint service center in Dallas, but our
reply came from Robin Carolson, a Sprint media representative in
Washington:

        "Upon receipt of your letter, [Sprint] contacted Mr. Estep ...
and credited $125.89 to his account, leaving him with a zero balance.
We also recalled his account from the collection agency and stopped
all collection activies.  Mr. Estep's credit rating was not damaged in
any way."

        She called Mr. Estep's experience "isolated and unusual"
because Sprint's "strict policies" require authorized signatures and
the customer's request before establishing service.

        "When these policies are not followed," said Ms. Carlson,
"Sprint will work with the customer to ensure satisfaction."

                          -----------

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] (J. Philip Miller)
Subject: Calling Card Wars
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 19:21:01 CST


In an ad run in the {St. Louis Post Dispatch} today, SWBT was
indicating that a significant advantage of its calling card over
others was that you could remember its number even if you did not have
the card at hand.  They also indicated that the PIN was "user
selectable."

Is it war or not between AT&T and the Baby Bells for credit card
accounts?  Are others using the same advertising strategy?

     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 20:23:41 PST
From: [e-mail] (Donald Ekman)
Subject: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment


Years ago I called my local telco to report the addition of an
answering machine to my line, dutifully giving the ringer equivalence
number.  The rep seemed slightly amused.  Does anyone still report
these things, or is the requirement akin to the do-not-remove-under-
penalty-of-law tags found on mattresses and pillows?  Naive mind
wants to know.


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


[Moderator's Note: Actually, the tag on mattresses and pillows refers
ONLY to the manufacturer and seller of the bedding ... not to the end
user. The federal government requires those tags be available for
inspection by consumers of the products, and thus warns the seller
that the tags are not to be removed.  What you as the end user do with
the tags is your business, although I don't think I've ever seen a
mattress or pillow without one, even long after purchase from a store.

I once called up to report a modem I was putting on my line. That
would have been about 1979 when I got my first modem, a 110/300 baud
Hayes Micromodem II for my Apple II+ (actually, a Bell & Howell 'black
Apple' which I still have here). I think the telco rep snickered at me
also.  PAT]

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

From: "USENET News System" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Future of Printed Books
Date: 10 Nov 91 14:24:59 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


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

> infrastructure had been pretty much dead in the water; the phone
> companies weren`t allowed to do it, because they would be competing
> unfairly with the cable companies; the cable companies weren't allowed
> to do it, for fear that they would compete unfairly with the phone
> companies.  Sigh.  Capitalism is such a wonderful thing :-)

    I hope you're not implying that you think that THIS is
Capitalism.  Capitalism would be a great thing. If the government,
bless its grasping and meddling little ways, would GET THE **** OUT OF
THE WAY.

    When Ma Bell WAS a monopoly, I had better, cheaper service. I
now have worse service. Thank you, O mighty Government, for saving me
from something that was working just fine.


Sea Wasp


[Moderator's Note: Not everyone here would agree with you, but I do.
For all that was wrong with the old Bell System, we still had the best
phone system in the world, bar none. That is now very questionable.
Yes, we have all kinds of new technological gimmicks on the phone we
did not have years ago, but the network itself has gone to hell in a
handbasket, and the old-time enthusiasm and dedication to quality of
service is mostly missing.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 12:48:31 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Leroy Casterline)
Subject: Re: Visual Message Indicator


>> 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 ... trips an indicator if your phone
> has rung.  My "little box" would reset the indicator when you went
> off hook ...

Yes, I had a chance to see such a box just the other day.  The problem
is that the box does NOT indicate that you have a message waiting,
only that you might have one -- you still need to go off hook to check
for stutter dialtone to see if there actually is a message waiting.
And this system won't work unless the local phone line rings -- what
if the message was left without ringing?  This is possible on systems
which automatically transfer incoming calls to voice mail when the
target line is busy, and also on systems where the caller can call
directly into your voice mail number and leave a message for you.
Also, this box has no way of knowing if you called your voice mail
system and retrieved the waiting messages from an outside phone.  A
better approach is to detect the stutter dialtone which is produced
only when there is actually a message waiting.


Leroy Casterline

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 14:00 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies


[e-mail] (david.g.lewis) writes:

> If the meeting was recorded by a CSR (Certified Shorthand Reporter)
> and then transcribed, chances are the reporter would be very willing
> to take a written copy of your remarks.  Just be reasonable in the way
> you go about it -- saying something like "my remarks have a lot of
> technical terms and I wanted to provide you a copy as a reference."
> The reporter will not copy your written remarks verbatim, but will use
> it as a reference for any unintelligible comments or confusing terms.

During my testimony at the hearing, even though I am experienced at
public speaking and do not mumble, the reporter stopped me on numerous
occasions to ask that a technical term be repeated or spelled. I had
the distinct impression that he was trying his best to record the
proceedings as accurately as possible. And even though he seem to
require occasional clarification, I believe the gentleman was
experienced in this type of proceeding to the point where he was used
to transcribing a lot of jargon.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #916
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18182;
          12 Nov 91 1:48 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06172
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:14:21 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25397
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:14:01 -0600
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:14:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #917

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 11 Nov 91 22:13:40 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 917

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Colin Plumb)
    Re: Telemarketing Prevented (John Higdon)
    Re: AT&T Translation Service (Peter G. Capek)
    Re: Cellular Phone Rates (Linc Madison)
    Extended Antenna For Cordless Phone (Tatsuya Kawasaki)
    Connnection Between Digital Phone and Answering Machine (Tatsuya Kawasaki)
    Taping Phone Calls -- Summary and Thanks (David R. Zinkin)
    Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) (H. Hallikainen)
    Re: The Information Wars (John Higdon)
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Ethan Miller)
    Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Henry Mensch)
    Re: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! (David Ash)
    Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? (Andrew M. Boardman)
    Re: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! (Patrick L. Humphrey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 03:50:29 -0500
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:

> So, a telemarketer who calls ten people who are not interested is
> equivalent to ten calls to one person who is not interested?

> [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]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the distinction between a phreak scanning
an exchange for modem carrier (or some such) and a telemarketer
scanning an exchange for a customer.  The telemarketer may be smarter
and use a list of likely clients (income bracket, neighbourhood,
etc.), but phreaks have their sources, too ...

Of course, the telemarketer wants to make money and the phreak is
doing it for his own inscrutable reasons, but I consider that
irrelevant.

The main advantage to me is that while both, in accordance with
Murphy's law, call while I'm in the shower, the phreak doesn't take up
my time with a sales pitch.


Colin


[Moderator's Note: The phreak intends to steal something from you if
possible; ie your computing and telecom resources. The telemarketer
wishes to sell you something if possible. There is legally and
otherwise a difference between selling you something and stealing from
you.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 00:19 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

> By the way, totally automated telemarketing calls appear to
> not be legal in California (according to page A40 of the San Luis
> Obispo Pacific Bell directory).  Has anyone been prosecuted or
> whatever for this?  Any statistics regarding the number of complaints
> and what actions were taken would be interesting (at least to me!).

I do not have statistics on any prosecution successes, but judging
from my experience on several occasions, it is likely very low. Each
time when I was called by a telemarketing machine, a note was made
concerning the sponsor. And each time a complaint was made including a
follow up. In every case, the telemarketer claimed that the machine
making the calls was located outside the state.

In more than one instance, I was completely convinced that not only
was the call made from within the state but from my own CO! Crossbar
has a distinct sound upon disconnect when the call is in the same
switch. The corker was when the call-back number weedled out of the
live person who eventually called back bore a prefix served by my
switch.

Even when I presented this evidence, Pac*Bell yawned in my face. I was
told quite frankly that they had other things to worry about and that
enforcing the telemarketing regulations was next to impossible. It is
funny that Pac*Bell seems to be able to enforce tariff against
competitors without difficulty.

Here is a good use for Caller-ID. It would stop this nonsense
forthwith. Even if the telemarketer was bright enough to block, it
would show 'blocked' rather than 'out of area'. Maybe Pac*Bell people
would listen to this evidence.  And who said that Caller-ID would not
be any defense against junk calls?


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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 01:38:05 EST
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Translation Service


It was mentioned here several times recently that the Translation
Service is located in Monterey, California.  Does anyone know whether
this location was chosen because it is where the Army (DoD?) Language
School is?  Is there any relation between the two organizations?


Peter Capek

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 00:13:20 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]>

John Higdon ([e-mail]) writes:

> "Steven M. Palm" <[e-mail]> writes:

>> cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to
>> maintain.  Should be much cheaper.  Why do people put up with such a
>> ripoff?

> Good question. But in Hawaii, apparently they don't. ...
> [info about GTE cellular rates in Hawai'i -- low per minute and low
> per month, even a plan with ZERO monthly fee]
> Gee! No, GTE!

I have a friend who lives in the jungle on the Big Island of Hawaii.
He spends most of his time out in the field in the middle of the
island, studying birds and butterflies.  Every week or two he goes
into Hilo for mail and provisions, but other than that he has no
contact with the outside world.  Until recently, that is -- he now has
a cellular phone!  He's miles from the nearest land lines, but no
longer incommunicado.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (& Kawasaki)
Subject: Extended Antenna For Cordless Phone
Organization: Brigham Young University
Date: 10 Nov 91 00:25:54


I understand it is illegal to sell an antenna to extend your cordless
phone range, allowing it to transmit more than 1000 feet (legal limit)
or whatever.  But I have a question. My cordless phone is bad, and
probably it is due to a small battery capacity.  Anyhow, any
suggestion to extend my phone range, other than buying a phone would
be welcome.

Thanks.


Tatsuya   [e-mail]   EMT:901006  Ham: N7UQJ


[Moderator's Note: The rule is the output (base or phone unit) cannot
exceed 1/10 watt (100 milliwatts). The law is not concerned with the
distance the signal travels, since no one can control that.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (& Kawasaki)
Subject: Connection Between Digital Phone and Answering Machine
Organization: Brigham Young University
Date: 10 Nov 91 00:57:04


Some time ago, someone was trying sell information on how to make an
interface to connect a regular answering machine to digital phone.  If
someone could help me on that, I would appreciate it. It should not be
too hard to make it but I am not an EE.

E-mail would be appreciated.


Tatsuya   [e-mail]   EMT:901006  Ham: N7UQJ

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

From: [e-mail] (David R. Zinkin)
Subject: Taping Phone Calls -- Summary and Thanks
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 15:56:28 GMT


Thanks to all who responded to my request for information on whether
or not I can tape a phone call if only I know about the recording.

Page 17 of my Ohio Bell telephone book (Cleveland, OH) states that
"Recording conversations is not permitted unless all parties consent
either verbally or in writing, or a distinctive tone sounds every 15
seconds during the recording, or the party intending to record the
conversation notifies the other party (BOTH AT THE BEGINNING AND THE
END OF THE CONVERSATION) that the call is being recorded."

A few readers suggested that I send my requests via certified mail,
return receipt requested.  Unfortunately, I've tried this and have
been told by the other party involved in that particular incident that
"I lost the letter before I could read it".

Another popular response was to *let them know* that the recording is
in progress.  The one time I tried this, the other party chose to hang
up the phone.  (I guess it was silly of me to think that CWRU would
encourage the simple procedure of taping phone calls; after all, this
is a school which defines wiring up an extension as "unaesthetically
pleasing and therefore illegal".)

The overwhelming response, however, was that I should skip the
recording altogether and simply get a signed contract in such
situations.  I agree that this is probably the way to go.

Once again, TELECOM comes through...thanks to all!


David Zinkin ([e-mail])
CWRU Psychology and Chemistry (WR '92)
Apple Computer Student Rep & CWRU MacMUG
University of Rochester Cancer Center

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 14:29:29 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is)
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


> [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).

    When I first heard of Southern Pacific Railroad (the local
railroad here in SLO) starting SPRINT, I thought it was an excellent
idea.  They do have all those right of ways.  I'm really surprised
they sold off SPRINT.  Seems those right of ways would be quite
valuable, though perhaps at that time microwave was the communications
conduit of choice.  Since I think it is now optical fiber, the right
of ways should again be quite valuable.

Further, someone with such a right of way could either lease it to a
telecommunications company to string fiber, or could put up its own
point to point fiber, selling 150 Mbps or so links on a point to point
basis.  Those buying use of those links would typically be telcos.  I
don't see the need for every long distance carrier to market directly
to the consumer.  Market to the telephone companies.  If the railroad
can provide a high speed link from here to there for less than anyone
else (including the telco, who also has to pay right of way or
microwave relay site fees, and, perhaps, someday, spectrum fees), the
telco should buy the use of the link from them.

As an analogy, my local power company produces some of its own
electricity, but, if someone has a special going on, they'll buy the
power from them (perhaps a good rain year has produced excess hydro
capacity in the Pacific northwest).  I don't have to shop around.  The
power company does it for me.


Harold

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 21:53 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: The Information Wars


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

> So, I don't think you'll get "equal time".

Ah, but what I did not tell you was that the owner of station on which
I heard the spot is a personal friend of many years. We'll see.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (ethan miller)
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy
Date: 9 Nov 91 19:14:33


> Which area code is the most underused of all? Only a small
> percentage of available prefixes in it are used, yet the others aren't
> likely to be assigned elsewhere. Geographically, it is pretty tiny
> also.  PAT]

401 (Rhode Island) uses very few prefixes.  It was ranked 43rd in
population in 1987, but it's geographically dense, so most prefixes
are full with numbers (as opposed to states like Wyoming which may
have prefixes/towns with just a few phones).  The only other similar
candidate would be Washington, DC, but there are so many business
phones (and fax machines) that they need lots of prefixes for them.


My guess for the smallest area code is either 202 (DC) or 213 (LA).
Anyone know the area of 213 after the 213/310 split?


ethan miller   [e-mail]    #include <std/disclaimer.h>

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 19:46:38 PST
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy


Well, since none of your answers were in question form, you're all
wrong :)


# Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (David Ash)
Subject: Re: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now!
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 05:39:11 GMT


> [Moronic Idiot's Rambling: We are getting carried away with this! One
> last riddle, then we will stop. Which area code is the most underused of
> all? Only a small percentage of available prefixes in it are used, yet
> the others aren't likely to be assigned elsewhere. Geographically, it
> is pretty tiny also.  PAT]

807, where I grew up, definitely serves the lowest population of any
area code.  However, it's not geographically "tiny".


David W. Ash   [e-mail]
HOME: [phone]   WORK: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: The answer (question) I was looking for dealt with
Rhode Island (401).  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 00:49:34 EST
From: andrew m. boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes?


> [...] perhaps deal with some other questions such as how the original
> set of area codes was assigned (ie. the rhyme and reasons).

This, at least, would seem to be quite obvious, in that more
frequently called areas have NPAs which are shorter for both the
subscriber to dial and the switching system to repeat; even at 20pps
it makes a small difference, and exhaustive nitpicking detail on these
sort of things was a trademark of The Phone company.  This would
finger NYC as the most called area, with Chicago and LA second/third,
et cetera ...


andrew

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

From: [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now!
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:07:35 GMT


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

> These endless area code postings should be reduced.  This information
> is available in any phonebook or even in some desktop diaries.  The
> moderator reduces signatures to a single line in order to save
> bandwidth, and yet posts arguments about which area code belongs in
> which city.

> [Moronic Idiot's Rambling: We are getting carried away with this! One
> last riddle, then we will stop. Which area code is the most underused of
> all? Only a small percentage of available prefixes in it are used, yet
> the others aren't likely to be assigned elsewhere. Geographically, it
> is pretty tiny also.  PAT]

Would it be 302 in Delaware?  With an area just a little larger than
Harris County (Houston) and a population of less than 700,000, it
would seem like the best answer ...


Patrick L. Humphrey  ([e-mail])  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  [phone] at Rice. 713 981-5952 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.


[Moderator's Note: But Rhode Island is smallest of all, and I think
the entire population is less than a half-million people.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #917
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18978;
          12 Nov 91 2:16 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09960
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:22:45 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29231
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:22:30 -0600
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:22:30 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #918

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 12 Nov 91 00:22:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 918

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: British Telecom Figures (Nick Reid)
    Re: British Telecom Figures (Terry Rawlings)
    Re: British Telecom Figures (Alan Barclay)
    Re: Question on Easements (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Question on Easements (Andrew M. Dunn)
    Re: Cellular Phone Rates (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: Cellular Phone Rates (Ron Dippold)
    Re: German AVON Book Wanted With STD Codes, etc (Helmut Heller)
    Re: MCI F&F Responds With New Privacy Safeguards (Bill Huttig)
    Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? (Thomas J. Roberts)
    Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced (Lee Ziegenhals)
    Re: Loopback Points in ISDN Network (Gerd Lux)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Nick Reid)
Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures
Organization: Computer Science Dept. Oregon State University
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 11:28:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Peng_H.Ang) writes:

> I'm aware that there are some gripes about the lack of true
> competition. But is that a major problem in terms of level of service,
> price, etc? Or is it that they are ok but they could do better?

British Telecom service is truly abysmal.  When I was there in July a
wait of ten minutes or more for a response from directory service,
over five minutes for a response from the operator, was not unusual
but about average.  Line quality is also bad, and from a London
telephone number there were bulletin boards in London that I could not
even log onto because line noise prevented completion of the login
process.  Individual British Telecom employees are often as helpful as
they can be (when you actually manage to get through to them), and the
costs of the telephone service, if it worked, are not excessive by US
standards, but the overall provision of service to the average caller
is almost unbelievably low.  It is against that *ethos* that the
complaints about the company's large profits have validity.

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

From: [e-mail] (Terry Rawlings)
Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures
Organization: James Cook University, North Queensland
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 11:31:18 GMT


Adam Ashby wrote:

> 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.

Telecom Australia released its yearly profit figures last week, this
is taken from a report published in the newspapers.

_Australia's Telecom.  So Much Better_

Corporate Results.

Telecom (Australia) returned a strong financial performance for
1990-91.

Though growth in some area of our business slowed down, revenue
increased by AUD$652.3m to AUD$9,531.2m.  We worked hard to contain
the costs of running our business. These rose by AUD$317.3m: the
lowest annual increase in ten years.

As a result, we were able to successfully generate a pre-tax operating
profit of AUD$1,625.5m; up from AUD$1,290.5m in 1989-1990.

For the first time, Telecom (Australia) was subject to Income Tax:
some AUD$662.8m, leaving us with an after tax operating profit of
AUD$962.7m.

We paid an increased dividend to the (Australian) Government of
AUD$250m.

[parts deleted.]

Service Performance.

Demand for many services slowed down during 1990-91, reflecting
uncertainties in the general economic climate.

Local and STD call traffic grew by 7% (compared to 8.3% in 1989-90),
but demand for new service connectiosn fell by 28% from the previous
year, to a little over 506,000.

[rest deleted.]

Today's exchange rate was AUD$1.00 = US$0.785

An after tax operating profit of more than AUD$50.00 per person in
Australia is not a bad figure and it will be interesting to watch next
year's figures after the privatisation of Telecom Australia is
complete and competition is allowed.


Terry Rawlings   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 12:01:08 GMT
From: ukpoit![e-mail] (Alan Barclay)
Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures
Organization: iT - The Information Technology Business Of The Post Office


> Western telecom outfit. This suggests that our poor English friends
> must be paying some kind of rates.

British please, the English are a small part of Britain. :-)

This is true. My line + local phone bill (POTS, no specials, and local
calls are definatly not free!) came to about $uk 45 for the last
quarter.

I don't make a lot of local phone calls, but they charge aprox $uk 0.04
for a phone call unit, which lasts for 20 - 180 seconds depending on
the time of day.

The really annoying thing is that in April we had a tax change, and BT
over charged us all by the difference between the old tax and the new
tax (2.5%) for up to three months. They have just refunded it, six
months later. Can you imagine what 2.5% of a billing cycle will
generate in interest in six months??


Alan Barclay, iT, Barker
Lane, CHESTERFIELD, S40 1DY, Derbys, England [e-mail],
..!uknet!ukpoit!alan, FAX:[phone], VOICE:[phone]

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 9:16:41 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: Question on Easements


[e-mail] (Rich Greenberg) in <[e-mail]>
writes:

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

>> I have a question as to how does LEC determine what a easment is
>> worth?

> [ LEC snuck in some cables]

>> 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 easement" to do
>> that?  And, were we suckered on what a half mile long easement is
>> worth?  Any ideas?

> You have most likely gotten as much as you can expect out of them.

> They are wrong about the "perscriptive easement" provided that you
> truly didn't know about it.  They get this easement only if you knew
> and didn't protest for some specfic length of time (may vary
> state-state).

> Keep in mind that they are "TPC", and they don't have to care.
> (And they have lots of lawyers on staff.)

When we bought our home in 1968 the electric and phone lines were in
as the place was a resale.  I'm not quite sure about NY laws on
easements but they were on the deed for those utilities.

An easement, signed by us, was put onto our deed when we signed a
contract to have public water installed.

It's my opinion that once an easement goes on a deed then it caries
forward to all subsequent owners of a home, with no expiration date.

With electric, it is simple: no easement, no utility; no utility, no
certificate of occupancy.  People are not required to have a phone,
public water or public sewage disposal unless mandated by a change to
the building code.  In my locality, if there's public water on your
street you take it if you are building a new home; otherwise no C.O.


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

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

From: mongrel![e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Question on Easements
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 14:40:19 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Does anyone remember the story in the Digest a
> couple years ago where IBT claimed easement rights in this lady's home
> -- in her bedroom, mind you -- because the former occupant had been
> an answering service, and pairs multipled from all over the
> neighborhood were connected in a huge terminal box in her bedroom?
> Maybe I should run that story again.  PAT]

Please do!


  Andy Dunn ([e-mail])  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn)


[Moderator's Note: Okay, watch the next issue (819) this morning.  The
article appeared here in 1989.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 23:47:57 EST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]


John Higdon writes:

> Good question. But in Hawaii, apparently they don't. I do not have the
> rate card in front of me, but GTE Mobilnet offers five-island coverage
> for about half the going rate here in California. And not only are the
> per-minute rates very, very low, the monthly base rates are also quite
> attractive. Under one plan (that also has reasonable per-minute
> charges) the monthly service is FREE. That's right -- if you don't use
> it, you don't pay. What a novel concept. I wonder how they can
> maintain all that ether out there without a monthly fee. Gee! No, GTE!

This is just a guess, mind you, but it may be that GTE Mobilnet in
Hawaii makes a big pile of money off of their roamers.  It wouldn't be
the first instance of roamers subsidizing local subscribers!

As far as the cellular companies which serve Atlanta, Bell South and
PacTel, the roamer rates are not much higher than the regular airtime
rates - and there's no daily roamer fee (unless it's changed in the
last year, which it may have).

My point being this: what's to stop an Atlanta area resident from
subscribing through GTE Mobilnet in Hawaii and then using the phone as
a roamer in Atlanta?  My monthly base rate is $18, so I wouldn't save
a whole lot, but some subscribers pay the full $35 base rate each
month in addition to a higher airtime rate.  They'd stand to save
substantially more, depending upon their actual airtime.


Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: [phone]
Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332  | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill
Group 3 fax: [phone]          | Internet: [e-mail]
or: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 21:38:21 GMT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> "Steven M. Palm" <[e-mail]> writes:

>> cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to
>> maintain.  Should be much cheaper.  Why do people put up with such a
>> ripoff?

> But in Hawaii, apparently they don't. I do not have the rate card in
> front of me, but GTE Mobilnet offers five-island coverage for about
> half the going rate here in California. And not only are the
> per-minute rates very, very low, the monthly base rates are also quite
> attractive.

Cellular phones charges are so much in California (and NY) for two
reasons.  First, people are willing to pay it.  I imagine most LA and
Hollywood types would rather give up their office phones than their
cellular phone(s).  They can be connected at all times, and to many
the cost is nothing.

Well, if prices were lower, then even more people would be willing to
use it, right?  That's exactly what they don't want or need right now.
As you get more people using the phones, service quality gets worse
and worse, as you can't place a call when you need to or you pass from
one cell to another and the phone just hands off into nothingness (or
someone else's conversation, that's always a good one).  Estimates are
that by the end of 1992, LA will have completely exceeded its cellular
phone capacity -- bad service when you can get it.  Cellular phone
sales are still going strong, and I bet most of those people expect to
be able to use that phone.

You can get more capacity by building more cells (not cheap), but due
to frequency re-use, minimum signal strength, and other practical
problems, there is a definite limit.  Part of this is due to the fact
that FM cellular phones are power pigs.  Look for cellular use prices
to go up (or at least not go down) until the digital cellular phone
systems get here with 20x capacity.  Of course, it sounds better and
is more reliable, so you might get many more people using it, and you
still have to support those FM phones ...

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

From: [e-mail] (Helmut Heller)
Subject: Re: German AVON Book Wanted With STD Codes, etc
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 13:28:37 GMT


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

> In (Western portion) German phone books, reference is made to a book
> called AVON (presumably a German acronym)

All I can say is that AVON stands for Amtliches Verzeichnis der
Ortsnetzkennzahlen (the N comes from the Netz-part) which means
"official compendium of all the area codes (pre-dial)".

Unfortunately I don't have access to one right now.


Servus, Helmut  (W9/DH0MAD)  [e-mail]
[e-mail]     Phone: [phone], FAX: [phone]
Helmut Heller, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Beckman Institute
Theoretical Biophysics Group, Transputer Lab, Room 3151, MC 251
405 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801, U.S.A.

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

From: [e-mail] ( Bill Huttig)
Subject: Re: MCI F&F Responds With New Privacy Safeguards
Date: 11 Nov 91 15:08:05 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

> So I tried the number, and indeed, it now asks for the last three
> digits of your MCI account number.  One small step for MCI, one giant
> step for the security of personal information.

It is a little better ... but there still is the fact that if your
bill is mis-delivered all the needed information is there ... I don't
see why companies insist on putting all the information about you in
one place.  (Bank statements with SS numbers and account numbers when
they require that information for phone information on your account).
Hopefully they will do something about the billing inquiry number
also.


Bill

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 10:07:02 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas J Roberts)
Subject: Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From article <[e-mail]>, by joeisham@chinet.
chi.il.us (Joe Isham):

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

>>     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."

> and the Moderator noted:

>> I've been asking for a couple years for someone to explain 710. No
>> information has ever been given out.

The 710 area code in the USA (and, perhaps, Canada) is indeed used for
"Government Special Services".  It provides Emergency Services to
federal and local agencies, and is NOT intended for use by the general
public.

Don't bother to "hack" at these numbers - there are security features
which make it unlikely for you to get anything more than some useless
intercept messages. Repeated attempts which could potentially deny
service to authorized users might result in a VERY unwelcome visit
from the authorities.


Tom Roberts   att!ihlpl!tjrob  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lee Ziegenhals)
Subject: Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 17:20:46 GMT


[e-mail] (Joe Isham) writes:

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

>> 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!

> I suppose they split the NPA the way they did to keep the number of
> exchanges in each new area more or less the same.  Austin is growing a
> lot faster than San Antonio, though, so it'd make sense for the new
> 210 to start off with fewer exchanges.

A local (San Antonio) newspaper article said that the original intent
was to keep S.A. in the 512 area and change Austin.  One of the
reasons I can recall for the new scheme was to avoid changing the
telephone numbers for all of the state offices in Austin.  I have no
idea how accurate that information is, though I can imagine some
political pressure being applied.

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

From: [e-mail] (Gerd Lux)
Subject: Re: Loopback Points in ISDN Network
Organization: Free University of Berlin, Germany
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 18:28:24 GMT


Are there any TCP/IP packet drivers on top of ISDN out there?

Thanks for your time.


Gerd Lux    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #918
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23418;
          12 Nov 91 21:56 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03791
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 19:41:38 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03684
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 19:40:59 -0600
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 19:40:59 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #919

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 12 Nov 91 19:40:44 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 919

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    On Having Telco as a Housemate (was Easement) (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea (John Higdon)
    Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Thing (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest (Yanek Martinson)
    Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
    Re: Telemarketing Prevented (Harold Hallikainen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:45:34 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: On Having Telco as a Housemate (was Question About Easement)


Here is the story I promised earlier which originally appeared in
TELECOM Digest on Sunday, February 26, 1989 along with a few replies
which appeared in the week following.

PAT

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

 Date:     Sun, 26 Feb 89 1:04:38 CST
 From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
 Subject:  On Having Telco As a 'Housemate'


I will sub-title this report 'The Case of the Box Which Won't Be
Removed'. The location is Lockport, Illinois; a suburban community
thirty miles or so southwest of Chicago. It is served by Illinois
Bell; or should I say the lady I will tell you about serves IBT. One
way or the other -- anyway --

Wanting to get out of the city, the lady bought a house in Lockport.
It is an older place, but very well maintained over the years. One
room would make a great den, but there was one problem that had to be
taken care of first.  In one corner of the room sat a box, about five
feet high and four feet square.  There were about 500 wires running in
and out of it, all eventually finding their way through a hole in the
wall. On the outside of the house at that point, the wires ran a short
distance, then went down into the ground in a metal conduit like
thing.

Curious about it, she asked the realtor what it might be for, and was
told that a former occupant of the house had operated an answering
service there.  The room she was planning for her den had been the
switchboard area for the answering service years before.

The lady called up Illinois Bell to see about having it removed. IBT
agreed to do so for the mere sum of $2,400. *And they agreed the box
was dead*. The lady protested; saying that $2,400 seemed a lot of
money to yank out the old box, especially since nothing was going in
its place provided by the phone company.

After asking around, she found an independent workman willing to
remove the box for $300, and was about to tell him to go ahead with
the work when two people from Bell stopped by to see her, to warn that
if any lines were broken or damaged, she would have to pay $70 for the
repair of each. She said she thought $70 was rather outrageous for the
repair of useless, dead lines, but the guys from Bell said in fact the
lines were alive. They did agree to reduce their price and remove the
box for 'only $1800', and completely indemnify her against damages or
disruption of service which might occur in the process.

Her independent workman took another look and confirmed what Bell had
said: The box was in fact alive, and nearly 500 working pairs were
terminated inside.  Together they went back to Bell, and got the price
for removal of the box negotiated down to only $1200.

The lady said she had no intention of paying *anything* to take it
out. And really, can you blame her? Finally with no place else to
turn, she went to see the house's former owner; the fellow who had run
the answering service.  He said he thought Illinois Bell had been
granted an easement to have the box there.

And now the matter becomes even more mysterious. The lady went to the
village hall and spoke to Lockport officials herself; and yes, they
said, Illinois Bell *does* have an easement to that room in your
house. They were unable, however, to show her a signed document from
the previous owner giving easement rights to Bell. Tbe former owner
insists he never signed anything; he claims they put the box in when
he started the answering service back in the middle 1950's; and he
claims he can't remember ever giving Bell permanent squatting rights
there.

After continued negotiations, IBT still insists it needs $1200 to
remove its equipment and give up its easement rights. In the meantime,
the lady won't budge, and she is living there with a Pandora's Box
filled with legal ramifications for a 'roomate'. The search goes on
for an official record of the easement with someone's signature on it.
I suspect if and when it is found it will be the signature of the
former owner. The contractor hired by the woman has identified a dozen
businesses and several dozen residences in the vicinity which show up
on terminals in the box.

I think eventually if an easement record cannot be located, IBT will
have to bite the dust and relocate the whole thing at thier expense.
The woman has said if the easement *is* found, and it contains the
signature of the former owner, she will sue him if necessary to make
him pay for the removal.

In the meantime if something goes wrong and Bell has to visit the box?
Well, let's hope the woman isn't asleep, in the bathroom or otherwise
'indisposed' when her 'roomates' visitors show up!


Patrick Townson

 Subject: Re: Telco As a 'Housemate'
 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 12:40:48 -0500
 From: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>


If I were that lady, and IBT came to the door because they needed
access to work on one of the lines that came to that box, I would give
it to them -- as soon as they showed me the document granting telco
the easement.  Not before.

Another tack--

Is there some way a noisy electrical device (an old refrigerator or
something) next to the box might cause noticeable noise on the lines?
That also might provide some impetus for them to move the box (or
really make it dead).  After all, they can't tell her what she can or
can't have in some corner of her den.

    /JBL


 From: Mark Brukhartz <laidbak![e-mail]>
 Subject: Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate'
 Date: 1 Mar 89 19:16:45 GMT
 Organization: Lachman Associates, Inc., Naperville, IL


This woman ought to consult a real estate attorney without delay. I
believe that her seller was responsible for conveying a clear title to
the property, including a written description of any easements. He (or
his title insurance company) are probably responsible for Illinois
Bell's claim of easement.

I understand that uncontested use of a property will mature into
permanent rights after some (forgotten) interval.

            Mark Brukhartz
            Lachman Associates, Inc.
            ..!{amdahl, masscomp, nucsrl, sun}!laidbak!mdb


 From: John Allred <ames!mailrus!BBN.COM![e-mail]>
 Subject: Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate'
 Date: 2 Mar 89 16:40:10 GMT
 Reply-To: John Allred <ames!mailrus!vax.bbn.com![e-mail]>
 Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA


In article <[e-mail]> laidbak![e-mail]
(Mark Brukhartz) writes:

> This woman ought to consult a real estate attorney without delay. I
> believe that her seller was responsible for conveying a clear title to
> the property, including a written description of any easements. He (or
> his title insurance company) are probably responsible for Illinois
> Bell's claim of easement.

> I understand that uncontested use of a property will mature into
> permanent rights after some (forgotten) interval.

I think the interval is 20 years for "adverse use" of property.  Your
mileage may vary.


John Allred
BBN Systems and Technologies Corp.
([e-mail])


 From: Darren Griffiths <[e-mail]>
 Subject: Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate'
 Date: 4 Mar 89 01:13:09 GMT
 Reply-To: Darren Griffiths <[e-mail]>
 Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley


It seems like it should be pretty easy to get the box removed.  Simply
have the lady go down to Radio Shack and buy a line kit that can be
connected straight to the punch down block that's probably in the box.
Whenever she has some spare time try a few of the lines, see who's
talking and interrupt them.  If they aren't to angry at someone
listening to their phone calls then she could explain the situation
and have them call IBT.  If they are angry I'm sure they'll call IBT
anyway.


Darren Griffiths              [e-mail]
Lawrence Berkeley Labs
Information and Computing Sciences Division


                          -----------

And there you have it ... the story which appeared here over two years
ago. I had forgotten one detail: The box was not in her bedroom, but
actually in the room she wanted to use as a den.


PAT

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 02:37 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes:

> Since California is the land of the voter-initiated petition, you
> might want to try getting something like this going there.  If I were
> doing it, I'd not only put in for a ban on mandatory measured service,
> but also the inclusion of all adjacent exchanges (and all non-adjacent
> exchanges within 20 miles) as part of a customer's "local" calling
> area.

Amen to the twenty-mile radius. Everywhere else that I have been in
the US has a larger local calling area than the extremely weenie
eight-mile radius that is standard in California. You may be
interested in the Pac*Bell party line, as it were, on this topic. Mr
Disher of Pac*Bell explained that what was important was not the
distance but "the number of people you could reach with your phone".
In other words, in metropolitan areas, you can reach literally
millions of people, including your civic offices, libraries, etc.,
within that eight-mile radius. In other parts of the country, this is
not true and wider calling radii are necessary to cover spheres of
influence for the caller. (He failed to address the issue as it
applies to those same areas in California -- I just spent two weeks in
a house that is twenty miles from ANYWHERE.)

Frankly, the only city that has anywhere near the density that
validates his point in California is San Francisco. The rest of the
state has cities that are sprawled out all over the countryside and
the result is that it is toll from one end of Los Angeles to the
other.  Of course, Californians are used to these microscopic local
areas. I can just imagine the telco opposition to a ballot measure at
campaign time. Somehow, we would be reminded that students and senior
citizens would suffer irreparable harm with expanded local calling
areas.

But I am dying of curiosity: how did the telcos in Oregon, etc.,
campaign against the measured service ban? Did they predict that
people's hair would fall out with such a ban or what? The only
conceivable argument that I can see would hold any water would be for
those who really do make very few calls. But as you pointed out, all
it takes is a foot in the door and then you can manipulate the cost of
local service very easily. Case in point: Pac*Bell's proposed doubling
of the additional minute charge on local calls will cause real
hardship on many small businesses who are already paying hundreds of
dollars a month on nothing but local usage.

> Seem to me that this sort of ballot initiative would pass with
> no problem in your neck of the woods (provided it's not worded in a
> "funny" way so you have to vote "no" when you mean "yes" or
> something).

Oh, we are used to that garbage -- those of us who vote, that is. The
latest figures show that 25% of those eligible to vote in California
actually do. Judging from the lack of interest at the rate hearings
and the recently demonstrated ability of Pacific Telesis to mount an
advertising campaign full of misleading statements, I would put the
odds of an initiative passing a little farther down on the scale of
probability.

It is an interesting idea, however. And something well worth looking
into.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Thing
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 04:08:42 GMT


[e-mail] (tim gorman) writes:

> From a practical viewpoint, agriculture (in other words rural
> subscribers) has gone very high tech in the past several years. Those
> farms who want to maximize revenue depend heavily on telephone access
> to market data as well as to market buyers/sellers. This includes
> telecommunications options such as modem and fax usage. Since these
> high tech operations are also the ones that provide most of the food
> for the world, anything that increases their costs also increases the
> cost of food to everyone. It is, therefore, quite practical from my
> viewpoint to keep their costs as low as possible.

This is nonsense.  All subsidies do is introduce distortions into the
market and promote uneconomic behavior.  All you are saying is that
instead of paying more for food, we should pay more for our telephone
bills.  Why should corporations (which, last time I checked, do not
eat) pay to support farmers (or for that matter, residential
customers)?  Regarding cheaper food for the world, why should I be
forced to donate $ through higher food bills; If I care about the
problem, I'll give money to OXFAM or UNICEF.  Besides, cheap food
exports (subsidized) only destroy local markets, making it less likely
that they will become self-sufficient and more efficient.

If the phone company truly believes that subsidizing farmers is a
laudable goal, then they should go ahead, but out of THEIR pockets,
not mine, thank you very much.

Farmers, and telephone companies, for that matter, should sink or swim
in the marketplace like everyone else; in large part, the farming
"crisis" was created because government subsidies distorted the
marketplace and sent the wrong signals to the farmers.  They got a
short-term gain and a long-term pain.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Yanek Martinson)
Subject: Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest
Date: 11 Nov 91 22:48:32 GMT
Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Knauerhase)
writes:

> Imagine my surprise to see that inside was a $20 check from AT&T
> -- all I have to do to get the cash is switch to AT&T.
> MCI mails out checks if you switch, Sprint mailed me a $10 check
> in June that's only good after October 1, and now AT&T ...

> get the money without switching

How about this:

Switch to ATT, collect $20. Switch to Sprint, collect $10, then switch
back to ATT, then back to Sprint, etc.  Would this work?  Would it be
illegal in any way?


[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Subject: Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 20:34:14 GMT


John Higdon quoted the Pacific Telesis spot, which ended:

> This advertisement is brought to you by the people of Pacific Telesis
> and is not paid for by telephone customers.

What this means, of course, is that it's being paid for by the
salaries of the people they're laying off.

 :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*(

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 22:01:38 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


> Even when I presented this evidence, Pac*Bell yawned in my face. I was
> told quite frankly that they had other things to worry about and that
> enforcing the telemarketing regulations was next to impossible. It is
> funny that Pac*Bell seems to be able to enforce tariff against
> competitors without difficulty.

    Do we now rely on "private companies" to enforce laws or
regulations?  How does the PUC deal with such complaints?


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


[Moderator's Note: The answer to that is very simple: They don't deal
with the complaints either; not at least until there are a large
number of them. Then they begin an inquiry.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #919
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29260;
          13 Nov 91 1:18 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10324
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 20:58:46 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06550
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 20:58:16 -0600
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 20:58:16 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #920

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 12 Nov 91 20:58:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 920

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Fifty Copies -- Enough Already! (TELECOM Moderator)
    HDTV Regulations, Do You Know Some? (Thomas P. Imbro)
    SWBT Wants Information Services Monopoly (J. Brad Hicks)
    Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Jim Fenton)
    Current RBOC Fiber Deployment, Video Dial Tone Article (Kevin Collins)
    Computerized Radio Foul Weather Closing Announcements (Bill Berbenich)
    Just Dial One-Nine-Zero-Zero-SCREWME (Jerry Leichter)
    Pauses in Speed Dialing (David Schanen)
    Phone Gateways? (Mark McWiggins)
    Must New Second Line Use Same Class of Service as First? (Fred Linton)
    Regulations and Telco (A.E. Guadagno)
    Telemarketing COS (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 19:55:44 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Fifty Copies -- Enough Already!


Due to a malfunction at the Bitnet gateway site I use (nuacvm.acns.
nwu.edu) on Tuesday morning, issue 918 went out to most Bitnet readers
50+ times.  It seems the mailer kept stalling, then restarting itself
about every ten minutes all night until about 9 AM Tuesday morning.

Rather than compound the problem further, I held off mailing further
issues of the Digest until the source of the problem (here, or the
gateway) was found and corrected. As it is, I got numerous messages
from all over the globe throughout the early morning hours Tuesday
from people saying please turn it off ... we are being flooded, etc.

Now I am about two issues behind, meaning another day or so delay in
some messages still waiting from Sunday/Monday. As a result, I made a
decision a few minutes ago to dump unused about 30 messages (mostly
REplies) that I had planned to send out Tuesday morning, to get back
on schedule.  Sorry, and a special apology to the Bitnetters.


PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Thomas P. Imbro)
Subject: HDTV Regulations, Do You Know Some?
Organization: California State University, Chico
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 08:43:41 GMT


In re regulations governing HDTV:  I imagine most of the regulations that
apply to current NTSC systems will be carried over. But are there any
new regulations? How about some issues on spectrum space?  There seems
to be some problems allocating spectrum in large markets if a simulcast
HDTV sytem is used.  How about industrial standards?  From what I have
read, the FCC is requiring a simulcast system, but are they requiring
an analog or digital system? Hopefully the latter.

What I'm actually looking for is changes in current NTSC regulations
because of the implementation of HDTV.  This information will be
helpful in writing a college report. And I wouldn't be surprised if
the people required to write this same report are looking for the
same information on this newsgroup because this newsgroup was mentioned
in class as source of information on this topic.

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 16:10 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SWBT Wants Information Services Monopoly


I just got the 16-Oct-91 issue of {Electronic Messaging News}
forwarded to me, and saw what has to be the most arrogant thing I've
ever heard from an RBOC.  Is this disgusting or what?  The day after
the appeals court overruled Judge Green and let the RBOCs into the
information services business, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) introduced a
bill to put trivial restrictions on it, like forbidding the RBOCs from
creating artificial "bottlenecks" to prevent competition.  By Rep.
Cooper's own admission, the total effect of his bill will be to
restrict the RBOCs so they can ONLY control 90% of the market, not
100%.

In other words, they're practically being handed 90% of the
information services market on a silver platter, by legislative fiat.
Are they elated?  No, they're enraged, enraged that they have to allow
any competition at all. Southwestern Bell Telephone's vice chairman
Gerald Blatherwick was blunt and arrogant: "Frankly, we think it's
time the competing commercial interest groups get on the train or get
off the track."  In other words, merge with an RBOC or die.

Is there any one left who still believes that it's a coincidence that
the same RBOC is busily trying to shut down free BBS systems?  I'm
learning to agree with Mr. Higdon; RBOCs shouldn't be allowed into ANY
venture other than selling local dial tone.

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 12:27:25 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Jim Fenton)
Subject: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences


A posting of John Higdon's recently spoke of the different rate at
which he receives wrong numbers on his various lines.  Several years
ago, when I had a phone number with a repeat digit in it (-5885), I
used to get a great many wrong numbers, which if I could get the
caller to tell me the number they were calling, was frequently -585x.
It seems that either their pushbutton contacts were dirty, or they
weren't pushing the buttons cleanly.

Have others noticed this behavior, and do others avoid being assigned
phone numbers with repeated digits, as I do?


Jim Fenton, Watkins-Johnson Co., San Jose, CA    [phone]
[e-mail]

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

From: aspect![e-mail] (Kevin Collins)
Subject: Current RBOC Fiber Deployment, Video Dial Tone Article
Date: 11 Nov 91 20:50:05 GMT
Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca


The following taken from {Communications Week}, dated 11/4/91.

(begin quote)
                BELL FIBER DEPLOYMENT STATUS REPORT
               (percentage of copper & fiber installed within
                    the Bells' facilities & to-the-curb)

                  1989                     1994*
                            Copper    Fiber          Copper    Fiber
Ameritech Corp.              94.8       5.2           92.0       8.0
Bell Atlantic Corp.          96.9       3.1           86.6      13.4
BellSouth Corp.              95.8       4.2           85.7      14.3
Nynex Corp.                  98.2       1.8           95.0       5.0
Pacific Telesis Group        99.5       0.5           91.2       8.8
Southwestern Bell Corp.      98.3       1.7           83.7      16.3
US West Inc.                 98.8       1.2           95.4       4.6

* - Figures are projected
(end quote)

The table is contained in an article about user, telco, and cable TV
provider reactions towards the FCC "Video Dial Tone" proposal. Gist of
the article: users excited, telcos want to provide programming as well
as transport, cable providers complaining about regulators' inability
to prevent cross-subsidies, telcos ripping cable providers for gouging
customers.

I really like those last two -- two large monopolies accusing each
other of all the things Joe Schmo has been saying for years. Maybe now
that big voices are saying these things, things will actually improve
in both arenas.

Hope springs eternal.


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

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

Subject: Computerized Radio Foul Weather Closing Announcements
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 12:20:21 EST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Here I sit at my desk eating a bit of lunch and listening to the
radio.  This past weekend was kind of chilly here in the Atlanta area
and there was the possibility of flurries.  Naturally, since Atlanta
isn't close to the snow belt, if there is any accumulation of snow or
ice the city and all businesses will close down until the frozen stuff
goes away.  On to the point ...

A local news/talk radio station here has announced a new service that
they will be using this winter.  I forget the catchy acronym, but it
is a means whereby school administrators, corporate management, and
others can disseminate foul weather closing information via a secret
touch tone code entered after calling a secret telephone number.  When
an authorized administrator calls and enters his appropriate code it
causes the appropriate information to be printed out in the station's
newsroom in order that they may announce it on the air.

The potential for abuse seems greater than for the old reliable method
of having an individual call in by voice.  An afterthought: I wonder
if they are using CLID (available here) or 800 ANI (if the secret
phone number is an 800 number).


Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab   |  Telephone:   [phone]
Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332    |
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill |  Group 3 fax: [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]         |           or: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 16:41:39 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Just Dial One-Nine-Zero-Zero-SCREWME


The 900 telesleazes are very much still out there.  I just got a long
message on my answering machine.  Apparently, someone is getting
clever, and has a pitch deliberately tuned for them.  I don't know
what I would have heard had I been in at the time, but the message
starts of VERY briefly -- and just about incomprehensibly, telling me
that I've won something or another and should call the "redemption
center" immediately.  If I call back within ten minutes, I get some
sort of extra prize.

The message then begins repeating the number of the center.  It's
"one, nine, <pause> zero zero <something>".  Not, of course, "one,
nine-hundred" -- too many people recognize that already.  Always "one,
nine, <pause> zero zero".  The number is repeated about five times;
then the voice says "one last time" and gives the number yet again.
Only at this point is the cost of the call revealed.  Well, kind of
revealed -- it's read so fast that after repeated listening to the
tape, I still can't tell you what it is.  I wasn't even able to make
out any of "dollars", "cents", "seconds", "minutes".  Perhaps the cost
is being given in rubles per micro-fortnight.

After the very fast obligatory "message", the number is repeated yet
again, and then the friendly voice (mild southern accent) signs off
with "enjoy your vacation"!  Ah, so they want to take me for a ride!


Jerry

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

From: [e-mail] (David Schanen)
Subject: Pauses in Speed Dialing
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 12:47:11 GMT


   Does anyone know if future switching systems will be able to
include pauses in speed dialing?

   I'm working with a system now where it would be nice if the telco
could provide something like NXX-XXXX..(Pause)..XXX-NXX-XXXX.

   Know what I mean?

    Cheers!

Dave
Inet: [e-mail]  * 8kyu *  UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv

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

From: esca![e-mail] (Mark McWiggins)
Subject: Phone Gateways?
Organization: ESCA Corporation, Bellevue WA
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 23:08:46 GMT


What's the hardware like on the back end of a phone "Gateway"?  If I
were a service provider, I'd ideally like something like an Ethernet
connection that would support multiple logins, but the local US
Westers weren't able to give me details.  They referred me to a guy in
Omaha (where the US West gateway trial was held), but I haven't gotten
ahold of him yet.

Can you point me to a reference on this kind of thing?  Thanks in
advance.


Mark McWiggins    [e-mail] (or uunet!esca!markmc)
[phone] (voice) 206 889 1700 (fax)

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

Date: 11-NOV-1991 22:38:52.97
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Must New Second Line Use Same Class of Service as First?


  Anticipating the need, eventually, for a second phone line to my
abode, I queried my local BOC (SNET Co.) as to whether I could get
"lifeline" measured service on a new line while retaining unlimited
service on the old.

  Nope, I was told -- new line must have same class of service as old.

  Anyone know whether that's really so in SNET's service area?
(Detailed tariff references appreciated if it's NOT really so,
thanks.)


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, 11 Nov 91 20:16:58 -0500
From: [e-mail] (A.E. Guadagno)
Subject: Toll Restricted Local Service


Hello, c.d.t. readers,

My question is a simple one, although I am not sure where else it
could be asked and answered.

Is it legal for a telephone service provider to refuse access to the
LATA if one does not wish to have long distance service?

A friend with teenage sons wishes to initiate such a service in her
new apartment, and the local telco sez that she cannot; that in order
for her to get service at all she has to name a 'dial-1' service
provider and thanks for calling. However, if she had a large bill she
could not pay and was put into arrears with this same telco, she
certainly could get such a toll-restricted account.

Anyone with information regarding this topic is invited, nay
encouraged to reply to [e-mail] or, if that bounces,
to this account (it's a loaner) with chapter and verse fashioned in
such a way that the remarkable human simulators they employ at this
telco are sure to agree that it would be A Good Thing. <But please
don't berate me for that run-on as I'm unfamiliar with this mailer!>

Thanks and may all your CONNECTs be error-free.


Dave Stoddard   Fido 1:260/246   CI$ 73717,3616


[Moderator's Note: You did not say what telco was involved, but any
Bell company with an ESS switch can provide her with a local line on
which all toll service (including via the operator) is denied. She
will still have to pay the 'network access fee', and the line will
cost the same as a normal one. Lines with special treatments like this
(such as outgoing / incoming calls only) are intended for security
reasons, not as a way to save money.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 01:25 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Telemarketing COS


After viewing a shouting match on ABC Television's Nightline over the
matter of telemarketing, I suddenly got an idea that should make any
telco's mouth (do they have mouths?) drool.

Why not have a "Telemarketing Class of Service"? If a firm or
individual wants to conduct telemarketing, it or he is required to
make the calls on "telemarketer" lines. These lines are POTS lines
with a plus: any outgoing call is first checked against a national
database to determine if the callee accepts junk calls. If so, the
call is completed. If not, the caller gets a recording or perhaps even
some machine-recognizable signal.

Maintaining such a database should be trivial nowadays and the lookup
should likewise be no problem. The cost of all of this would be folded
into the price of the lines. People would have to put themselves in
this database by indicating to local service reps the intended status
of each line ordered. Anyone making telemarketing calls on other than
TCOS lines would have suffer immediate disconnection.

After all, 900 service providers bear the costs of their operation
including blocking, charge-backs, and other "safeguards" that have
evolved. And when was the last time a 900 service woke you up in the
early morning when you had been up all night working? It is only fair
that a positive technical solution to the telemarketing problem be
financed by those profiting from the enterprize.

Telco's should be all for this idea because they can then inflate (by
a factor of four or five as they have done in the 900/976 business)
the costs of providing these special lines and make some extra profit.
The people should all be in favor since they would now have the
ability to positively block all junk calls. And who cares about the
telemarketers?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #920
******************************





ISSUE 921 WAS DELAYED IN MAILING AND APPEARS BETWEEN  ISSUE 924 - 925.






Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03179;
          13 Nov 91 3:34 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09014
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 01:54:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07741
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 01:54:19 -0600
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 01:54:19 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #922

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 Nov 91 01:54:10 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 922

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody [Jack Decker]
    Results of Question About Credit Verification Protocols (Carol F. Lerche)
    Paging Scam (Neil Kruse)
    Two Cellular Questions (Tom Lowe)
    AT&T EasyLink Services New Rates (Dave Levenson)
    Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Dave Leibold)
    Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 18:14:55 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody


If you happen to live in Michigan, pay close attention to this one.

I got a message from a friend in Wisconsin asking me if I had heard
about a new law in Michigan "where you can only make 300 calls a month
on flat rate."  He had read a message in alt.sys.amiga.uucp, where the
writer had stated, "Now, Michigan Bell has paid off our state
legislature and they passed a law where you can only make 300 calls a
month on flat rate, so I only call out a few times a day to keep the
calls down, or to get ready for this when it starts Jan 1 ..."

I was pretty sure that he must be mistaken, or that the writer of the
original message didn't know what he was talking about.  After all, I
try to keep pretty close tabs on what the Michigan Public Service
Commission is up to, and the last time I had heard anything from them,
they were not at all inclined to allow the phone company to begin
offering mandatory measured service, even with a 300 call allowance
(such allowances have a way of shrinking over the course of time).
One reason they were not so inclined is that in a series of public
hearings held throughout the state, the public had told the MPSC that
they didn't want measured service.

In fact, the MPSC just recently ordered Michigan telcos to begin
providing a new optional calling plan where residence customers can
pay $15 a month flat rate and get unlimited calling to all exchanges
adjacent to your own (within in your LATA).  Michigan Bell began
offering the service on November 1, though I have yet to see any
formal announcement of its availability (wonder why?...).  :( (By the
way, any Michigan telephone customer interested in this should inquire
about the Adjacent Exchange Toll Calling Plan ... it will be available
in almost all Michigan telephone exchanges by January or February of
1992, and limited time blocks of 30 minutes or two hours per month are
also available for both residence and business customers).

But just to be on the safe side, I sent a message to the person who
posted the original message (Ronald Kushner <caen!sycom.mi.org!
[e-mail]>).  And his reply dumbfounded me:

[Quoted text begins]
[Header and quote of my message to him deleted]

Well Jack, to be honest, I am very interested in politics, and if I
could explain everything about the intense lobbying by MBT, you would
be shocked ...

This year, the bill regulating Michigan Bell expires. A new bill was
drafted, and basically everything Bell has tried to get the MPSC to
pass in the last three years has been drafted into law. This bill
passed Thursday, and section 303 states:

(7) The local exchange rate for residential customers shall be one of
the following at the option of the customer:

 (a) A flat rate allowing personal and domestic outgoing calls up to
300 calls per month. Calls in excess of 300 per month may be charged
at an incremental rate as set by the provider. A person who has
reached the age of 60 years of age or more shall not be charged a rate
greater than the flat rate charged other residential customers for 300
calls. Except for customers or providers with less than 250,000 access
lines, the rates for persons who have reached the age of 60 years or
more, shall not be increased during the period from January 1st, 1991,
to December 31st, 1995.

 (b) A rate determined by the time duration of service usage or the
distance between the points of service origination and termination.

 (c) A rate determined by the number of times the service is used.

 (d) A rate that included one or more of the rates allowed by this
subsection.

I hope this clears it up for you. This bill will be law once [Governor
John] Engler signs it.  The only way the MPSC will get involved is if
they feel the set rate per call is unfair, then they can suspend the
rate and hold a hearing. Otherwise in ten days the rate takes effect.


Ron

[End of quoted text]

Whatever else you may feel about measured service, I think the thing
that is most galling (and unethical!) about this is the attempt to
circumvent the normal regulatory process.  Normally, telephone
companies in Michigan are required to go to the Michigan Public
Service Commission for approval of rate increases and changes in the
way that service is billed.  The request is then made public, with
notice of the proposed changes published in newspapers throughout the
state, and customers and the general public are given an opportunity
to comment upon these proposed changes.

However, in this case it appears that the process is being short-
circuited.  Instead of government in the sunshine, we have a
fundamental change in the way telephone service is offered in Michigan
being passed into law without ANY public notice or opportunity to
comment.  And I'm sure this is exactly what the telephone companies
(Michigan Bell and/or GTE North in particular) had planned all along.

Do I think it's dishonest?  Very much so.  But is it legal?
Unfortunately, it probably is.

Since today is Veteran's Day, and state offices are closed, I'm unable
to find out any more about this end-run maneuver until at least
tomorrow.  What you see above is all I know about the subject.

However, if you live in Michigan and think this is really sneaky, you
might want to give the MPSC a call (at 1-800-292-9555) or better yet,
call or write the Governor's office and ask him to consider a veto of
this legislation (on the grounds that it attempts to circumvent the
regulatory process, if you can't think of anything more colorful to
say about it).


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Carol Farlow Lerche)
Subject: Results of Question About Credit Verification Protocols
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 12 Nov 91 23:50:59 GMT


Here are the replies I got from my question about credit verification
protocols.  Thanks to all who replied.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 07:45:57 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Barrell)
Subject: credit card authroization protocols


Operating in the North American market, you will probably find that
the Visa "Second Generation" protocol definitions will be of value.  I
have seen the following standards, which include the contact point as:

     Visa USA
    Frank Fojtik
    3155 Clearview Way
    San Mateo CA94128
    [phone]

External Interface specification (EIS1051-V1.0 9/24/90)  Second Gen
  Authorization Terminal Link Level Protocol.

EIS1052-V1.2 9/20/90 Second Gen Data Capture Terminal Link Level
  Protocol.

EIS1080-V1.3  9/24/90  Second Gen. Authorization Record Format

EIS1081-V1.2 9/24/90  Second Gen Data Capture Record Format

Second Gen. Authorization Equipment Specifications  V1.0 May,'88

Second Gen Data Capture Equipment Specifications  V1.0 May,'87

Hope this is of some use.


Kevin Barrell   Bull Information Systems, Melbourne Australia
[e-mail]   Ph: [phone]   Fax: [phone]


Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 16:51:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Credit Card Verification -- Need Protocol

I don't have any real info for you, but I'd like to see the summary
when you get the information.

My (limited) understanding is that the data goes over a 300 baud Bell
103 modem.  I don't know what the actual bytes look like.


Thanks,
Pat

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 20:44:56 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Sean Donelan)
Subject: Credit Card Verification -- Need Protocol


There are actually several protocols used between POS verifiers.  Your
associate should contact the particular company that will be doing the
verification (eg. the bank, etc).  They will be able to get you
"their" protocol, as well as the "certification" needed before you
will be allowed to use your implementation of the protocol to call
their system.  I think they "tweak" their protocols just to be
obnoxious, because they turn out to all be very similar.  I actually
had one company tell me that federal banking law prevented them from
agreeing to a standard protocol.

This is based on my experience in tracking this information down about
two years ago.  If you find things have changed, I would be interested
in hearing about it.


Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: [e-mail], Voice: (Work) [phone]

Subject: Re: Credit Card Verification -- Need Protocol
Date: 23 Oct 91 23:10:41 EDT (Wed)
From: adobe!iecc.cambridge.ma.us![e-mail] (John R. Levine)

The little verification terminals that sit next to the cash registers
use standard 300 baud modems (they're real cheap) and exchange ASCII
messages.  The exact format of the message seems to vary somewhat, but
it's basically that the terminal calls up, gets a proceed message,
sends a message with the merchant number, card number, expiration
date, transaction amount, and a two-digit transaction type code, and
the central system responds with the message that appears in the
window, e.g. APPROVED: 123456.

A few years back I wrote a program that interfaced to a PC database
and emulated such a terminal in an afternoon.  Worked great.

For the exact formats, you need to ask your local credit card
verification service bureau.

Regards,

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

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

Date: 12 Nov 91 12:03:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Paging Scam


I have just been alerted by our corporate communications dept that
there is a new scam operating on the paging network. The announcement
read as follows:

We have been alerted by PacTel Paging Services in Northern California
to a scam that is being perpetrated on the paging network. People are
being paged to a 212 area code number which generates a $55 charge
when the call is returned.

If you receive a page to a 212 area code number that is unfamiliar to
you, you may not want to return the call.


Neil Kruse   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well here we go again! This is beginning to take
on the proportions of an Urban Legend. *If* the guy in New York is
silly enough to be calling California numbers (I doubt it) then he is
wasting his time, since 212-540 is *only* charged that much money in
the New York area. Calls from other states pay only the telephone
company toll charge in effect, if they can get through at all. For
example MCI intercepts it saying 'at the present time, MCI does not
complete calls to 976 numbers' (yes, 540 is like 976 in NYC). And even
if the guy is not too bright, you'd think PacTel would know what's
going on. Still, I guess a generic warning saying 'know the people who
page you' isn't a bad idea.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Nov 11 23:36:26 EST 1991
Subject: Two Cellular Questions


I have two questions:

1.  I have a Panasonic TP500 transportable.  It has a relay in it that
clicks on whenever the unit is transmitting.  When the phone is just
sitting there, it tends to transmit for about one oe two seconds every
hour or so.  What is it transmitting?  Is the cellular switch polling
it or is the phone taking it upon itself to transmit something?

2.  Is there any advantage to using twin cellular antennas on a car?
Remember during the CB craze this was the case.  Also, does it matter
if the antenna is in the back, middle, or side of a car?


Thanks.

Tom Lowe

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: AT&T EasyLink Services New Rates
Date: 12 Nov 91 01:45:00 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


This letter was received on October 28, 1991, by the U.S. Mail:

                    AT&T
                    EasyLink Services
                    400 Interpace Parkway
                    Parsippany, NJ  07054
November 1, 1991

To Our Valued Customer:

Several important changes to the rate structure for the AT&T EasyLink
Services product suite will take effect on December 1, 1991.  These
changes will provide clearly defined, value-oriented pricing.

AT&T EasyLink Services will move its pricing for electronic mail
services to a worldwide kilo-character structure.  This change will
provide value throughout the spectrum of message sizes.  This strucure
is especially effective in significantly reducing the cost of sending
larger files while maintaining attractive rates for shorter messages.

For example, a 200,000 character spreadsheet delivered via our service
within the U.S. will cost $10.70, about the same price as an overnight
delivery service.

For our business customer, we will reduce the magnetic tape billing
fee to $75.00 per month to make it easier for your business to monitor
costs.  Dedicated port access charges will be reduced to $500 and
shared port charges will be eliminated.

In response to the rapid expansion of the use of EDI in inter-company
transactions, AT&T EasyLink Services will introduce a "per character"
rating method for its EDI service.  This method is one of the most
innovative in the industry and allows trading partners to realize the
benefits of the most accurate usage-sensitive pricing.

The enclosed information sheet provides a summary of all of the price
changes.  If you have any questions, please contact your Account
Representative or a Customer Service Representative on 1-800-242-6005.

We value your business and are committed to serving your global
messaging needs with quality service and the most economical rates
possible.

Sincerely,

Steven A. Graham
Marketing Vice President


[excerpts from enclosure follow]

AT&T Mail Rate Summary
Effective December 1, 1991

Electronic Mail (Within U.S.)
    characters            rate
    1-1,000                $.50
    1,001-2,000             .80
    2,001-3,000             .95
    Each add'l. 1,000         .05

 ...

Core Services
    service                rate
    Magnetic Tape Billing        $75.00 per month
    Dedicated Port Access        500.00 per month
    Shared Port Access        Eliminated
    Monthly Usage Minimum        $25.00
    Monthly Service Fee        $3.00 per user ID
 ...

[end quotation]

The monthly service fee of $3.00 per user apparently replaces the
former annual service fee of $30.00.  The $25.00 monthly usage minimum
is the item which caused this firm to discontinue its subscription to
this service.  Our typical monthly usage was approximately $5.00.


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

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

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 20:24:33 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase?


I checked with AT&T Communications on the Canadian side of things
today.  Generally, the AT&T Mail as sold in Canada has rates that are
similarly structured to the U.S. service, but translated to something
near to Canadian funds (and the GST (Grab & Steal Tax) of 7% would
likely be tossed in there as well for Canadian subscribers). The AT&T
folks in Canada don't seem to be aware of any impending changes to the
rate structure, but someone in the Toronto-area office said they'll
check further ... could be that the Canadian customers may be hit with
something of a surprise, if AT&T Easylink/Mail couldn't warn the
Canadian subscribers ...

My account was started up in the U.S. ... This might get scary here.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Subject: Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 20:34:14 GMT


John Higdon quoted the Pacific Telesis spot, which ended:

> This advertisement is brought to you by the people of Pacific Telesis
> and is not paid for by telephone customers.

What this means, of course, is that it's being paid for by the
salaries of the people they're laying off.


 :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*(

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #922
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03848;
          13 Nov 91 4:06 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29530
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:28:05 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01584
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:27:53 -0600
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:27:53 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #923

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 Nov 91 02:27:49 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 923

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment (R. Kevin Oberman)
    Re: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment (Fred E.J. Linton)
    Re: TAT-10 and TAT-11 (John R. Levine)
    Re: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number (Larry Appleman)
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality (Marcus Leech)
    WAIS Server Needs Volunteer Beta-Testers (Jeff Wasilko)
    A Telephone Repair Question (Kevin C. Gross)
    T1 Services (Jeff Sicherman)
    AT&T AUDIX Hard Disks (Lawrence Roney)
    Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches (Ed Greenberg)
    Forced Number Changes (Ed Greenberg)
    Musical Chairs in the Long Distance Business (John R. Levine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment
Date: 11 Nov 91 18:22:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
loral.com (Donald Ekman) writes:

> I once called up to report a modem I was putting on my line. That
> would have been about 1979 when I got my first modem, a 110/300 baud
> Hayes Micromodem II for my Apple II+ (actually, a Bell & Howell 'black
> Apple' which I still have here). I think the telco rep snickered at me
> also.  PAT]

I called the local LEC (Pac$Bell) when I purchased my first phone and
was informed that the reporting of this was no longer required and
that they were not interested in any way. They DID state that I should
keep the information available in the event that there was trouble and
repair service asked for the information. And they did when my line
died about three years later. They ran tests and asked for REN
information on all of my equipment. Once they confirmed that the
values the test returned did not match my equipment, they sent out a
repairman (with the stern warning that if the trouble was my phone,
I'd be billed).

The problem was water seepage into a large mass of crimped connections
in front of my neighbor's house. The repairman simply chopped off the
whole mess and re-crimped all of the wires, not just mine.

So, at least in Pac$Bell land, don't bother registering, just keep the
information handy. Since it's usually affixed to the equipment, this
is not usually a problem.


R. Kevin Oberman            Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]    [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.

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

Date: 11-NOV-1991 22:47:48.93
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Donald Ekman) writes:

>  ... The rep seemed slightly amused.

Same here.  But every six months, when SNET breaks out the detail on
my basic monthly charges, there are two line-items, each detailing

    Customer-provided equipment .................... $0.00

(for the answering machine and modem I reported, on separate
occasions, long ago, I suppose; I think I too remember a tone of
wonderment in the voices of the reps handling my reports; I wonder
when SNET will come up with a way to change those $0.00 charges to
something non-zero <grin>).


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: Re: TAT-10 and TAT-11
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 12 Nov 91 17:17:41 EST (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


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

> Are [TAT-10 and TAT-11] running just one fiber each (or one in each
> direction, or several in each direction), each running 560 Mbits/sec?

I suspect they're one working fiber in each direction plus a bunch of
spares.  560MB is well within the bandwidth capacity of a single fiber
 -- the limit is surely the in-line repeaters.  I hear that there is
also copper power wiring running at 1000 volts.

> Are the TAT-6 and TAT-7 cables still running SSB FDM voice, or
> are they driven by "high speed modems" at each end, making a digital
> interface to the undersea coaxial cable.

Probably digital, since they can get a lot more capacity that way.
Considering that TAT-8 and TAT-9 are already in service and providing
fiber quantities of bandwidth, I wouldn't count on -6 and -7 staying
in service very long after TAT-10 and TAT-11 go into service.  At this
point, the main reason to hold onto -6 and -7 are backup in case a
hurricane disables both -8 and -9 which terminate about 10 miles apart
in New Jersey.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Appleman)
Subject: Re: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 20:09:13 GMT


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

> ....A quick check of the new 1991-1992 Nynex White Pages phone
> book for my area found my "unlisted" number listed on page 164 under
> another person's name!  Another entry with the same last name, but
> different first name, was located....

NYNEX seems to have trouble deleting some numbers from its White
Pages.  A friend of mine is listed in the Boston central directory at
a 'phone number and address he hasn't had for 12 years.  (His present
number and address appear correctly in his suburban directory.)  Each
time a new Boston directory is published, we see that he's still
listed incorrectly, and he calls customer service; they invariably say
they'll remove the listing from the next directory.


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

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

Date: 11 Nov 91 16:59:00 EST
From: Marcus (M.D.) Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality


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

> ....  What really makes the problem tough is that
> the act of breaking the connection frees that particular modem and
> that particular trunk, making it all but impossible to truly recreate
> the situation for testing.

This reminds me of a telephone-network phasing problem my roomy and I
"discovered" while listening to the CBC network on both the local
station and one in Montreal (about 200Kms from here).  CBC uses
phone-lines to distribute the audio to its various stations.  Every
few seconds there was an annoying phase-inversion of the signal.  I
suspect that the phone-network was doing dynamic trunk facilities
allocation for these circuits, and one of the analog-to-digital
translation points in the trunk group had a Tip-Ring inversion.  The
phase-inversion only seemed to happen after silent periods.  Given the
apparently exact 180degree phase-shift and the relative proximity of
the distant (Montreal) station, this *couldn't* have been
phase-distortion due to skywave propagation of the Montreal station.


Marcus Leech, 4Y11    Bell-Northern Research  |opinions expressed
[e-mail]         P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C   |are my own, and not
[e-mail]    Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko)
Subject: WAIS Server Needs Volunteer Beta-Testers
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 0:39:07 EST
Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY


As Pat mentioned a while ago, we are working on indexing the Telecom
Digest archives with Thinking Machine's WAIS server.

At this point, the archive server is not ready for general use (or
abuse), but I am looking for a few people to help test the server.

I don't have time now to write up any documentation, so you'd have to
be willing to figure out most of it from the provided documentation.
As such, you should be comfortable compiling UNIX applications. You
also need to be on the Internet. You don't need to be root to install
any of the client software, but you do need a telnet that allows you
to spec port numbers.

For a look at WAIS in action, telnet to quake.think.com and log in as
wais. For a look at the X-windows interface to WAIS, telnet to
snark.lcs.mit.edu and log in as wais. You will be prompted for your
display name.

If you are interested in helping with the test process, drop me a
line.


RIT VAX/VMS Systems: |     Jeff Wasilko     |      RIT Ultrix Systems:    |
ITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax +----------------------+ INET:[e-mail]|
NTERNET: [e-mail]              |____UUCP:[e-mail]____|

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

Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 05:36 GMT
From: "Kevin C. Gross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Telephone Repair Question


Hi.  A friend suggested that someone on this list might be able to
answer this question.

One of my AT&T Trimline phones has a dead ringer in it.  Do you know
the spec's of the little speaker-like ringer in the base station?
Radio Shack sells a "piezo-electric buzzer" which quite resembles it,
peak voltage 28 or so.  Would this baby do?  If not, can you suggest a
source?

Thanks in advance for your help.


Kevin Gross   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 21:04:27 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: T1 Services
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  I would appreciate references to introductory information on T1
connections and services. Technical details not needed at this time,
just a general description, cost calculations/justifications,
equipment requirements, service limitations/restrictions and possible
problems and pitfalls of going this route.  Thanks for any help.


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: [e-mail] (Lawrence Roney)
Subject: AT&T AUDIX Hard Disks
Organization: Santa Monica College, Santa Monica, CA
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 21:31:52 GMT


We have an AT&T AUDIX voice mail system.  It stores all the voice and
data on a 170Mb SCSI hard disk.  The the disk that is currently in the
system is a CDC 94161-155.  The system will support two disk drives.
It has the SCSI and power cables ready to go.  The manual claims that
the unit will work with the below listed drives. (either 170Mb or
380Mb)

AT&T wants over $6000 for a 170Mb hard disk!!!  Has anyone purchased
one of the disks below, put it in an AUDIX, and made it work?

CDC 94161-155        CDC 94171-376
Micropolis 1375        Micropolis 1570        NEC D5862
Maxtor XT-4380S        Piram 738        HP 9753XSA


Lawrence Roney - Network Systems Technician, Department of Telecommunications
     Santa Monica Community College District, Santa Monica, CA
                Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 09:54 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches


[e-mail] (James Parkyn) writes about a fellow who
whose CO was hard wired to offer touch tone to everybody, and the
Telco trying to get him to sign up.  The friend sayd they would
disconnect him and he said "Go ahead and try!"

The Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Isn't this a little like saying that since every
> home is equipped with water faucets, you are entitled to use the water
> supply without paying ... and if they don't want you to use the water
> they can simply come out and dig up the pipes where they connect to
> your home or otherwise lock off the supply?

Nope.  Water companies go to the expense of installing shut off
valves.  One must take positive action, breaking seals, etc., to use
water for which you haven't contracted.

Patrick goes on to suggest that the telco rep (without company
sanction) call back and threaten to extort the cost of touch tone by
threatening to change his number.  Further, Patrick suggests that he,
as the telco rep, would be snide and arrogant.

Now, First of all, I want to go on record as being grateful in the
extreme for Patrick's moderation of TELECOM Digest, for his putting up
with our various problems in areas of subscription and submission,
etc.  Lots of times I agree with Patrick's opinions and lots of times
I disagree.  On this one, I disagree.

Patrick compares using available touch tone service to taking positive
action to connect to a disconnected utility.  The telco knew they were
opening this can of worms, and chose to open it anyway.  They probably
began the operation planning to go back and "catch" everybody who used
tone signalling ... gee, they could easily sign up some new subscribers
that way.

My parents have not paid for touch tone yet.  When I visited them a
few years back, I switched their phone to tone in order to access my
voicemail, and forgot to switch it back.  Gee, it worked.  Telco
stupidity?  Too damn bad.  Sounds like an attractive nuisance to me.
You don't want it used?  Don't leave it in my house.

As to Patrick's suggestion that the telco extort the charge by
threatening number changes on an individual basis, this is the typical
underhanded dealing that most of us don't appreciate of telcos and
other large corporations.

Had the telco gone to the Public Service Commission (in whatever
state), and proposed to make Touch Tone charges mandatory for
subscribers in the XXX exchange, they would have been shot down.  Had
they proposed that subscribers who would not sign up would have to
have their numbers changed, they would probably have been shot down
again.

Besides, as I read Patrick's Moderators Note, he suggests that he, as
the service rep, would take such action, probably independent of
company policy.  Had there been a few PSC complaints, Patrick would
not have lasted long as a service rep.

Rather than the water company analogy, this really compares more to
unordered merchandise. Consider a newspaper thrown on your doorstep
when you don't take the paper.  You don't have to pay for it.  You
also don't have to call the paper and tell them to stop sending it.
Are you allowed to read it?  I'd argue yes.  They also have the right
to stop delivering it.

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 10:02 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Forced Number Changes


Despite what I wrote in the message before this , the telco DOES have
the right to make number changes.  Typically this is done on a mass
basis, although I'm sure other people here can write of retaliatory
number changes.

I know of one mass number change.  About fifteen years ago, a
windowless brick building went up at the corner of Old Country Road
and Grohmans Lane in Plainview, New York (11803).  When it was almost
complete, a large bell in a circle was hung on the wall.  A new CO was
born.  (No, there were no tours. :-( )

Shortly afterwards, a friend of mine, along with most every other
telco subscriber in an area north of Old Country Road and east of NY
135, got a notice that their telephone number would be changing and
that they would be served by a new electronic office.  Lo, the people
rejoiced (almost) because the service from the three crossbar offices
in the area was deteriorating rapidly.  The number change was
upsetting, but since it was a mass change, it was accepted reasonably
well.

The telco said that they would try to maintain suffixes where
possible, but since people were being transferred into two exchanges
from six, it would not be possible.  My friends two numbers were
changed as follows:

    XXX-6061 -> AAA-0661
    YYY-6435 -> AAA-7435

So they got them almost right.  The result was that the people
transferred OUT of the existing exchanges got ESS telephone service
(with custom calling features) and the capacity was opened up on the
existing exchanges for other customers located closer to the old CO's.

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

Subject: Musical Chairs in the Long Distance Business
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 23:57:25 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


{Newsbytes} reports that Williams Telecommunications, which is a large
but low-profile player in the private network business, is getting
into retail long distance.

After Telesphere died, their assets ended up with Ronald Hahn who used
to be the chairman of NTS, an AOS that Telesphere tried to buy last
year.  Telesphere is buying Telesphere's customer accounts from him.

WilTel has been seeing a lot of competition from the big three who are
offering package deals with private networks or VPNs, MTS, and 800 all
at one price (boy, that's a lot of acronyms.)  WilTel needs the MTS
and 800 from Telesphere to be able to provide competitive packages.

Williams' parent is a big rich gas pipeline company so they can put a
whole lot more capital into the business than Telesphere ever could.
They seem to have no interest in the 900 business, fortunately.


Regards,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #923
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04112;
          13 Nov 91 4:22 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18599
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:48:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18487
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:48:03 -0600
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:48:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #924

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 Nov 91 02:47:59 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 924

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Future of Printed Books (John Higdon)
    Re: The Future of Printed Books (Glenn F. Leavell)
    Re: Telemarketing Prevented (David E. Bernholdt)
    Re: Telemarketing Prevented (Marcus Adams)
    Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Connection Between Digital Phone and Answering Machine (Paul Cook)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 00:59 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books


On Nov 11 at  0:26, TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: Not everyone here would agree with you, but I do.
> For all that was wrong with the old Bell System, we still had the best
> phone system in the world, bar none. That is now very questionable.
> Yes, we have all kinds of new technological gimmicks on the phone we
> did not have years ago, but the network itself has gone to hell in a
> handbasket, and the old-time enthusiasm and dedication to quality of
> service is mostly missing.  PAT]

Will you give us some examples if I go first and give some evidence to
the contrary?

Item: Even before the crossbar was cut to 5ESS, it seemed to be
generally more reliable and better maintained than anytime before
divestiture.

Item: Trouble calls always result in a follow up from a switchman or
plant trouble desk within hours and sometimes within minutes. The
people actually talk cases and technical details. Problems are fixed
FAST. And the customer is not treated as though he has no business
knowing the inner workings of the phone company.

Item: Priority repair (something that has come about since divestiture)
is truly amazing. On SUNDAY, they will fix almost any problem within an
hour.

Item: New service orders and additions are handled in hours, not days
and weeks.

Item: Ten years ago, a call to San Francisco took a few seconds to
complete and sounded as though you were talking through a barrel.
Today, the call is completed instanteously and sounds as though it is
in the same switch. In adjusted dollars, it also costs less.

Item: Calls across the continent also complete quickly, reliably, and
sound local.

Item: In adjusted dollars, my local service costs me less than it did
in 1967.

Item: In actual dollars, my long distance bill is MUCH LESS than it was
for the same usage in 1967. In adjusted dollars, we are not even in the
same ball park.

Item: All in all, my local service (16 residential lines) is
completely reliable. There has been no trouble with switch or cable in
years.  Oops, I take that back. A few months ago, I had a noisy pair
which I reported on a Saturday. Within a couple of hours a man showed
up, confirmed the bad pair. He determined that spare pairs were not
plentiful but spent the entire afternoon working on it. He found a
pair that had been removed from service because of a fault, but that
the problem was beyond my residence. So he cut off the problem section
and moved my line over to the remaining section between my house and
the CO. Now what was that about old-time enthusiasm and dedication to
quality of service?

BTW, a similar problem that happened in the seventies took more than a
week to fix. The repair person quipped that it was hardly an emergency
because after all I did have three other (at that time) lines.

There you are. Now perhaps you could give some example of how it has
all gone to hell in a handbasket. Give me now versus then any day of
the week.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn F. Leavell)
Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 21:29:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(USENET News System) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Curtis Yarvin)
> writes:

>> infrastructure had been pretty much dead in the water; the phone
>> companies weren`t allowed to do it, because they would be competing
>> unfairly with the cable companies; the cable companies weren't allowed
>> to do it, for fear that they would compete unfairly with the phone
>> companies.  Sigh.  Capitalism is such a wonderful thing :-)

> I hope you're not implying that you think that THIS is
> Capitalism.  Capitalism would be a great thing. If the government,
> bless its grasping and meddling little ways, would GET THE **** OUT OF
> THE WAY.

> When Ma Bell WAS a monopoly, I had better, cheaper service. I
> now have worse service. Thank you, O mighty Government, for saving me
> from something that was working just fine.

Of course, it is debatable whether or not the phone system is better
or worse now than it was before the breakup.  But, you seem to be
arguing two different points here.  On the one hand you ask the
government to stay out of things, but on the other you say that things
were better when the government was interfering by allowing the Bell
System to remain a monopoly.  Though, I guess it is also debatable
whether the Bell System would have remained a monopoly without ANY
government intervention.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (David E. Bernholdt)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented
Date: 12 Nov 91 18:06:26 GMT
Organization: Quantum Theory Project, University of Florida


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

> How does the PUC deal with such complaints?

> [Moderator's Note: The answer to that is very simple: They don't deal
> with the complaints either; not at least until there are a large
> number of them. Then they begin an inquiry.  PAT]

I just made a few phone calls to Tallahasse.  In Florida, such
complaints are handled not by the PSC (Public Service Commission) but
by the Dept. of Consumer Services.  They _say_ that if I file a
complaint with them (which requires the name and address of the
offending firm -- not always simple to obtain) it wil be followed up
by contacting the offender and informing them of the relevant laws.
Then if they don't desist, Consumer Services is "legally empowered" to
prosecute them.  Of course they won't guarantee that they'll take
legal action ...

Next time I get an automated telemarketing call (and every few months
I do), I may see if they're true to their word.  On the other hand,
I'm not sure its worth the effort.


David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcus Adams)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented
Date: 12 Nov 91 20:00:30 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Being unfamiliar with the entirety of these laws, is it illegal to
attempt to sell something with a phone call that begins with a
recording, or is it *any* phone call that begins with a recording?

I get at least one phone call a week that starts off "We have an
important message for you. Please hold for a customer service agent."

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 16:15:24 GMT


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

> Further, someone with such a right of way

[note - referring to railroad]

> could either lease it to a telecommunications company to string
> fiber, or could put up its own point to point fiber, selling 150 Mbps
> or so links on a point to point basis.

I know of at least one company that does this, although the name
currently escapes me and I can't recall the details of the ownership
arrangements -- a subsidiary or corporation in which Amtrak holds an
interest uses the Amtrak Northeast Corridor right-of-way (Boston to
Washington) to provide fiber-optic service.

> Those buying use of those links would typically be telcos.  I
> don't see the need for every long distance carrier to market directly
> to the consumer.  Market to the telephone companies.  If the railroad
> can provide a high speed link from here to there for less than anyone
> else (including the telco, who also has to pay right of way or
> microwave relay site fees, and, perhaps, someday, spectrum fees), the
> telco should buy the use of the link from them.

Actually, there are a lot of companies that do this, but the typical
consumer has (for obvious reasons) never heard of them.  Williams
Telecommunications (WilTel) started this way, although they're
beginning to market more private line services to business users;
Cable & Wireless primarily operates this way in the US; LightNet was
this kind of "carrier's carrier" (although something in the back of my
mind tells me that LightNet no longer exists as its own company --
bought out/merged with Sprint, I think?)  There are a host of others,
some regional, some national.


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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 11:56:15 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
nasa.gov (David Cornutt) writes:

> Thanks for an interesting article, Al.  Now let me ask you a question
> about cutover.  I'm looking at a flyer from Tekelec ...  they call
> the Cutover Device.  From the description of it, and my limited
> knowledge, I take it that it's intended for cutting over toll
> switches.

> It appears to be a device with which two switches can be connected to
> an SS7 net so that they appear to be one device.  On command,
> apparently it starts routing call setup requests to the new switch,
> while still handling messages concerning existing traffic to/from the
> switch which is being cut over.  I assume that it keeps track of
> remaining calls on the old switch and notifies the operator when all
> traffic has been cut over.  Is this an accurate summary?  Am I correct
> in the assumption that it is only for toll switches, or can it be used
> for COs too?  (And if so, how are the individual pairs cut over?  Come
> to think of it, when all the analog systems are gone, presumably there
> won't be any pairs coming directly to the switch, just trunks.  At
> that point, will you even need a device like this any more?)

   From my limited understanding of Tekelec's SS7 device, it serves as
a router of incoming Trunk Signaling (actually ISUP) SS7 messages,
while perhaps intercepting inappropriate outgoing messages.  It plays
no role in the physical cut-over of trunks, and is not involved in
lines at all.

   To understand the need for this device, one has to understand the
routing of ISUP SS7 messages to individual switches.  The SS7 packet
protocol essentially identifies a trunk/circuit with a far-end Point
Code (PC, 24 bits) and a Circuit Identification Code (CIC, 14 bits).
Since the SS7 protocol was not designed with network re-arrangements
in mind, only one node (switch) can be associated with a Point Code.

   So now the problem with cut-over is that either the new switch has
to assume the PC of the old switch (Tekelec's box supports this) or
one has to "flash cut" some trunks at every connecting switch to the
different PC of the new switch.  The first method is much easier at
cut-over time. Before cut-over, one would like to move trunks in small
groups to the new switch, test them, then move them back.  With SS7,
this is difficult if the switch is "assuming" the original Point Code
because there is no easy way to connect the new switch to the SS7
network (with the new Point Code) and still allow most traffic through
the old switch.

   The box (I'm guessing here) must connect into the signalling links
coming into both the old and new switches, allowing both to have the
same PC.  All outgoing traffic from the new switch would be blocked.
Then a small number of PC/CIC identifiers are marked "under test", the
corresponding trunks are blocked from traffic, allowing the trunks to
be moved and tested.  In this mode, the box would "re-route" ISUP
messages for specific trunks to/from the new switch.  At cut-over, I
don't see the box providing any traffic re-routing; it probably just
sends everything to the new switch.  (After all, at cut-over, all the
trunks are typically reconnected to the new switch.  There are few
cases anymore where duplicate trunks are provisioned, allowing calls
to terminate normally.)

   A similar mechanism is available from AT&T when the old switch is a
1A ESS(tm) switch and the new one is a 5ESS(reg) switch.  No special
hardware is involved, and coordination of test trunks is not as
critical.  There is even some interest in the Standards groups for a
non-proprietary solution, but don't look for anything soon ...


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL; Above info. is my own opinion.

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

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 18:32 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Connection Between Digital Phone and Answering Machine


[e-mail] writes:

> Some time ago, someone was trying sell information on how to make an
> interface to connect a regular answering machine to digital phone.
> If someone could help me on that, I would appreciate it. It should
> not be too hard to make it but I am not an EE.

Not too hard?  I assume that you are talking about connecting an
answering machine or any other standard telephone device to a station
port on an electronic key system.

The problem is that there is no one standard for all these systems.

They generally have an analog pair for the voice path, and another
pair that carries digital information between the telephone instrument
and the KSU (the central device that connects between the outside
telephone lines and the telephones).  This digital information
includes things like hookswitch status, ringing, and even dialing.
Every manufacturing has their own standard for the signalling over
this digital pair.

Our company used to manufacture a device called the 46225 Single Line
Interface for Electronic Key.  It turned one of these two pair KSU
connections into a standard two wire RJ-11 jack with standard 48 vdc
and 20 Hz ringing, but it was only programmable for the Tie EK612 and
Modkey 16, and the Premier 1A3.  It had to be programmed by the user
for one of these three systems only, had a microprocessor, ring
generator and 48 volt supply inside, and at $325 per line was not too
popular.  We used to get calls from folks who had installed one of
these three key systems at some mansion, and now needed to add a
cordless phone for the tennis court or the pool.

We no longer manufacture this unit.  Maybe some surplus dealer has
one, but it is only good for those three key systems.

There is another possible solution, if you are using Tie products.
Some of the Tie key systems use the Tie SLU card or Single Line Card.
You can connect the Proctor 46222 Long Loop Adaptor to the SLU to
generate standard tip and ring voltage.

The best solution is to contact the manufacturer of the key system,
and find out what they recommend for connecting their system to voice
mail.  Voice mail/auto-attendant applications use the same standard
two wire connection as an answering machine, and the manufacturer is
used to answering this particular question, because of the increased
popularity of these systems over the past few years.

For many systems, the manufacturer has no solution.  But this is
changing, mostly because of voice mail requirements.


Paul Cook                206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates     MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.        fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #924
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13397;
          14 Nov 91 1:40 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20733
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:03:59 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02585
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:03:48 -0600
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:03:48 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Issue 921 apparently lost, coming out again


The next mailing you will receive from telecom is a retransmission of
issue 921 ... it was in transit when all the troubles started here
yesterday with the mailer. Enough people have said they did not recieve
it that it seems apparent it fell in a black hole somewhere.


Patrick Townson










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13565;
          14 Nov 91 1:48 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18879
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:05:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00523
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:05:17 -0600
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:05:17 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #921


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 12 Nov 91 21:58:28 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 921

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    You Can Help Build the National Public Network (Gerard Van der Leun)
    San Francisco Examiner Telecom Editorial (Seth I. Robson)
    BIX and Genie Come to the Internet (J. Philip Miller)
    AT&T Long Distance Repair Service (Mike Olson)
    Personal 800 Service Plans (Greg Paris)
    Inquiry For Information on Telecommuting (Janet Dixon)
    Free USA Today Number Cancelled (Robert Virzi)
    Limited Bandwidth PBX? (Alan Gilbertson)
    Fiber Optic Component Drafting Standards (Jeff Brown)
    AT&T Billing SNAFU (Jack Dominey)
    AT&T Mail Minimum Charge (Toby Nixon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 21:24:58 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Gerard Van der Leun)
Subject: You Can Help Build the National Public Network. Here's How.


  THE NATIONAL PUBLIC NETWORK BEGINS NOW. YOU CAN HELP BUILD IT.

Telecommunications in the United States is at a crossroads.  With the
Regional Bell Operating Companies now free to provide content, the
shape of the information networking is about to be irrevocably
altered.  But will that network be the open, accessible, affordable
network that the American public needs?  You can help decide this
question.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently presented a plan to
Congress calling for the immediate deployment of a national network
based on existing ISDN technology, accessible to anyone with a
telephone connection, and priced like local voice service.  We believe
deployment of such a platform will spur the development of innovative
new information services, and maximize freedom, competitiveness, and
civil liberties throughout the nation.

The EFF is testifying before Congress and the FCC; making
presentations to public utility commisions from Massachusetts to
California; and meeting with representatives from telephone companies,
publishers, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders in the
telecommunications policy debate.

The EFF believes that participants on the Internet, as pioneers on the
electronic frontier, need to have their voices heard at this critical
moment.

To automatically receive a description of the platform and details,
send mail to [e-mail], with the following line:

send documents open-platform-overview

or send mail to [e-mail].

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 23:09:04 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Seth I. Robson)
Subject: San Francisco Examiner Telecom Editorial


The {San Francisco Examiner} ran an editorial regarding a thread that
has been discussed here for some time now, that of RBOCs attempting to
sell their own information services.

 From the {San Francisco Examiner}; 10 November, 1991

[ begin quoted text. ]

"Baby Bells' Big Brother act" [ nice title... ]

Since the breakup of AT&T in 1984, the resultant nine regional Bell
companies have been barred by the courts from entering certain
businesses where their monopoly power over local telephone networks
could be abused.  Their efforts to shake off such restrains have been
rewarded in recent months with judicial rulings allowing them to sell
information services, such as news and electronic advertising.

With their monopoly control over the phone lines by which such
services are delivered, the Bells are being handed an enormous
advantage over competitors in the information field who do not own
telephone companies.  Legislation pending in Congress would backtrack
partly on that and curb the Bell companies' ability to purvey the
content of phone lines as well their [sic] use as "common carriers."
The bill, HR3515, should be passed to permit fair competition and
protect the public from the consequences of monopoly power.

This newspaper and others have a self-interest in the issue.  We are
among information-oriented businesses exploring possibilities in
telecommunications.  Newspapers also have an obvious stake in their
share of the advertising dollar.  But several other kinds of
enterprises seek to offer competitive electronic information services,
and all must use phone lines.

The Bell companies should not be allowed monopolistic control of
competitors' phone links -- including the conditions and timing of
techno- logical innovations.  Their privileged access to everyone's
home and business gives them the sheer power to dominate the field.

The phone companies are needed to provide local phone service, which
guarantees them fair profits from captive customers.  Their monopolies
should not be allowed to gobble up competitors in other businesses.
Members of Congress should stand up to the Bells' blatant pressuring
and pass the Telecommunications Act of 1991.

[ end quoted text. ]

Anyone who wishes to reply directly to the {Examiner} should write to:

Letters to the Editor
San Francisco Examiner
P.O. Box 7260
San Francisco, CA 94120

Their editorial department also has a fax number: [phone].

Otherwise, flame away. :-)


Seth I. Robson; [e-mail]  [e-mail]
Immediate Media Company; Redwood City, CA.

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Philip Miller)
Subject: BIX and Genie Come to the Internet
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 8:50:05 CST


In the November issue of {UnixWorld} in an article "E-mail Beyond
UNIX" by Art Campbell, a sidebar indicates that both BIX and Genie
will be connected to the Internet "by the end of the year."  Given the
number of prior postings on this topic, I am certain it will be
welcomed by many users of these services and will provide yet another
method of gaining Interent mail services for those without direct
connections.

Prodigy, of course, indicated that they have no intention of
connecting.


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet


[Moderator's Note: Oh gosh, let's all get down on our knees and beg
Prodigy to change their corporate mind and be one with us.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Olson)
Subject: AT&T Long Distance Repair Service
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 09:09:14 PST


I've been having trouble calling a number in Puerto Rico from Cali-
fornia, so I called AT&T long distance repair (AT&T is my carrier).
The woman I spoke to was courteous and I have no complaints about the
service.  I do have a question, though: why did they want my home
address for the trouble report?  The clerk told me she was "just
filling in the blanks on the form."  Since AT&T already knows who I
am, I didn't get indignant about it.  I'm curious, though.  Any ideas?


Mike Olson    UC Berkeley

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

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 12:24:45 -0500
From: Greg Paris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Personal 800 Service Plans


Hopefully this hasn't been covered in the Digest recently (I don't
have access to the archives), but I'm interested in finding out about
what "personal" 800 number plans are available.  I can call AT&T, MCI
and Sprint to find out what they offer, but from reading the Digest it
seems that some of you have your 800 service through other providers
who I wouldn't know to call.

If you've already done the "legwork" on this, any info you can share
would be sincerely appreciated.  The questions I'm most interested in
answers to are whether I have to change my default LD carrier (AT&T
now) on the line to get 800 service, what kind of discount I would get
on outgoing LD calls, and of course, what the installation fee,
monthly service fee, and rates on incoming calls are.  Horror stories
about service problems are welcome.

Thanks.


Greg Paris <[e-mail]>
Motorola Codex, Software Environment Group, [phone]

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

Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1991 10:07:59 PST
From: Janet Dixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inquiry For Information on Telecommuting


Needed for a doctoral dissertation:

A student at Golden Gate University is doing a doctoral dissertation
in Business on Telecommuting and would like information on what it
takes to successfully supervise telecommuters.

If you work in California, have supervised telecommuters for at least
six months (and at least 1/4 of your staff work from home an average
of one day or more per week, and would be willing to be interviewed
for the study, please call doctoral student Lauren Speeth at (510)
675-3747 (work) or [phone] (home).  Results from the one hour
interview, which includes a standardized psychological test, will be
kept confidential.  General study conclusions will be shared with all
participants.

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Virzi)
Subject: Free USA Today Number Cancelled
Date: 12 Nov 91 20:54:10 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated, Waltham MA


As of today, the {USA Today} information service available by calling
800.555.5555 has been discontinued.  Apparently that was some sort of
reserved number, although I don't know who exactly it was reserved
for.  When I finally got through to the Information Systems
Department, the man I spoke to was p*ssed.  He actually didn't know
that the number had been disabled when I called, and he began the
conversation by telling me not to call the free number anymore, just
the 900 number.  When I told him that 800 access had been discontinued,
he seemed audibly relieved.

He affirmed that I had incurred no charges, and restated that I should
use the 900 number in the future.  He wouldn't give details, and
declined to tell me what the new 800 number was. ;-]

I'd sure like to hear about it if anyone stumbles across another gold
mine like this one in the future.


Bob Virzi    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The man had good reason to be angry, since the 800
version was a programming error which slipped through the cracks at
some point and took all this time to locate and purge. There was never
to have been an 800 number to begin with from what I am told.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Alan Gilbertson)
Subject: Limited Bandwidth PBX?
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 18:32:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/230 - CSFSO Telecomm, Clearwater FL


It is not very real.  I responded to this particular post in the
comp.dcom.modems newsgroup, but perhaps some of it bears repeating
here.

Modern digital PBXes made by such manufacturers as AT&T (S75/85, G1.x,
G2), NEC (2400 IMS), Hitachi (HCX series, DX series), Siemens, et al.,
use 64 kbps PCM internally.  This is more than sufficient bandwidth
and phase information for V.32bis connections to operate correctly.

At one site I manage, I have a (digital) PBX that has no DS1
capability, so I send the output into analog line cards on a small
AT&T S75XE.  From there, the calls go out on T1 lines to either AT&T
or MCI.

A modem signal from the main PBX begins life as an analog signal
output from the modem, is converted to digital form at the line card,
travels through the PBX as a PCM-encoded digital signal, is converted
to analog at a trunk card, is reconverted to PCM digital form by the
S75 line circuit codec, and goes from there in digital form to the
outside world.  This tandem arrangemnt is clean enough that I have
never seen a problem with any modems connecting through it.  In fact,
some comparisons of throughput definitely give it the edge over local
central office connections on ordinary 1FB business lines.

In general, I don't know of any digital PBX equipment designed or
marketed in the last ten years or so that can't handle a V.32 or
V.32bis modulation.  This is NOT to say they don't exist, but I
haven't come across any personally.


Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!230!Alan.Gilbertson
Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Brown)
Subject: Fiber Optic Component Drafting Standards
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center / Cleveland, Ohio
Date: 12 Nov 1991 16:29 EDT


Are there any established drafting standards for fiber optic systems?
We're just starting to use fiber and would like to follow accepted
practices if they exist.  Thanks.


Jeff Brown     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue Nov 12 09:08:24 EST 1991
Subject: AT&T Billing SNAFU


Through issue #911, I've seen one or two references to the recent
hoopla over AT&T billing for Reach Out plan charges after a customer
switches to a different carrier.  Since at least one person seemed to
have misunderstood the situation, I'd like to take a stab at
clarifying things.

Everything that follows is my own understanding, based on AT&T
intra-company news and clippings from general news sources.

The situation: A customer subscribes to a Reach Out plan, with a
monthly charge of say, $8 per month.  Later the customer changes LD
carriers.  AT&T still bills the customer that $8, sometimes for many
months.

The misunderstanding: Some people seem to have the notion that AT&T
has refused the customer's request to stop the billing plan.  In fact,
no direct request was ever made.  If a customer calls AT&T and says,
"Discontinue my Reach Out plan," then billing stops.

The real problem: The customer's request to switch is either made
directly to the local company, or through the other carrier.  AT&T
apparently gets notified of these switches, but has not treated them
as requests to shut off Reach Out plans.  A correction is apparently
in the works.


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

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Mail Minimum Charge
Date: 12 Nov 91 13:05:33 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


I called the 800-242-6005 number for information on AT&T Mail's new
rate structure.  They sent me a two-page letter (probably the same
thing other folks have received), and, indeed, I can see the $25
"Monthly Usage Minimum" listed under "Core Services".

There are about three dozen members of TIA TR-30 (the US modem
standards committee) that have been using AT&T Mail to communicate
amongst ourselves (few of the committee members have any other email
service available).  At $300 per year, that comes out to about $10,000
we'd be paying AT&T Mail.  Kind of ridiculous when you understand that
we only send, all together, about 5 messages per month to each other.
At that rate, we could buy a very nice computer, some excellent BBS
software, several phone lines, and set up our own private BBS -- we'd
even get the modems for free.  In fact, we could do all of this for
under $1000, and even paying a couple of hundred dollars a month for
phone lines, we'd end up saving a LOT of money.

But why bother with all that trouble, when we can all get on
CompuServe, which has a monthly minimum of just $2?  Methinks AT&T
Mail has shot their feet full of holes with this, as far as individual
users are concerned.

Please assume their is a "cancellation pending" next to my AT&T Mail
address below.


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: Or alternatively, start a mailing list here on the
Internet with a common address for everyone to write to which will
then send the mail around to everyone. Thus far everyone I've talked
to is dropping out of AT&T Mail over the next month or two, and that
includes myself. I'm sorry to leave them, but $25 per month is not
very nice when my usual bill is $3-4 per month.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #921
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15348;
          14 Nov 91 2:48 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05120
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 01:04:19 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11299
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 01:04:05 -0600
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 01:04:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #925

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Nov 91 01:04:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 925

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Last Week at the FCC 10/28 - 11/1 ([e-mail])
    AT&T Definity Plays Dial Tone While Forwarding (Andrew Klossner)
    Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Ken Sprouse)
    5ESS and Music on Hold (Philip Reese)
    Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Bill Gripp)
    Call Waiting on the 5ESS (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Karl N6BVU)
Date: 13 Nov 91  11:05:21
Subject: Last Week at the FCC 10/28 - 11/1


The following were part of the actions taken by the Federal
Communications Commission during the week of 10/28 - 11/1, 1991.

ON OCTOBER 28th....

 The FCC issued a Public Notice giving Results of Sample Testing of 49
MHz Walkie-Talkies; Contact Hugh L. Van Tuyl at [phone],
extension 221.

 The FCC issued a Public Notice listing 13 Petitions for Rulemaking
Filed; some of them are as follows:

RM#  Rule Sect.  Petitioner         Nature of Petition
7837 90.173      Assoc for Private  Request Amendment of the FCC's
                 Paging Section of  Rules & Regulations Concerning
                 NABER              Shared Use of Paging Freq's.
7838 80          U.S.C.G. Maritime  Request Amendment of the FCC's
                 Radio & Spectrum   Rules to Phase out the
                 Management Div.    Authorization for Class C EPIRBs
7839 94.17(a)(1) Motorola, Inc.     Request Amendment of the FCC's
                                    Rules to allow Federal Access
                                    to Low Power 18 GHz Pvt Systems
7849 97.113(d)(e)Michael Reynolds   Request Amendment of the FCC's
                 W0KIE              Rules Governing the Amateur
                 3826 S 92 E Place  Radio Service & Prohibited
                 Tulsa, OK 74145    Transmissions.

 The FCC issued a two page TEXT on FM Booster Stations. The Commission
has amended its rules governing operation of FM booster stations by
codifying the limitations imposed on FM booster stations by existing
international agreements. The Commission also defined the standards to
which FM booster stations must conform to prevent increased
interference to stations that are 53 or 54 channels removed from the
booster station. By Order (FCC 91-317) adopted October 8.

 The FCC issued a 200 page TEXT on AM Broadcast Services. The FCC has
concluded an important phase of its long-term program designed to
transform and revitalize the AM broadcast service. Numerous revisions
and adjustments, both major and minor, to the existing AM rules and
policies have been adopted. MM Docket 87-267 by R&O (FCC 91-303)
adopted September 26.

 The FCC issued a five page TEXT on Personal Communications Services.
Adopted Policy Statement that provides preliminary guidance for the
development of PCS in the United States; scheduled En Banc hearing for
December five on the development of PCS. General Docket 90-314 by
Policy Statement and Order (FCC 91-338) adopted October 24.

ON OCTOBER 28th....

 The FCC issued a 54 page TEXT on Wireless Cable and ITFS Rules.  In
response to several petitions for reconsideration of the FCC's Report
and Order (of October 26, 1990) which facilitated the provision of
"wireless cable" service to the public, the FCC has modified and
clarified some of that report's provisions.  General Dockets 90-54 and
80-113 by Order on Reconsideration (FCC 91-301) adopted September 26.

ON OCTOBER 29th....

 The FCC issued a one page TEXT on In-Flight Phone Vs. GTE Airfone.
Granted motion by In-Flight and terminated proceeding concerning
In-Flight's complaint against GTE alleging that GTE violated its
experimental radio license for air-to-ground service by offering a
Business Calling Card Program to airline passengers. By Order, (DA
91-1324) adopted October 21.

ON OCTOBER 31st....

 The FCC issued a News Release about a Pirate Radio Broadcast Station
Closed Down in Colorado. Contact: Joe Di Scipio or Bob Weller at (303)
969-6497.

 The FCC issued a three page TEXT on Low-Power Mobile. Proposed
amending Part 90 to increase the number of frequencies in the 72-76
MHz band for low-power mobile use. PR Docket 91-295 by NPRM (FCC
91-315) adopted October 3.

 The FCC issued a Public Notice that the 1992 Maximum Reimbursement
Fee for an Amateur Operator License Examination ($5.44) **See separate
posting***.

ON NOVEMBER 1st....

 The FCC issued a News Release, Ordering Dismantlement of a Radio
Tower Located in Manchester, Tennessee. Ordered David Stiles, owner of
a radio tower located in Manchester, TN., to dismantle the tower
because it constitutes a hazard to air navigation as determined by the
FAA. Action by the FCC by Order (FCC 91-343) on October 28.  For
information, contact: Wayne T. McKee at [phone].


 * Origin: The Master's BBS Garden Grove, CA. 1:103/102 (1:103/102)
via "MDF" Central Texas Gateway - f39.n382.z1.fidonet.org   mdf.fidonet.org

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: AT&T Definity Plays Dial Tone While Forwarding
Date: 13 Nov 91 22:34:46 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


My employer just installed an "AT&T Definity G2" phone system.  When I
leave my desk, I instruct it to forward my calls to my cellular
number.  But when the system does this, it plays half a second of dial
tone to the calling party, which as often as not misleads them into
thinking the call has dropped and they hang up.

I've complained to the corporate authorities, who don't seem to know
much about the system but they promise to look into it.

Is this an immutable characteristic of this system?


  -=- Andrew Klossner  ([e-mail])
                       (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)

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

Subject: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone
Date: 13 Nov 91 13:16:50 EDT (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (Ken Sprouse)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:

> So, a telemarketer who calls ten people who are not interested is
> equivalent to ten calls to one person who is not interested?

> [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]

  ---stuff deleted---

>> The main advantage to me is that while both, in accordance with
>> Murphy's law, call while I'm in the shower, the phreak doesn't take up
>> my time with a sales pitch.

>>> [Moderator's Note: The phreak intends to steal something from you if
>>> possible; ie your computing and telecom resources. The telemarketer
>>> wishes to sell you something if possible. There is legally and
>>> otherwise a difference between selling you something and stealing from
>>> you.  PAT]

Pat,

I have a real problem with the idea that the intent of the caller makes it
all right for him/her/it to call and ring my phone when they please.
Consider the following.  There are a large number of open bulletin boards
in my area.  Many of them maintain a list of other boards in town.  Often
times these lists are out of date or have inaccurate information in them.
I decide that I will create and maintain an up to date list for my own use
and if there is a demand I may even offer this information for a small fee
on a subscription basis.

Now to do this once a month I turn lose my modem with a "war games"
style program to call every number in an exchange and check for ones
that have modem tone.  I even write some code to record the responses
of the ones that do and from that list verify the systems that are
open to the public and invite unsolicited callers.  Taking it one step
further I track all of the numbers that are modems but are closed
systems and I exclude them from my monthly dialing expedition.

I don't do this for voice numbers (even if I can determine that a
human answered) because tomorrow that person may decide to put a bbs
on line, or they may move and give up the number which gets reassigned
to a bbs.  Now if a person doesn't want to be bothered with these
calls all they have to do is give me a call and I'll be glad to add
them to the dialer's exception list.  And should my program become
popular and I sell it to some other folks I'll form a BBS Search
Association where people who don't want to be bothered with these
calls can register there name on a list that is distributed to others
in my business.  I won't even charge them for this service :-).  Now I
think this is every bit as legitimate a business reason for me to be
ringing people's phones as an automated telemarketer.

What a load of horse manure!  No one should be allowed to dial numbers
at random for the purpose of soliciting or selling period!  And I
don't care if its a human or a machine doing the dialing.  If these
people want to be in the business of soliciting/selling by way of the
telephone let them find a way to build a database of phone numbers of
people who have said that they don't mind being called on a random
basis for the purpose of hearing a sales pitch.  No I don't know how
they could go about building this database but that is their problem.

On second thought, how about this as one possible alternative --

All of the magazines I subscribe to make their mailing lists available
to companies for mass mailings of advertising literature.  All I have
to do is drop them a note and they take my name off the list.  When I
subscribe to telephone service the rep says "We make our subscribers
list available to mass marketing companies who offer products and or
services you may be interested in by phone.  May we include your name
and number on this list?"  The local phone company then sells its list
of people who say "yes" to the telemarketing crowd.  Yes I know this
is a far from perfect plan ripe with problems of its own but I would
prefer it 100% to what we have now.  Sorry to be so long winded on
this but these unsolicited phone calls really set me off.

By the way did anyone see ABC's Night Line program on Monday (11/11)
night talking about pending congressional action to limit automated
telemarketing?  I had no idea how cheaply one could get into the
business. (A machine demo'd on the show was < $2000.)


Ken Sprouse / N3IGW
[e-mail]       GEnie mail ksprouse     Compu$erve 70145,426


[Moderator's Note: Well, unsolicited calls from people looking for
modems on the line set me off. At least the telemarketers are trying
to earn a living selling things on the phone ... I'm the first to
agree I don't like sales calls, but I tell them 'no' and hang up the
phone. What, precisely, is the big deal?    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Philip Reese)
Subject: 5ESS and Music on Hold
Date: 14 Nov 91 05:33:45 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


I've been following the discussion of 5ESS noise or no noise.  Here at
USC the new 5ESS is very quiet.  It is so quiet it is hard to tell if
a connection has been made or not. More than once I've surprised
someone when I've come back from being on hold and started talking to
them.

We have a problem however.  Our new VMX voice mail system would be a
lot more friendly if we had music on hold.  While the VMX is doing its
thing the caller only hears dead silence.  The system tells the user
that they should wait during the silence but waiting time seems to be
magnified because of the silence.

The switch is not owned by AT&T but by the campus proper.  There are
interesting stories about that but lets leave that for another time.

My question to this group is how to get music on hold.  The local
telcom folks tell us in vague terms that there are a lot of technical
issues involved and financial issues as well.  Can anyone help me
understand why the state of the art switch would have this type of
problem?  Is it something simple like the whole campus would have to
listen to the same music or is it something more techincal.

Thanks for any help or ideas,


Phil Reese   University Computing Services
University of Southern California
213-740-2836   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?
Organization: The Bank of New York
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 15:21:02 GMT


Speaking of causing trouble for these jerks, is there any way to
generate the message you get when you call an out of service phone
number for a specific number (one that YOU can specify or call
from)?

I think it might make an effective "filter" for telemarketers if my
answering machine responded with the recording ...


   The number you have reached
       1 2 3 4 5 6 7
       is not in service.
   No furthur information is available on
       1 2 3 4 5 6 7.


Of course it would have to sound right to be effective, hence my
inquiry.  Is there a way to get Bell to "give" me this message, short
of calling a new number before it is connected and recording the
message?

Those in the "know" would know to wait for the beep and leave a
message.  Those darned telemarketers would no doubt hangup as soon as
they heard that the number "ain't alive". =8^) Heh, heh, heh.


[Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort
some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What
is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words
from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up? Oh, I see, you
are such a busy person, such a dillitante, so important and full of
yourself that you'd rather go through all these layers of subtrefuge
inconveniencing all your legitimate callers just so itzy-poo you
doesn't have to lower himself to answer the phone and hear something
you don't want to listen to. To answer your question -- no, telco will
not 'give' you their recordings, and will strongly discourage you from
answering your phone with a misleading message about its connection
status. If you feel you must screen all calls, then use an answering
machine with a regular message and keep the volume so you can hear it
and pick up the phone when you want to talk.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 00:11 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Call Waiting on the 5ESS


I have just been informed by someone deep in Pac*Bell that there IS a
situation where the 5ESS will allow Call Waiting to a person who is
the center of a three-way call in progress. The telephone in question
must have the feature, "Call Hold" enabled. This is part of
Centrex-type services (Commstar, Starline, etc.). If your Call Waiting
is operated by hookflashing and then pressing *9, you will be able to
still receive calls while conducting a three-way call.

There are some ramifications here. The person who told me about this
was very annoyed that AT&T could not seem to keep its own standards
with the design of the 5ESS. The 1/1AESS switches (the ones that set
the Custom Calling standards) allow CW on 3W in all cases, not just on
those telephones equipped with Call Hold. The Pac*Bell person
indicated that up to now, most of the 5ESS cut have been from
featureless crossbar and that the people "were happy to get anything".

Now, some of the 1/1AESS switches are being retired and the customers
are going to be more than a little annoyed to find that features do
not work the same way, if at all. People who have been served by a
1ESS for twenty years will not be very impressed with the discovery
that things have changed for the worse. The Pac*Bell contact indicated
that he was going to be very active in calling for AT&T to get its act
together and honor its defacto standards of the past decades.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #925
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18371;
          14 Nov 91 4:33 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00978
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 02:51:08 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16244
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 02:50:57 -0600
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 02:50:57 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #926

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Nov 91 02:38:06 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 926

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Two Cellular Questions (Ron Dippold)
    Re: Two Cellular Questions (Marc T. Kaufman)
    Re: Two Cellular Questions (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
    Re: Customer Slammed, But Rips Off Sprint For $125 (Phil Ritzenthaler)
    Re: Phone Gateways? (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: Must New Second Line Use Same Class of Service as First (H Hallikainen)
    Re: Toll Restricted Local Service (Mark R. Jenkins)
    Re: Toll Restricted Local Service (Dan Hepner)
    Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Carl Moore)
    Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Scott Coleman)
    Old Area Code Splits (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 23:30:37 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> I have two questions:

> 1.  I have a Panasonic TP500 transportable.  It has a relay in it that
> clicks on whenever the unit is transmitting.  When the phone is just
> sitting there, it tends to transmit for about one oe two seconds every
> hour or so.  What is it transmitting?  Is the cellular switch polling
> it or is the phone taking it upon itself to transmit something?

It could be a couple things ... besides answers to page (call)
requests there are many quite a few different ways that the cell can
get the mobile to respond.  When the phone turns on or moves to a new
cell it recieves overhead information on a control channel.  It sits
there on the control channel and looks for anything that it needs to
respond to (including an incoming call).

Some of the overhead messages that could cause transmissions are
registration requests or rescan messages.  Since rescan isn't that
likely (this puts you back to initialization) unless something is up
with your phone, most likely what is happening is that the cell every
now and then decides to see who is still out there.  "Hello?"  And
your mobile sez "Here I am!"  There are at least four different
possible registrations, so it's hard to say exactly what any system is
doing.

In addition, a cellular system may implement custom operation using
the local control messages.  If your phone is programmed by them it
may respond to custom commands in any way they want.

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 13 Nov 91 16:19:55 GMT


There is a disadvantage to using twin cellular antennas, if you could
even find someone who would install them.  The purpose of twin CB
antennas was to concentrate the antenna pattern fore and aft along the
road, to the detriment of signal strength to the sides.  For maximum
effect, this required that the antennas be mounted approximately 1/4
wavelength apart, which is 7.5 feet -- thus making it useful for
trucks on long straight superhighways, but not for cars in town.

Cellular sites are most often to the sides of roads or up on mountains
or buildings.  It would be of no advantage to direct the signal energy
along the road.  In any event, you probably couldn't mount two
antennas accurately enough, since the cellular wavelength is of the
order of 1 foot, and a directional array would place the antennas 3"
apart (or an odd multiple of 3").

Placing the antenna in the center of the roof will give the most
uniform (in azimuth) coverage.  Center of the trunk is next best.  On
a fender is last on my list, because of the non-uniform ground plane
under the antenna.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions
Date: 13 Nov 91 19:05:03 GMT
Organization: University of Western Ontario


I also have a Panasonic EB-500 (or 2500 as it is the same beast).  It
is normal for it to xmit by itself occasionally.  It is normal for a
cell to interrogate a phone occasionally for whatever purposes.  As
far as putting two cellular antennas in phase, the law limits the
amount of gain you can have on your antenna (mobile that is..) and
secondly, Do you really want to put two cell antennae on your vehicle?
I hope this puts you mind at ease re: the phone xmitting without
reason.


[e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
The Western Business School BBS  --  London, Ontario

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Ritzenthaler)
Subject: Re: Customer Slammed, But Rips Off Sprint For $125 in Calls
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Advanced Computing Center for Arts & Design
References:  <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 15:06:59 GMT


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

>         But US Sprint insisted he had switched service.

> Eventually, Sprint sent Mr. Estep a copy of the form authorizing
> the switch to Sprint.  He said the handwriting was neither his nor his
> wife's -- and refused to pay any of the bill.  Sprint sent the bill to
> a collection agency.

>         She called Mr. Estep's experience "isolated and unusual"
> because Sprint's "strict policies" require authorized signatures and
> the customer's request before establishing service.

Excuse my language, but BS!!  This is NOT an isolated incident.  OK,
here's my story:

I received a phone call from Sprint's collection operators wondering
why I haven't paid my bill ... since I had had ATT (with Reach Out
America), I replied what bill?

To make a long story short, some jerk had gotten a Sprint Fon Card and
used my phone number and had racked up an "interesting" bill.  After
several calls to Sprint's investigative unit in Kansas (No, I am not
him, no that isn't my address) Sprint was kind enough to send me a
check to reimburse me for the changeover and looking over the bill, I
paid my fair share for calls I made ...

This was nine months ago ... since then I have received at least one
call every two months from Sprint asking for this jerk and requesting I
pay the bill!!

This is frustrating and I'm REALLY PISSED OFF!!  I have asked SEVERAL
TIMES to have ALL TRACES of my phone number removed from his account,
but I still get these damn phone calls!!  What do I have to do, change
my phone number??  If I do that, can Sprint trace the change ... even
if it's unlisted?


Phil Ritzenthaler  The Advanced Computing Center for the Arts & Design (ACCAD)
Systems Manager    The Ohio State University
                   UUCP: ...!{pyramid,killer}!grumpy.cgrg.ohio-state.edu!phil
[phone]     ARPA: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Yes they can get your number even if it is non-pub.
The rules are local telcos must exchange name and address information
with long distance carriers for billing purposes, regardless of
whether the number is otherwise published or not.

Sprint got a check for $10,000 from our firm and misapplied it. The
back of the check was totally illegible with bank/Sprint stamps, and
their microfilm was apparently illegible or filmed out of order also.
So Sprint's solution was that *I* should pay again since none of them
had the nerve to go to the controller or chief financial officer to
get approval for a write off of that size. After six months of this,
Sprint decided to place me with an agency ... I called their attorney
and he got them to pull the account back from the agency and close it
with a letter to me saying our account was in good standing.  Never
be afraid to tell an attorney what you want done and why. Most of them
(but not all by any means) have better sense than their clients.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 11:50:54 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Phone Gateways?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


> What's the hardware like on the back end of a phone "Gateway"?  If I
> were a service provider, I'd ideally like something like an Ethernet
> connection that would support multiple logins, but the local US
> Westers weren't able to give me details.  They referred me to a guy in
> Omaha (where the US West gateway trial was held), but I haven't gotten
> ahold of him yet.

    This reminds me of the X.PC protocol supported by Xtalk Mk 4.
It allows you to use one modem and phone line to simultaneously talk
to 15 computers thru Tymnet using multiple sessions under Xtalk.
Seems real nice!  I haven't been able to get any information on the
data format.  Publisher of Xtalk won't release it.  I'd like to use
their packet format so our equipment could talk to multiple Xtalk
sessions over one data circuit.


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: Wed, 13 Nov 91 11:54:53 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Must New Second Line Use Same Class of Service as First?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


> Anticipating the need, eventually, for a second phone line to my
> abode, I queried my local BOC (SNET Co.) as to whether I could get
> "lifeline" measured service on a new line while retaining unlimited
> service on the old.

> Nope, I was told -- new line must have same class of service as old.

    Seems like they may have a legitimate concern on mixing some
types of service.  If you can afford two lines, they probably think
you don't need a "lifeline".  It is intended to provide the minimal
service to those who cannot afford more.


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark R. Jenkins 619.458.2794)
Subject: Re: Toll Restricted Local Service
Date: 13 Nov 91 09:09:45 PST
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(A.E.  Guadagno) writes:

> Is it legal for a telephone service provider to refuse access to the
> LATA if one does not wish to have long distance service?

[Moderator responded these lines existed for security reasons but
did not ever save any money.]

Ha.  I asked South Central Bell about not having long distance service
when I lived in Tenessee, about three years ago.  I didn't want long
distance service on my modem line which I only used to call into work,
locally.  I didn't want to pay the "Access Fee" for something I wasn't
going to be using.  I figured if I didn't have access, I wouldn't have
to pay the "Access Fee".  I was right.  However, I was politely told
that I would have to pay a "Blocking Fee" to block the long distance.
It was about the same as the "Access Fee".


Mark Jenkins <[e-mail]>  Science Applications
International Corporation   San Diego, CA   USA  [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 13:40:54 pst
From: Dan Hepner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll Restricted Local Service


> [Moderator's Note: You did not say what telco was involved, but any
> Bell company with an ESS switch can provide her with a local line on
> which all toll service (including via the operator) is denied.

A relative with a chronic telephone bill payment problem has a "no
toll service" line which is about as restrictive as one can imagine.
It's a US West phone. The phone cannot be used to make any toll call,
regardless of the proposed method of payment (_I_ couldn't call out
either with a valid telephone credit card, to charge to my home
number, or to call collect.)

Why this makes sense, other than perhaps as punishment for an
outstanding bill is beyond me.  It even seemed confusing to the
various operators (local and AT&T); they tried to put the call
through, but some switch somewhere always bounced it, with some
irrelevant sounding error message.

Suggestions as to how one might get around such restrictions (by
someone who pays for calls) are welcome.


Dan Hepner


[Moderator's Note: It makes sense if there are times when the phone is
left unattended and someone unauthorized could make a toll call either
by dialing direct or by passing phraud billing information to the
operator. There are no ways around this restriction because the
subscriber does not want to have calls of that sort made from the
phone they own and are paying the bill for.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 10:28:15 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences


Several years ago, the area which includes my office was shifted to a
new number series 301-278-6xxx , and then got a lot of wrong numbers
of this form:

intended -- extension 6abc
actually gotten -- extension 66ab

(The area code is now being changed from 301 to 410.)

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Coleman)
Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 18:26:26 GMT


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

> Several years ago, when I had a phone number with a repeat digit in it
> (-5885), I used to get a great many wrong numbers.
> Have others noticed this behavior?

YOU BET!! My phone number has not one but TWO repeated digits. This
appears to square the number of possible ways that people can misdial
phone numbers. I've received all sorts of wrong-number calls,
including some for the local cable company! It brings to mind the old
AT&T ad jingle about "second class phones." There appear to be a great
many second class phones out there ...

Earlier this week, I got a message on my answering machine from a
nearby Allstate office. The lady said she was returning my call (which
I never made). I shrugged it off as just another wrong number.
Yesterday, I got another message from the same Allstate office, trying
again to return my call! I'll say one thing for the switchbounce in
the phones at that Allstate office: their bounces are certainly
consistent! ;-)

I haven't considered changing my phone number since the cost to do so
exceeds the "cost" of a few wrong number calls.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 11:29:35 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Old Area Code Splits


Early splits for which no date appears may not have been announced
publicly due to lack of direct-dial facility at the time, and can only
be guessed at with the following guidelines:

If an areacode is of form N1X, it is in a state or province with more
than one areacode. (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.)
If an areacode is in a state or province with only one areacode, it is
of form N0X.  (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.)

For the last two splits in the list below, there was a note in the
TELECOM Digest.  For the others, I have no documentation and can only
rely on the notes above.

what?/209 California
what?/707 California
what?/805 California
305/813 Florida
404/912 Georgia
what?/309 Illinois
502/606 Kentucky
504/318 Louisiana
what?/906 Michigan
612/507 Minnesota
402/308 Nebraska
what?/607 New York
704/919 North Carolina
405/918 Oklahoma
what?/806 Texas
206/509 Washington
what?/705 Ontario
what?/807 Ontario
what?/608 Wisconsin
901/615 Teennessee
201/609 New Jersey, late 1950s
415/408 California, 1960

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #926
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01747;
          14 Nov 91 12:41 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05025
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 10:32:27 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06822
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 10:32:09 -0600
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 10:32:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #927

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Nov 91 10:32:03 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 927

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Call Waiting on the 5ESS (Tim Gorman)
    Cellular Phone as Traveler's Only Phone Service (Robert Swenson)
    How Does Call Waiting Work? (Ernst Kloecker)
    Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements (Steve Forrette)
    Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (John Higdon)
    Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrances (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: The Future of Printed Books (Dave Niebuhr)
    Yes, You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Yanek Martinson)
    Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Gordon D. Woods)
    Re: Cellular Antennas (Eric Florack)
    Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (David G. Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 91 09:55:24 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Waiting on the 5ESS


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #925:

> The person who told me about this was very annoyed that AT&T could not
> seem to keep its own standards with the design of the 5ESS.  ......

According to my 1982 copy of the LSSGR, in document FSD 01-02-1201,
APPENDIX, Section 1.5 THREE-WAY CALLING:

Is Three-way Calling allowed with Call Waiting? YES

Do they interact? YES

English description of dynamic interaction:

 A. The use of Three-way Calling should not restrict the Call Waiting
    capabilities. All parties may receive Call Waiting calls in either a
    talking or held state.

 B. If the controlling party of a three-way call receives a Call Waiting
    call, a flash by the controlling party should place the two
    noncontrolling parties on hold and answer the Call Waiting call. The
    controlling party should then be able to alternate between the Call
    Waiting call and three-way call by successive flashes of the switchhook.

So, the 5ESS violates AT&T's own standards, but the 1982 LSSGR
standards also.  (Admittedly, my copy is very old. Maybe someone with
a newer copy can check to see if this still applies.)


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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 15:05:45 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cellular Phone as Traveler's Only Phone Service


I will be retiring soon and traveling around the US in our trailer.
One problem is telephone service.  The average trailer park telephone
is out in the cold with a long line of people waiting to use it or in
a rec room with so much noise you cannot hear.  So I wonder about a
cellular phone in the trailer (or movable between the tow vehicle and
the trailer).

I have never used a cellular phone and I have some questions.

How much of the US is covered?  If we are along a main highway even in
the remote parts of the country I would expect to be able to use a
cellular phone.  If we were in the remote backwoods I would be
doubtful. Any comments?

We will not be in our home territory much of the time.  I read about
roaming, etc, but I don't really understand the details.  I would have
no objection to having to do something special to be logged into the
local system. How does this work?

Anything else that we should know about?  Any books, etc, you would
recommend for a new user?


Thanks,

Bob Swenson

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

From: [e-mail] (Ernst Kloecker)
Subject: How Does Call Waiting Work?
Date: 14 Nov 91 13:26:54 GMT


Hallo, out there !

Could somebody help me with some information about how a typical
American telephone is wired ?

When I visited my friends in the States, I was amazed by this thing I
think it's called "call waiting service", so that if you are on the
phone and another call is coming in you just press the HOLD-button to
switch between calls.

In Germany, old-fashioned TELEKOM does not provide this system. But I
have got two ordinary telephone lines (with two different
phonenumbers) and an American telephone with a HOLD-button.

So here my question :

Is there any way to connect the American phone to both lines and use
its HOLD-Button to switch between the lines ?

A solution would save me a lot of running around between the two
phones which I am using now.

Thanks.


Ernst Kloecker      phone: ++49-30-6181635      e-mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 00:51:58 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


My parent's house in Northern California had the same configuration as
the original poster's: three pair inside wiring, and a two pair drop,
just buried with no conduit.  Over the last ten years, the drop pair
has failed twice due to leakage.  The first time, they came out and
switched to the second pair.  The second time, a trench had to be dug.

Since the problem was on their side of the demark, it was of course
free of charge.  They had an non-Pacific Bell construction company
come out and dig the trench while the lineman watched.  Then, the new
drop was laid, and the construction guys filled in the trench.
Perhaps if the original poster's existing drop were to develop some
"difficulties," Pacific Bell would have to pay for the trenching.
And, as long as the trench is open, they might as well lay the extra
drops for the extra lines which of course would be on order at the
time ...


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 00:09 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU


[e-mail] writes:

> The real problem: The customer's request to switch is either made
> directly to the local company, or through the other carrier.  AT&T
> apparently gets notified of these switches, but has not treated them
> as requests to shut off Reach Out plans.  A correction is apparently
> in the works.

Why is this a problem? Some people may even want to continue AT&T
plans even with another PIC. Just because a customer has "switched
carriers" does not mean that they can never use AT&T again.

When recently being slammed by one of those "other" carriers, I was
afraid that I would have to re-up for all of my AT&T plans after
switchback. Fortunately, this was not necessary.


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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 6:26:59 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrances


[e-mail] (Jim Fenton) in Message-ID <telecom11.920.4@eecs.
nwu.edu> writes about repest digits.

I, too, had that problem when I received a new number (-0062).  People
would usually be dialing 0662, 0622, 0006 and most said "Oops!" when I
informed them that they called a wrong number.


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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 7:03:50 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books


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

> Item: New service orders and additions are handled in hours, not days
> and weeks.

I had a second line installed in September, 1991, and NYTel took over
two weeks to get it working despite the fact that there was a second
line from pole to the house and interface block in the basement.


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

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

From: Yanek Martinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yes you can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?
Date: 14 Nov 91 12:23:17 GMT
Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Gripp)
writes:

> I think it might make an effective "filter" for telemarketers if my
> answering machine responded with the recording ...

>   The number you have reached
>       1 2 3 4 5 6 7
>       is not in service.
>   No further information is available on
>       1 2 3 4 5 6 7.

> Of course it would have to sound right to be effective, hence my
> inquiry.  Is there a way to get Bell to "give" me this message, short
> of calling a new number before it is connected and recording the
> message?

There is a way to get such a message, if you are willing to work
somewhat with a tape recorder.

The method: call a number that is not in service and record the parts
of message that are same for any number. The beep, the "is not in
service" and "no further information" part. Then call your ANI number
to and record your number as pronounced by the phone company
computers. It will sound exactly like the real out of service message
would sound. The only thing you need to find out is your local ANI
number. ANI is Automatic Number Identification. It is a number that
you dial, a machine answers, and reads you back your number from which
you are calling. This is also useful for example if you have many
phone lines and get mixed up which is which you can identify each. The
ANI that works for me is 1-200-555-1212 but I think it may wary from
place to place. I don't know if the phone company publishes this
information in the white pages or not. I know every area must have one
it is usually used by the person installing or repairing your phone to
test the connection.

[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 08:59:48 EST
From: [e-mail] (Gordon D Woods)
Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Bill Gripp):

> [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort
> some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What
> is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words
> from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up?

The only explanation for someone not beleiving this amount of effort
is that they do not live in a high "telemarketing community." I have
recently moved and it is clear that telemarketers target specific
areas. Before the move, one telemarket call per week; after the move,
two or three per night. (Generally one during dinner, another later.)
Unless you want to live right next your answering machine, screening
in real time just doesn't work. Since we don't get many calls that are
really for us (several a week), telemarketing represents most of the
terminating traffic. My solution is to just turn off the ringer and
never answer calls in real time.  For all intents and purposes,
telemarketing has removed a telephone feature I used to have (call
termination).


[Moderator's Note: Well, if the problem is that severe -- two or three
calls a night every night of the week, then I would have to partly
retract what I said -- but only a little. Maybe 60659 is not a
telemarketer's paradise, but I get very few sales calls here. One
every week or two would be the average. To me, the 'solution' is more
of an annoyance than the problem, by far.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 06:28:25 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas


For the sake of accuracy:

> The purpose of twin CB antennas was to concentrate the antenna
> pattern fore and aft along the road, to the detriment of signal
> strength to the sides.  For maximum effect, this required that the
> antennas be mounted approximately 1/4 wavelength apart, which is 7.5
> feet -- thus making it useful for trucks on long straight
> superhighways, but not for cars in town.

Not quite correct.  At CB frequencies, (27MHz) the wavelength is 11
meters. 1/4 of that is around 102" or a slice under 9 feet. Most cars,
of course (and darned few trucks) are not wide enough to provide a
fully directional system at this frequency, so the detriment to the
pattern along the sides of the car wasn't quite as bad as you might
expect.  The inside trick here was not so much the directionality of
the resulting signal, although that did play a part, but that there
was so much added (tuned) antenna up in the air. (I know ... I was a
broadcast person, and a CB fanatic for many years ... since the middle
60's.)

> Cellular sites are most often to the sides of roads or up on
> mountains or buildings.  It would be of no advantage to direct the
> signal energy along the road.  In any event, you probably couldn't
> mount two antennas accurately enough, since the cellular wavelength is
> of the order of 1 foot, and a directional array would place the
> antennas 3" apart (or an odd multiple of 3").

In this case, I agree fully, but with the added stipulation that with
the wavelength so short, many other things come into play, like the
shape of the body, structural supports and the location thereof, and
so on, so as to make any change unpredictable at best, and therefore,
any advantage hard to obtain.  In this case, the added RF radiated by
the added antenna would be offset by phasing problems, and the losses
generated thereby.

With all of this established, my final point: With any co-phased
system, line length, antenna placement, and grounding effects, and
transmitter frequency are all /critical/. Even at the longer
wavelength of CB frequencies, the effect is that of lowering the
bandwidth by quite a bit ... to the point where at the band edges,
your increased ERP was roughly offset by your increased Standing wave
ratio (the amount of power reflected back to the transmitter.)
Because the bandwidth requirements of Cellular phones are so much
wider, it would make tuning a co-phased (twin) antenna system
unlikely, if not impossible. In CB you can 'ahng out' on a favorite
channel, to take advantage of your antenna array. Not so, of course,
for cellular.

Such a system is all but useless. IF you're seeing two cellular
antennas, someone has bought a dummy antenna and suck it up there.
(Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part is, even if the second antenna
isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to be fouling the performance of
the first ... but that's another story.


Eric Florack:WBST311:xerox

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 14:29:13 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> I have a real problem with the idea that the intent of the caller makes it
> all right for him/her/it to call and ring my phone when they please.

Doesn't *anyone* have a right to call and ring your phone when they
please?  And don't you have the right to not answer it, to screen
using an answering machine, to get an auto-attendant, or to take any
number of other strategies to not talk to whomever may be calling?

It seems to me that by purchasing service on a public network, you are
implicitly permitting anyone else on that public network to attempt to
call you.  If you don't like it, don't answer.  Or purchase something
that will not answer for you.  Or purchase a service that will enable
you to selectively not answer.  But I have a problem with it being
illegal for me to call you under certain conditions, while it's still
legal for me to call you under other conditions.

For example, let's say it's illegal for an outbound telemarketer to
call you on the basis of dialing all lines in a given area.  So said
outbound telemarketer purchases an electronic white pages, sorts on
phone number, and dumps the resulting list into his/her autodialer,
which then dials all the numbers.  Is that legal?

Face it -- if you want restrictions on whether or not a call is
permissible based on the reason for the call, the intent of the call,
or whether or not the call has a "legitimate purpose" or some such,
you're getting into regulating content.  And having anyone --
certainly the telco, but even worse the government -- starting to
regulate content of telecommunications is to me a very scary thought.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #927
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12481;
          14 Nov 91 18:24 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26598
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:11:38 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20494
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:11:11 -0600
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:11:11 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #928

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Nov 91 16:10:59 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 928

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Message to AT&T Mail About Monthly Usage Minimum (Toby Nixon)
    Re: AT&T EasyLink Services New Rates (Colin Plumb)
    Is The Following True? (John Adams)
    ATTMail Rates, Service (Help Ticket ID: 17050) (Paul S. Sawyer)
    Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Wayne G. Namerow)
    Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Andrew M. Boardman)
    Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Mark Fulk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Message to AT&T Mail About Monthly Usage Minimum
Date: 14 Nov 91 09:59:34 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


It was brought to my attention that Daniel Rosen of AT&T Mail is
responsible for forming a "consumer-oriented" AT&T Mail service that
will meet the needs of low-volume individual users.  Accordingly, I
have sent him the following message.

Toby

Date: Wed Nov 13 15:35:02 EST 1991
Original-From: attmail!tnixon (Toby L. Nixon )
Phone: [phone]
Fax-Phone: [phone]
Subject: Impact of AT&T Mail minimum usage charge on individual subscribers
To: attmail!danrosen (Daniel  Rosen )

Dear Mr. Rosen:

It is my understanding that you are in charge of developing a
"consumer" service for AT&T Mail, that would accommodate low-volume
users.

I thought I would make you aware (if you aren't already) that there is
a quite vocal revolt going on right now amongst low-volume individual
AT&T Mail users over the $25 per month "Monthly Usage Minimum"
announced in the November 1st letter sent to all subscribers.  I
personally know of over three dozen low-volume users (all business
associates of mine) who are planning to cancel their AT&T Mail
accounts and take their messaging business either to CompuServe or to
private BBSes (which I already have set up).  There is an ongoing
discussion of the charge on the comp.dcom.telecom USENET newsgroup,
and several other users there have said they plan to cancel their AT&T
Mail service.  In my case, even though my company pays my AT&T Mail
bill, I cannot in good conscience include $300 in my budget just to
maintain a mailbox when my actual usage will be much less.

I get the impression that AT&T Mail has intended all along to provide
a lower-cost way for individual low-volume users to maintain AT&T Mail
accounts, but there has not been even a hint of this in public.  I
think you'll find that unless some announcement is made soon (like,
THIS WEEK), that several thousand individuals are going to terminate
their AT&T Mail service when the new charge goes into effect.  While I
don't think such a loss would put AT&T Mail out of business, I can't
imagine that you actually WANT to lose all of these customers; to do
so would reduce the utility of the system for the remaining large
users.

Can you confirm that this $25/month charge will indeed apply to all
users, including individuals with only one user ID per account?  Can
you tell us when AT&T Mail plans to institute a pricing plan that
accommodates users who send and receive very few messages? Does AT&T
Mail really want to lose all of their individual low-volume accounts?

Finally, can I have your permission to post your response to
comp.dcom.telecom?

Thanks for your anticipated quick reply.

Best regards,

Toby Nixon

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] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: AT&T EasyLink Services New Rates
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 04:15:01 -0500
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


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

> For example, a 200,000 character spreadsheet delivered via our service
> within the U.S. will cost $10.70, about the same price as an overnight
> delivery service.

> Electronic Mail (Within U.S.)
>    characters            rate
>    1-1,000                $.50
>    1,001-2,000             .80
>    2,001-3,000             .95
>    Each add'l. 1,000         .05

H'm, let's see ... I live in Canada, which is not known for telecom
deregulation, and uunet will run a 19200 bps line to my front door and
connect me to IP for $600/month.  (They'll do 56K for $1200).  I
understand it's cheaper in the states.

Assuming 1K/sec out of that line, that's 43.2K/cent.  Only a slight
factor of 864 away from AT&T's rates.  Oh, yes, add Canadian dollar
adjustments.  Now, there are differences in service...  uunet only
serves Toronto and Ottawa right now.  But it's real-time.  Uunet
probably needs a much smaller support staff to explain things to
novices.  But nearly a thousand?  More, if I use a 56 kbps line?  And
if I can batch like AT&T do, then I can average a pretty good clip on
that line ...

So let's say I pay for both ends of a line, and a bunch more at 10x
the cost to odd places, and spend a few more thousand dollars a month
on front-ends and modems and a few full-time support people, and I
only average 1/10 the efficiency I assumed above, and ...

Gee, how long is $10.70 coast-to-coast on a phone call?  Take that
200K spreadsheet, compress it to, say, a bit under 150K
(conservative), send it at V.32bis rates (a bit over 1.5K/sec), and
we're talking a minute and a half, plus half a minute overhead -- it's
cheaper to modem it to Moscow!  Well, okay, that's a bad line -- use a
Trailblazer.

Can someone explain where my reasoning that this is a tremendous
rip-off is in error?  When my computations end up 100 times off, I'm
not sure *what* to suspect.  But, but ... some sites get 100 times
that 200,000 bytes in news traffic daily and aren't running up costs
anything like $10/day ($300/month, $3600/year).  If I offered that
trade to any BBS in town, they'd take it in a heartbeat.


Colin

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

From: [e-mail] (adams,john)
Date: 14 Nov 1991   8:24 EST
Subject: Is the Following True?


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Adams sent along a copy of a letter he wrote to
someone else, thinking Digest readers might be interested.   PAT]

Hi Dale,

    It's been a couple of years since I last talked to you in
Lincroft.  We were exploring linking TRUEVISION VDA, TGA, & NAPLPS
images in AT&T MAIL. Since that time, I took the Bell Labs 5+5,
retired, and now work for Bellcore.  My point in writing to you is to
question the marketing strategy alluded to in recent "netnews"
postings from Toby Nixon and Dave Levenson.  Since you are deeply
entrenched in Easy Link, perhaps your perspective on this rate change
would help me decide whether or not I continue my personal account(s)
with AT&T Mail.

As you may have noted (Cc:s above), I use AT&T MAIL principally to
keep in touch with my two sons who are away during the school year.
It also provides a convenient and cost effective methods of reaching
many other business contacts.  The previous rate structure and per
message fees were just fine (actually below my willingness to pay for
an excellent service).  I must say that $25.00/month minimum fee is a
bit too steep.  If the AT&T MAIL pricing strategy is to discourage
individual and small business users (let alone poor college students),
then it is right on the mark.  Since AT&T doesn't pay me to develop
products anymore, I can only guess at this hypothetical strategy based
on the evidence presented so far.  Perhaps you may want to pass this
message along to some of the "empty suits" in Product Management and
Marketing for a _level set_ from some of us "small customers".


Jack (John) Adams        | Bellcore RRC 4A-253
[phone] {Voice}        | [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]    | [e-mail] (For a little while!)

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

Subject: ATTMail Rates, Service (Help Ticket ID: 17050)
Date: 14 Nov 91 11:54:13 EST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer)


I sent a letter to attmail!atthelp (Customer  Assistance ):

My message was:

We received a letter from Steven A. Graham, Marketing Vice President with
"AT&T Mail Rate Summary - Effective December 1, 1991" attached.  There is
an item under "Core Services" of "Monthly Usage Minimum - - 25.00" which
I interpret to mean that we would have to pay $300.00 a year to remain
connected to ATTMail, rather than the previous $30.00.  If I am correct,
I do not believe that we can continue the service.  If I am NOT correct,
please let me know.

Thank you.

Paul S. Sawyer    - University of New Hampshire CIS - [e-mail]
Telecommunications and Network Services             - VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                   - FAX: [phone]


And this is the answer I received in response:

> Please call 1-800-242-6005 for information regarding the new billing
> rates.

> Thank You,
> Tom
> !atthelp

If I cannot get an answer via e-mail to a question I posed via e-mail
to a provider of e-mail concerning their e-mail rates, then I guess I
really don't need their service ...


Paul S. Sawyer - University of New Hampshire CIS
[e-mail] Telecommunications and Network Services
 - VOX: [phone] Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 -
FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 13:50:04 EST
From: "Wayne G. Namerow" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message


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

> There is a way to get such a message, if you are willing to work
> somewhat with a tape recorder.

> The method: call a number that is not in service and record the parts
> of message that are same for any number. The beep, the "is not in
> service" and "no further information" part. Then call your ANI number
> to and record your number as pronounced by the phone company
> computers. It will sound exactly like the real out of service message
> would sound.

Actually, this probably could be accomplished via a MUCH simpler
method.  Since the 'Not in Service' Jane recording only repeats your
seven digit number, simply call multiple NPA's then your number until
you find one where it really *IS* out of service. Then just tape the
recording and you have a genuine Jane recording to put on your
answering machine (or wherever).


Wayne    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 13:56:20 EST
From: "Andrew M. Boardman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message


I suspect it would be far easier to find an NPA where your number is
not in service (consult exchange lists to avoid annoying people), call
it there, and record the resulting message, which in virtually all
cases only reports a seven digit number not being in service.


andrew


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for at least suggesting the consultation
of exchange lists. Otherwise, how many people would be disturbed in
the process of finding a solution to prevent yourself from being
disturbed? (Still looking down my nose with distaste at the whole
project.)  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Fulk)
Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 19:10:13 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon D
Woods) writes:

> From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
> (Bill Gripp):

>> [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort
>> some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What

>> ... plus answering machine solution ...

> The only explanation for someone not beleiving this amount of effort
> is that they do not live in a high "telemarketing community." I have

Another problem with the answering machine solution is the use of
deceptive tactics used by telemarketers.  I don't know all my wife's
friends; furthermore, we have no chance of training them to identify
themselves on every call.  Consequently, when a telemarketer calls,
the following sort of thing frequently ensues:

Ring, Ring, Ring.
Answering machine: We can't answer the phone right now, please leave a
  message after the beep.
Beep.
Male Voice: I'd like to speak to Tina please.  Could she call me at...
Me: Who is this please?
Voice: Joe Blow.
Me: Could I ask why you're calling?
Joe: I need to talk to Tina Reynolds.
Me: Are you selling something?
Joe: No, I need to talk to Tina Reynolds.
Me, shouting up stairs: Honey, Joe Blow is on the phone.
Tina: (pause) I'll get it in a minute.
A minute passes, while Nathan gets a new diaper.
Tina: I'll take that call now.
Joe: Mrs. Reynolds, have you heard about Flim-Flam Marketing and our
  new deal on aluminum garbage can siding....
Tina, Mark, in unison: We're not interested.
Joe: ... just $200,000 per can, we think you just can't pass up ...
Tima, Mark, in unison: Did you hear us, we're not interested!
Joe: ... considering the frequency of raccoon damage in, uh, uh, Rochester,
 you really ...
Tina, Mark, in unison: Goodbye! Slam!

Now I know there are laws against some variations of this sort of
thing.  Those laws are enforced about as well as the anti-fornication
laws, as far as I can see.  I have tried to file a complaint with
Rochester Telephone, and they make it about as painful as a hundred
telemarketing calls.  If I was willing to invest in CNID equipment,
and lived in an area where they were testing it, I might have a
chance; somehow, though, I expect all those calls are blocked for
CNID.  I could also use call trace, which is offered, but, again, the
numbers are likely blocked, I would have to pay a per-trace fee, and
my phone company and police department will only act after a pattern
of harassing phone calls is established.

I suspect our esteemed Moderator lacks one or more of the following
features:

- Small children, who often need our undivided attention.
- Friends and co-workers who don't identify themselves when calling.
- Friends and family who refuse to leave messages on our answering machine.
- Frequent occasions of waiting for a call we don't want to miss.
- Frequent phone calls, which, though unexpected, we wouldn't want to miss.
  (Our babysitting coop is great for generating those.)
- Frequent telemarketing calls, often from people who are deceptive about
  their real purpose.  We average about two per night.

I know I am going on and on, and there is real work to do, but three more
things ...

Last night's second telemarketer was from AT&T!  At least, that's what
he said.  He was selling (oops, he wasn't selling it, he was just
explaining features and taking reservations for a seminar on home
security) AT&T home security systems.  If I have a detail or two
wrong, it is because I cut him off pretty quickly.  I wasn't aware
that AT&T sold home security products, so perhaps this call was a
ripoff.

There is a historical precedent for the current surge in
telemarketing.  In the early thirties, as unemployment soared, large
numbers of people went into door-to-door sales.  It was the great age
of door-to-door bibles, vacuum cleaners, encyclopedias, you name it.
I even remember reading a novel about selling teapots door-to-door.
It was widely perceived as being just about the most obnoxious thing
anyone could do for a living, but people were desperate for any sort
of job.

I get a few calls per week at work.  My department chose not to get
phone mail on our (buggy ROLM) phones, so I or the very busy secretary
upstairs have to answer these calls.  Mostly they are from financial
services companies, John Hancock, Merrill Lynch, and Prudential among
them.  Schwab is never one of the callers.  I wonder if the
non-discount brokers, uncompetitive by any reasonable measure, are
trying to get customers by making deceptive claims in a private way.
That was certainly very much the case with the door-to-door salesmen
of 60 years ago.


Mark A. Fulk                Computer Science Department
[e-mail]            University of Rochester
Omit needless words -- Strunk        Rochester, NY  14627


[Moderator's Note: You are partly right about my circumstances. I will
reply in detail in the next issue.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #928
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13414;
          14 Nov 91 19:01 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18651
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:58:46 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02209
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:58:15 -0600
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:58:15 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #929

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Nov 91 16:57:54 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 929

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Dave O'Heare)
    Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out of Service Message? (Dan Swinehart)
    Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Jim Haynes)
    Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Phone Gateways? (Dick Rawson)
    Alternative Email Service (Ken Sprouse)
    Re: New Zealand Toll Price War (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Cellular Antennas (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: Two Cellular Questions (Dave Levenson)
    Re: 540 Pager Scam Update (Ralph W. Hyre)
    Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences
    Administrivia: Overload Continues Unabated (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave O'Heare)
Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd., Nepean, Ontario
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 19:46:35 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> our Moderator responds to
[e-mail] (Bill Gripp):

> [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort
> some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer.

Pat:

The problem I've had with telemarketers is that they WILL NOT leave a
message on an answering machine. It's very distressing to come home to
see that the machine has received a dozen or so calls, and NO-ONE has
had the decency to leave a message.

It is very easy to get the feeling that somebody is calling to find
out if there is anybody home. Having been the victim of a few break-
ins over the years, I'd rather not repeat that experience.

I subscribed to Caller-ID. I've called back a few telemarketers, and
harangued them for not leaving messages. Funny, the more telemarketers
I call, the fewer telemarketing calls I get. Do you suppose there
might be a connection? :-)


Dave O'Heare   [e-mail]   [phone]


[Moderator's Note: You may have hit on a very good solution. Call them
back and waste as much time of theirs as they do of yours. Seriously,
time is money to those folks. Waste it for them.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 08:17:50 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?


"I'm ancient, decrepit, and disintegrating rapidly."  That line from
"Brigadoon" accurately describes the way I feel at the end of a long
day these days.  Clearly I should do something about that.  But in the
mean time, I find it quite tedious, and not at all itzy-poo, to have
to drag myself out of the easy chair for the fourth or fifth time to
answer the phone at night.  Similarly, during the few evenings a month
when our family actually eats together, we often have serious business
to discuss and the interruption of a phone call, even for a few
seconds, can be distracting.  We accept the need to take calls from
our friends and acquaintances, but the telemarketers are another thing
entirely -- especially those who want to sell us something we already
have (subscriptions) or something we have already refused (service
contracts on their flashy wonderful appliances that they now claim are
so flaky we'll lose if we don't buy their insurance).

So I work pretty hard to make their lives miserable.  I usually engage
in prolonged discussions with them, hoping to diminish their returns,
about why they are barking up the wrong tree because I don't speak
English and can't possibly understand their pitch.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 10:07:24 -0800
Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone


> [Moderator's Note: ... I'm the first to agree I don't like sales
> calls, but I tell them 'no' and hang up the phone. What, precisely, is
> the big deal?  PAT]

Well I'm not one of those people who sit around the house waiting for
the phone to ring, so whenever it does it interrupts something I am
doing.  This may be a pleasant interruption, if it's someone I enjoy
talking with; or it may be a justifiable interruption, if it's someone
who needs to talk with me about something more important than what I
was doing before the phone rang.  It is not either of these if the
caller is advertising a business or soliciting for a charity.  They
can advertise in the newspaper or send me junk mail and I might read
it at a time of my own choosing.  But I get angry when they choose the
time and I drop what I'm doing to answer their calls.  And I would
guess they interrupt and annoy thousands of people for every one who
is interested in their pitch.

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 11:18:36 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood


I am convinced part of the reason I do not see eye to eye with many
readers regarding the 'scourge of telemarketing' is due to the
relative rarity of this sort of call to my phones. That may be why I
feel the various complex efforts by some of you to avoid these calls
are in themselves such a waste of time.

Twice today we've had messages from people claiming to receive these
phone calls in great quantities: one person said he got two or three a
day, and a writer in this issue alluded to leaving his easy chair four
or five times in an evening to answer the phone. That's amazing!

For starters, I have phones everywhere I sit, including my throne chair.
By my bed, on my desk at home, near the sofa, a wall phone in the kitchen
area, etc. I have a speaker phone I can casually reach over and tap with
my finger. It is wired so it will pull either line which is ringing.

On the rare occassion when I am home during the day, the phone rarely
rings, except with wrong numbers. Those I do admit to receiving more
than I would like, but where repetitive digits are concerned, the line
which gets the most wrong numbers has the same digit five times in a
row in it, ie abc-cccc. But telemarketers just don't call. I'm 'lucky'
if I get one telemarketing call every two weeks.

This probably has to do with my location: telemarketers are a very
sophisticated bunch, and something in the paper the other day
mentioned that to a large extent they had 'redlined' inner city areas.
Is this true? I don't feel like a major series on this in the Digest,
and won't print a lot of lengthy sociological treatises in response,
but maybe there is one good reason at least for me to remain living in
this impoverished ghetto city, eh?  :)

In response to the person who asked other questions about my household
the answers are these: we (my brother and his wife who live with me)
have a two year old son who must be supervised constantly by one or
the other of us. The two of them wind up getting a lot more calls than
myself, yet I'm the one to reach over and slap the button on the
speaker phone as often as not when a call comes in. They get three or
four legitimate calls per evening most days; I get one or two. As
noted above, telemarketing calls are extremely rare here, which for
whatever reason, suits me fine. If I got four or five a night, I guess
I would be annoyed by it also. So I can see why some of you want to
devise schemes to avoid the calls when possible. Is three or four a
night about average for most people? That seems like a lot.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 10:11:19 PST
From: [e-mail] (Dick Rawson)
Subject: Re: Phone Gateways?


>     This reminds me of the X.PC protocol supported by Xtalk Mk 4.
> It allows you to use one modem and phone line to simultaneously talk
> to 15 computers thru Tymnet using multiple sessions under Xtalk.
> Seems real nice!  I haven't been able to get any information on the
> data format.  Publisher of Xtalk won't release it.  I'd like to use
> their packet format so our equipment could talk to multiple Xtalk
> sessions over one data circuit.

X.PC is freely available to the public, both as a specification and as
implemented in C.  I don't know the current terms if you try to get it
from BT North America, who now operate TYMNET.  But I think it is
available from SIMTEL20 and its mirrors.  I found the following three
lines in the index file from the ftp archive at wuarchive.wustl.edu,
but didn't confirm if it's really X.PC, although I THINK it is!

   arc_mirr      495 Aug 11 19:00 ./mirrors/msdos/xpc/00-index.txt
   arc_mirr     5472 Mar 17  1990 ./mirrors/msdos/xpc/xpc.frm
   arc_mirr   639766 Nov 15  1988 ./mirrors/msdos/xpc/xpc401.arc


Dick Rawson, BT North America.  [phone]

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

Subject: Alternative Email Service
Date: 14 Nov 91 11:11:03 EDT (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (Ken Sprouse)


In article 5771 Toby Nixon writes:

> But why bother with all that trouble, when we can all get on
> CompuServe, which has a monthly minimum of just $2?  Methinks AT&T
> Mail has shot their feet full of holes with this, as far as individual
> users are concerned.

And the Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: Or alternatively, start a mailing list here on the
> Internet with a common address for everyone to write to which will
> then send the mail around to everyone. Thus far everyone I've talked
> to is dropping out of AT&T Mail over the next month or two, and that
> includes myself. I'm sorry to leave them, but $25 per month is not
> very nice when my usual bill is $3-4 per month.  PAT]

I think you should also look at GEnie.(General Electric Information
Service) They offer email as part of their BASIC services package for
a flat fee of $4.95 a month with no connect time charges (18:00 to
08:00 eastern time) and no limit on the number of email messages.  I
think CompuServe is at $12.50 an hour right now (no time of day
restrictions) along with the monthly minimum. (last time I looked it
was $1.50 they may have raised it) With your low usage it might not be
worth you while but I would at least look.


Ken Sprouse / N3IGW
[e-mail]     GEnie mail ksprouse     Compu$erve 70145,426

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

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 15:28:39 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Zealand Toll Price War


Pat Cain <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This weekend the two major New Zealand phone companies (which are
> primarily American owned) are having a price war.

> Clear Communications (MCI and Bell Canada), the new player on the
> scene, provide an alternative tolls service (by dialling 050).  They
> offer slightly cheaper rates than Telecom, have discounts for prompt
> payment, and round calls to the nearest six seconds (Telecom round to
> 60 seconds).

Bell Canada's hypocrisy surfaces again.  While owning a portion of a
competing carrier in New Zealand, they are adamantly opposed to long
distance competition back home in Ontario and Quebec.  Sigh ...


Tony Harminc

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 10:56:30 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas


Eric Florack writes about cellular telephone car antennas:

> Such a system is all but useless. IF you're seeing two cellular
> antennas, someone has bought a dummy antenna and suck it up there.
> (Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part is, even if the second antenna
> isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to be fouling the performance of
> the first ... but that's another story.

Well, maybe he has and maybe he hasn't.  Here in Los Angeles, traffic
congestion has made cellular phones a near necessity for salesmen and
anybody else doing business out of their cars.  The appearance of
pigtail antennae on such pedestrian autos as Fords and Buicks has
driven the truly status-conscious to adopt the cellular fax machine as
the latest in electronic one-upsmanship.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions
Date: 14 Nov 91 19:43:41 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> 1.  I have a Panasonic TP500 transportable.  It has a relay in it that
> clicks on whenever the unit is transmitting.  When the phone is just
> sitting there, it tends to transmit for about one oe two seconds every
> hour or so.  What is it transmitting?  Is the cellular switch polling
> it or is the phone taking it upon itself to transmit something?

The cellular switch is probably sending a periodic request for
registration.  Mobile units which receive these requests identify
themselves.  Your unit may also re-register itself when it discovers
that you have moved it from one cell to another.  This is done to
allow the switch to poll you where it thinks you are, rather than all
over the place, when you have an incoming call.  It is typically done
in high-density areas where the paging traffic becomes large.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Subject: Re: 540 Pager Scam Update
Date: 14 Nov 91 17:05:40 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob
Boudrie) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 888, Message 12 of 12

> ... it mentioned that their pager company (Skytel) was updating
> their software to prevent such numbers from being displayed ...

Wonderful.  This is clearly the WRONG solution.  Why should Skytel be
forced to change the content of everybody's messages because some
users indiscriminately call whatever appears on their pagers?  I can
see it now ...

Ralph: Call me at hospital: 513 212 5401

gets replaced with

Ralph: Call me at hospital: 513 XXX XXX1

or even better: 'Japan contract awarded: Call 0112125407342'
                                                 XXXXXX

Don't most of the victimized companies have PBXs that can drop calls
to 'bad' exchanges (like 1-900-NXX-XXXX and 976-XXXX?)  (Our PBX's
don't decide which trunks to route a call until they have the NPA-NXX
entered, so (212) 540-anything is easy to squash.)

[disclaimer: I don't claim to know how Skytel will implement the fix.
Perhaps 10 digit skytel pagers can only display phone numbers, so
212-540 is easy to edit out with minimal impact.

I think the solution is to train users, rather than force Skytel to
modify its software.  Aren't they risking their common carrier status
by modifying message content?]


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
E-mail: [e-mail]    Snail: Box 85, Milford OH 45150-0085
Phone: [phone]        Radio: N3FGW

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

From: <frankston![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences
Date: 14 Nov 1991 15:09 -0400


Then there is the problem of phone numbers starting with "9".  People
don't change their dialing patterns when the get home from work.  I
also have a double digit which probably doesn't help.  Interestingly I
get more wrong numbers on one line than another.  The offending one is
the second line which is one higher than the first line.

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:27:23 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Administrivia: Overload Continues Unabated


I am still receiving a huge amount of mail daily here, and aside from
the usual constraints on me, there is some trouble with the mail here
and at the Bitnet gateway which has kept me running a little slower
than usual.  Another thing has to begin at this time, and that is a
slowdown on Digest mailing when this site is otherwise running at a
high load level. Although no specific rule has been set yet, to be as
accomodating to my hosts as I can, when the 'uptime' command says the
load is higher than desired, I'll be holding off mass mailing of the
Digest for the duration. The end result will be a chronic backlog of
message traffic for telecom, and an even larger than usual number of
messages turned away. Please don't take it personally; I'm doing what
I can to circulate as much telecom news as I can, as rapidly and
thoroughly as I can.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #929
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26415;
          15 Nov 91 2:58 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13657
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 15 Nov 1991 01:08:20 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00860
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 15 Nov 1991 01:08:09 -0600
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 01:08:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #930

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 15 Nov 91 01:08:02 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 930

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Geoff Steckel)
    Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Bill Fisher)
    Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Brent Byer)
    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Gordon
    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Mickey Ferguson)
    Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (John Hood)
    Moderator's View of Telemarketers (Ken Levitt)
    Answering Machine Message For Telemarketers (Mike Van Pelt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Geoff Steckel)
Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?
Date: 14 Nov 91 21:40:06 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Geoff Steckel)
Organization: Omnivore Technology, Newton, Mass. [phone]


>> [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort
>> some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What
>> is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words
>> from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up?

Why is a telephone different from a front door?  I believe I should
have the ability to mark my telephone number just like my front door.

I see a need for a way to put a clearly visible `NO SOLICITORS' sign
on my telephone, just like the one on my door.  If someone THEN calls,
they have been warned that I consider them intruding, and repeated
intrusions will be treated as (at least) matter for complaint to
authorities.  I get recorded sleazecalls at work and at home, and it
is intrusive.

Just because someone is trying to make a living by bothering people in
their homes does not, in my opinion, give the solicitor the right to
bother the victim.  The victim (for I see it in these terms) should be
able to preemptively say `DON'T even TRY to bother me unless it is
>>URGENT<<'.

There should be a nationwide data base of phone numbers who do not
accept solicitations.  I can't believe this is difficult to set up ...
1 bit per line.  $1000 fine per call to numbers in that database.
This is the best use of CLID I can think of!  Oh yes -- it should also
be illegal to conceal the number or identity of the caller for uses of
automated solicitation equipment!  ( 1/2 (:-) )

Yes, I have my phone number in my header -- it's my BUSINESS line,
which I do not answer out of business hours.  I have yet to get a junk
call from displaying my number on the net (fingers crossed!).


Just another solitary grump,

geoff steckel ([e-mail])   (...!husc6!wjh12!omnivore!gws)
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Sun Microsystems, despite the From: line.
This posting is entirely the author's responsibility.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?
Organization: Georgia Tech
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 23:32:37 GMT


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

> Another problem with the answering machine solution is the use of
> deceptive tactics used by telemarketers.  I don't know all my wife's
> friends; furthermore, we have no chance of training them to identify
> themselves on every call.  Consequently, when a telemarketer calls,
> the following sort of thing frequently ensues:

[telemarketer won't admit who or what he is until the intended victim
gets on the line]

I'll tell you what, I get the very same calls.  Normally, I answer my
phone if I can.  If the call is from "Out-of-Area" on my CLID box or
shows up as a mysterious number, I prepare myself for a sales spiel.

Ring, ring.
Me:  Hello?
TM:  May I speak with William?  [sometimes they even add my last name!]
Me:  Who's calling, please?  (Note that is ME asking who's calling for
     me before I let on who I am)
TM:  William?
Me:  I asked who's calling, please?
TM:  I'll call again later.  [CLICK!]  or just {CLICK!}

That has happened to me more often than any other variation.  A friend
or associate knows my voice (and I know most of theirs) for one thing
and for another thing they wouldn't hesitate in the least to tell me
who they are when I ask (if it is a friend or associate).

Other netters may want to try my approach above, either for themselves
or for a housemate/family member.  It seems pretty foolproof to me.  I
am of the impression that if someone is calling me, they want
something from me.  If I win the Publisher's Warehouse Sweepstakes
they'll try something else besides the phone -- like a registered
letter and/or a courier.  If it's a friend, family member, or
associate, of course I'll be happy to talk with them right then and
there -- they took the time to call me, after all.  If it's a sales
drone, then they'll tell me so (and I'll say "Not interested" usually)
or they'll be evasive and I'll know who they are anyway but not who
they are calling on behalf of.  It's a win-win and I never spend more
than 30 seconds or so on an unwelcome call.

I have an unlisted number and it doesn't buy me a whole lot.  I don't
get a huge number of sales calls, possibly as a result of the unlisted
number, but some places do still end up with my phone number.  I don't
guard it as rabidly as some folks would, though.  I suspect that some
of the calls are as a result of captured ANI information.  On the
other hand, I don't make calls from my home phone that I wouldn't want
the recipient of the call to have my number.

I may get a Ring Master line and just give that number to "call me
anytime" people, such as friends and family.  I dunno.

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 23:53:03 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Brent Byer)
Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message
Organization: Textware, Cambridge, MA


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

> There is a way to get such a message, if you are willing to work
> somewhat with a tape recorder.

> The method: call a number that is not in service and record the parts ...

This reminds me of one of our best phone pranks in college.  Way back
in 1966, we did just this, but there weren't any answering machines
around, just klunky reel-to-reels.  The recorded message was:

   "I'm sorry; the number you have reached is not in service.
    Please make sure that you have dialed correctly and try again.
    If you need assistance, please stay on the line and an operator
    will assist you."

We would remove the phone's microphone and connect the recorder
output.  Then, we would call people up, and as soon as they answered,
we'd play the recording to them.  Baffled the hell out of them!  It
was especially good when we called the guy across the hall (frat
house) and woke him at 3 AM.

    "Groan ... Huh ... Did I call someone?  Huh!
     Yeah, I'll stay on the line and talk to the operator.  Huh..."

We recorded the whole thing on a second recorder and played it at
dinner the next night.  If anyone knows David Rudd, RPI '67 (Math),
remind him :-)


Brent Byer   ( [e-mail] )

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 19:34:53 CST
From: "Mike Gordon N9LOI [e-mail]"
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood


In issue #929 Pat Townson writes:

> I have a speaker phone I can casually reach over and tap with
> my finger. It is wired so it will pull either line which is ringing.
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    How do you have it wired?  Is it a feature in your particular
model, or are you using a (now discontinued) Radio Shack line selecter
box?


Mike Gordon  N9LOI  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I am using a Radio Shack Duofone Telephone
Amplifier System (speakerphone) behind a Radio Shack Two Line
Controller (yes, the discontinued one). I've also got the newest Radio
Shack headset phone coming from there. So on an incoming call, the
controller puts the ringing line on the pair out to the speakerphone
and the headset phone. From where I am sitting I either slip on the
headset and tap the talk bar or just tap on the speakerphone.  The
soft pleasant chirp in the headset phone sounds for incoming calls on
either line that way. Looking at the lights on the controller tell me
which line has the call. The ringing cadence tells me if it is the
first line or the Ringmaster number (to which my 800 lines are routed
by Telecom*USA for ease in identifying those calls, and consequently
who is paying for the call!)  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 17:56:30 PST
From: [e-mail] (Mickey Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood
Organization: Rolm Systems


In Digest # 929 TELECOM Moderator <telecom> writes:

> I am convinced part of the reason I do not see eye to eye with many
> readers regarding the 'scourge of telemarketing' is due to the
> relative rarity of this sort of call to my phones. That may be why I
> feel the various complex efforts by some of you to avoid these calls
> are in themselves such a waste of time.

One thing that comes to mind is that it is human nature to remember
the calls which come in and annoy us, and thus it *seems* like we are
receiving an average of four or five telemarketing calls per day, when
in fact most probably receive four or five calls on *a particular*
day, and many more go by without receiving any at all.  I'm not
disputing the numbers, I would just like to see some of our readers
who feel that they really do receive large numbers to actually tally
up the results for a two week period.

As for the person who hated having to get up out of his
super-comfortable easy chair to answer the phone, I have a suggestion:
Get a cordless phone, and keep it nearby.  That way, at least you can
be annoyed in comfort! :)


Mickey Ferguson      Rolm Systems      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Hood)
Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone
Organization: Pick a banana, any banana
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 00:56:06 GMT


Pat appends these words to article <[e-mail]>:

> [Moderator's Note: Well, unsolicited calls from people looking for
> modems on the line set me off. At least the telemarketers are trying
> to earn a living selling things on the phone ... I'm the first to
> agree I don't like sales calls, but I tell them 'no' and hang up the
> phone. What, precisely, is the big deal?    PAT]

The big deal is that a telephone call demands your time and attention,
wherever you may be.  Junk mail you can let pile up in the mail box
for a few days, newspapers and TV you can ignore, but the ring of a
phone brings you running.

To put it more formally: other forms of communication don't demand
your immediate attention.  Telephones, for most people, are an
intrusion into daily life, albeit a welcome one.  They are welcome
because they allow immediate conversation in a way that is not
otherwise possible.

However, this intrusion is a significant one.  Perhaps it is not so
significant for you, if you have a phone convenient at a table in
every room.  Some of us may find it more significant -- for example, I
am hearing impaired, and often work at my computer without my hearing
aids on.  I can hear the phone trill without them, and if I want to
answer it, I've got to stuff them into my ears and run for the phone
and hope the caller hasn't given up by the time I get there.  There
are plenty of other similar situations -- there are millions of
two-story houses with one phone, I am sure; there are millions who
work night shifts and would be unpleasantly annoyed by a call between
9 am and 9 pm.

If the phone starts ringing frequently to play recorded messages about
1-900 astrology hotlines, it starts to become an unwanted intrusion.
It takes up my time and diverts my attention from what I'm doing.  You
may say, "Use an answering machine and screen those unwanted calls".
So, say I do this, and I no longer leap up to the phone and answering
machine, secure in the knowledge that I can go over the tape later and
call people back (yes, I know this is different from the usual method
of standing over the answering machine and picking up the phone if the
voice is recognized -- but this is what could happen if uninvited and
undesired calls became popular).

Now say that my mother starts to do the same thing.  I can't reach
her; she can't reach me.  Now, say that a significant percentage of
the population in my town starts to do this.  Do you see that the
value of the telephone, as an instrument of immediate communication,
has been nullified?  People cannot reliably call and speak to other
people anymore.

Some notes: I live in a low-rent area in an isolated city -- the only
telemarketing calls I've gotten are two from the above-mentioned 1-900
"service", and ironically, one from the local Gannett newspaper, in
the past four months.  This problem is somewhat hypothetical to me :)
I have an answering machine, but I don't use it to screen calls; I
grab the phone when I'm around and awake.  I dislike the idea of
screening calls.


John Hood, CU student, CU employee, and sometime BananaOp
[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 22:21:47 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Moderator's View of Telemarketers


In TELECOM Digest Volume 11 : Issue 925 our Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort
> some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What
> is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words
> from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up? Oh, I see, you
> are such a busy person, such a dillitante, so important and full of
> yourself ...

I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent person as yourself
would be so intolerant of other peoples needs and desires.

I run a business out of my home.  I am on call 24 hours a day, seven
days a week.  When a customer calls, they want to talk to a person,
not a machine.  I can not afford to let the phone ring even when I am
eating dinner, sleeping, or in the bathroom.

I work late into the night and generally sleep until 9:30 or 10:00 am
in the morning.  At least once a week I get woken up out of a sound
sleep by a telemarketer.

When working, I am generally deeply involved in writing software with
five or six things all stacked up in my head.  When I have to stop and
answer the phone, I lose several minutes of work just getting back to
where I had been prior to the phone ringing.  Is there any reason that
I should accept some idiot telemarketer messing up my productivity?  I
think not!

P.S. According to my spell checker the word is "dilettante", not "dillitante".


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Answering Machine Message For Telemarketers
Date: 15 Nov 91 01:22:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mike Van Pelt)
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology


A friend of mine found the following answering machine message very
effective:

   Yes, this is an answering machine.  We didn't want to do it, but
   after months of getting pestered by a dozen calls a night from
   random salespeople, we are using this machine to screen our calls.

   If you are a friend or family, just stay on the line and start
   talking after the beep.  If we're available, we'll pick up the
   phone.  If, however, you are one of those salespeople, then you
   needn't bother.  We aren't interested.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #930
******************************






ISSUE 931 APPEARS FOLLOWING ISSUE 932 DUE TO ERROR IN MAILING.






Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08222;
          16 Nov 91 2:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17774
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 00:31:13 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32157
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 00:31:01 -0600
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 00:31:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #932

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Nov 91 00:30:56 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 932

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Wasting the Slime's Time (John Higdon)
    Telemarketers: One Good Solution (Eric Florack)
    Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed (Bob Yazz)
    Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Bill Gray)
    Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Linc Madison)
    Re: Telemarketing COS (Simona Nass)
    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Jeffrey Hunt)
    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Gordon D. Woods)
    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Adam Ashby)
    AT&T Security Systems (was Can I Generate FAKE Msg?) (Paul S. Sawyer)
    Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 01:45 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Wasting the Slime's Time


I have turned what many of you consider an annoyance into an
opportunity for a bit o' fun. When I get a telemarketing machine, I
play around with it. Does it hang up when I put the call on hold? Does
it do anything strange when I play DTMF into it?

Anyway, the name of the game is to waste the telemarketer's time. If
you are not interested, he wants to move along to the next victim. So
be interested. Tonight was a good case in point with a call (the first
junk call in some time) on my public line. It was a machine introducing
"a computer that would tell me how I could cash in" on the equity in
my home or something like that.

This particular system wanted me to answer a bunch of personal
questions. I was to wait for each tone before speaking. Usually, I
answer the questions and feign interest so the live person will call
back and I can waste even more time (and maybe find out who is
violating CPUC tariff). Tonight, however, I simply played a little of
my MOH at each prompt. Currently, my MOH is a Spanish language radio
station.

While the machines are sort of fun to play with, live people get an
unceremonious, "I'm sorry, I do not respond to telephone solicitation."
This has yet to result in anything other than an apology for bothering
me from the other end and an immediate end to the conversation.

I, too, work all hours. I do programming and hate to have my train of
thought derailed. And I get my share of junk calls. But I have to
admit that they are really nothing more than a minor annoyance. And it
is much easier to resume writing code or whatever after a couple of
words with a telemarketer than when a client calls and talks my ear
off.

I think that Herculean efforts to avoid telemarketers are more of a
waste of time than the "problem" itself.


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

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 05:41:47 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telemarketers: One Good Solution


I have my own solution ... and given the medium this is being
discussed on, I'm amazed nobody's thought of it!

A modem answers my phone when I'm not on the computer.  If no modem
tone exists on the calling end, the /COMPUTER/ emits a turkey caller
type ring, indicating a human caller. At this point, the modem holds
the line open for 45 seconds, or until I tell it to let go of the
line, whichever comes first.

I've not had a telemarketing call in some months, now ... most give up
as soon as they get the tone. I've been told by someone in that
business that the common practice is for numbers that have modems
attached to them get removed from calling lists.

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 17:04:37 -0800
From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Bob Yazz)
Subject: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 01:02:44 GMT


Rep. Barney Frank was interviewed at Boston's Logan Airport the other
evening on Nightline, about his proposed legislation.  Surely someone
else has seen it and might be able to fill in the following a bit more
completely.  I believe there were four points but I remember only the
first and last:

o    Require all junk-call dialers to disconnect immediately
    if the the callee hangs up.  (The inability to call 911,
    or whatever, until the automated sales pitch finishes is
    the issue here.)

o    Create a national list of phone numbers that could Not
    be junk-called or junk-faxed.  The crucial point that
    I didn't hear made specific is whether this list would
    prevent human junk calls too, or just the machine ones.

Rep. Frank did say that until machines started bothering people in
their homes in the last few years, the problem was small enough that
people didn't much complain.

Elections are coming up, and is this the kind of legislation that the
public can really get behind.

Maybe, in the name of saving trees, we can get them to put our mailing
addresses out-of-bounds for junk mail too!


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?
Date: 15 Nov 91 15:59:29 GMT
Organization: Unisys - Roseville, MN


[e-mail] (Gordon D Woods) writes:

> The only explanation for someone not believing this amount of effort
> is that they do not live in a high "telemarketing community." I have
> recently moved and it is clear that telemarketers target specific
  ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
> areas. Before the move, one telemarket call per week; after the move,
> two or three per night.

I live in the Twin Cities, and we have a lot of telemarketing here.
And yes, telemarketers do target specific locations; if you sell
roofing or siding, you do not need to call areas where most people
live in apartments or rental housing.

Some of what Mr. Woods reports may be geographic targeting.  But there
are at least two other possible reasons for his sudden surge in
traffic: First, there are seasonal efforts.  For example, this time of
year, he may get called on furnace cleaning services or other
winterizing pitches.  Secondly, he recently moved.  Especially if he
bought his new abode, several telemarketers may have bought his
name/number from people who target new move-ins or new mortgagees.

Many people move into a new home and find that there is something they
must fix immediately -- furnace, roof, wet basement, leaking pipes,
etc.  Also, homeowners are perceived as being good risks and therefore
good prospects for major sales.

None of which reduces the annoyance of being bombarded.  We've endured
several blitzes, though, and they have seemed to run their course
after a LONG couple of weeks.  :-( Then comparative peace for weeks or
months, then another seige.

It will get worse, though; my eldest child is approaching 13 ...


Bill

[e-mail]
Unisys has enough problems without being blamed for my personal opinions.

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 01:57:33 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew
M. Boardman) writes:

> I suspect it would be far easier to find an NPA where your number is
> not in service (consult exchange lists to avoid annoying people), call
> it there, and record the resulting message, which in virtually all
> cases only reports a seven digit number not being in service.

> [Moderator's Note: Thank you for at least suggesting the consultation
> of exchange lists. Otherwise, how many people would be disturbed in
> the process of finding a solution to prevent yourself from being
> disturbed? (Still looking down my nose with distaste at the whole
> project.)  PAT]

Gee, since my phone number is 540-xxxx, I guess I could try this with
212-540-xxxx, and see if I can get something like "5-4-0-x-x-x-x: we
are sorry -- we do not connect to 976 numbers at this time."  Now
*that* would confuse people!  If I could convince the telemarketers
that they were paying $2/minute to try to sell me light bulbs and
garbage bags, they might try less often ...


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail],
Still amused that every "special toll" prefix in NYC except 976 is a
plain local prefix to me here in Berkeley.

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

From: [e-mail] (Simona Nass)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing COS
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:31:32 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


Wouldn't local telephone companies also oppose having telemarketers
check a database of folks who don't want calls, simply because it
would cut the revenue of the local telcos?


(    [e-mail]    or    {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona     )

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 10:44:26 MST
From: asuvax!gtephx![e-mail] (Jeffrey Hunt 4082)
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Hunt 4082)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood
Reply-To: huntj@hw_zilch.UUCP (Jeffrey Hunt 4082)
Organization: gte
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 17:43:59 GMT


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

> I am convinced part of the reason I do not see eye to eye with many
> readers regarding the 'scourge of telemarketing' is due to the
> relative rarity of this sort of call to my phones.

> If I got four or five a night, I guess I would be annoyed by it
> also. So I can see why some of you want to devise schemes to avoid the
> calls when possible. Is three or four a night about average for most
> people? That seems like a lot.

Thank you for finally acknowledging the validity of this concern.  I
get an average of three or four telemarketing calls per night, but the
telemarketers, clever rascals that they are, are getting better at
figuring out when I'll be home.  I can count on six to eight calls
from them if a Suns game is being televised.

To me, the trend is more alarming than the current frequency.  Five
years ago, I got almost no telemarketing calls; three years ago,
perhaps one per day; now it's tripled that.  In five more years, will
I be fielding 15 to 20 calls each evening?  Impossible!

It's no wonder that people are trying to discourage them.


Jeffrey Hunt     [phone]
UUCP: ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!huntj
Compuserve:  73760.767@compuserve

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 09:56:13 EST
From: [e-mail] (Gordon D Woods)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> For starters, I have phones everywhere I sit, including my throne
> chair.

I am working on this but it takes a long time to wire the whole
house. I tried a cordless phone but I always seemed to leave it
where I wasn't. I have trouble putting my heart into it, though,
essentially succumbing to telemarketers forcing me to waste time
wiring my whole house or buying expensive equipment. IT'S JUST NOT FAIR!

> On the rare occassion when I am home during the day, the phone rarely
> rings, except with wrong numbers.

This is my experience also, even for my targeted neighborhood. They
just don't call during the day. Dinner and afterward, that's the plan.

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 15:08:33 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Adam Ashby)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood


Pat,

I have always wondered why you are so down on Chicago.  Where exactly
do you live??  I have and will always have, very good memories of my
two years in the city -- well one year of utter boredom in the
northwest suburbs (Palatine) and one excellent year in the city.  I
suppose that I was lucky in that I lived in what I was told was the
Gold Coast -- SW corner of Dearborn and Chicago.  But having said that
I was only a few blocks away from Cabrini Green -- not the most
salubrious part of ChiTown eh?!  During the time I spent in both
places, I received a few telemarketing calls from newspapers when I
first moved in and almost nothing since then.  I experienced one
recorded sales pitch that I hung up on and a couple of Visa-type
places trying to sign me up.  I did of course have the advantage of
not having a credit record so I suppose that not many people were
intersted in me.

Anyway, my initial reason for this mail was to wonder why you felt
Chicago was such a bad place to live.  I never had any problems,
despite my proximety to Cabrini Green and being diagonally opposite
the YMCA.  My wife had only one exciting moment even though she walked
up Dearborn every night from #33 even in the dark.  The only "moment"
she had was when she noticed someone trying to steal her bag (purse to
you Americans!!), she soon sent him packing with a swift right to the
face!!  We often used to take late night walks around the area, or up
to Oak Street beach, or down to Grant Park, something I wouldn't so
happily do in London.

I think that you should be proud of the city and let people know what
a fine place it is instead of the doom and gloom that you paint it in
the Digest.  If I had unlimited funds, I would wish to have an
appartment in Chicago, London and New York, but I can never decide
which one I prefer the most!!  I do realise that Chicago has its
problems -- I spent a lot of time at Blues clubs, including some of the
lesser known ones on the South and West sides where very few white
Chicagoans would go, let alone your average tourist -- but it also has
a lot of good points!


Adam


[Moderator's Note: I'll respond in detail in a special mailing over
the weekend. That way, anyone not interested in me crying in my beer
can pitch it unread.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer)
Subject: AT&T Security Systems (was Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Msg?)
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 14:12:37 GMT


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

> Last night's second telemarketer was from AT&T!  At least, that's what
> he said.  He was selling (oops, he wasn't selling it, he was just
> explaining features and taking reservations for a seminar on home
> security) AT&T home security systems.  If I have a detail or two
> wrong, it is because I cut him off pretty quickly.  I wasn't aware
> that AT&T sold home security products, so perhaps this call was a
> ripoff.

Most likely it was a local security company that is an authorized
dealer of AT&T security products.  Around here, the GOOD security
companies have all the business they can handle without
telemarketing.


Paul S. Sawyer    - University of New Hampshire CIS - [e-mail]
Telecommunications and Network Services             - VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                   - FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 10:43:27 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences


frankston![e-mail] writes:

> Then there is the problem of phone numbers starting with "9".  People
> don't change their dialing patterns when the[y] get home from work.

In other words, someone has dialed 9-abc-defg to make a local call
from an office and forgets to omit the leading 9 when calling that
same number from home, so reaches 9ab-cdef instead?

Here is a case of the reverse:

In the installation where my office is (Maryland), 9 + (7D or
1+NPA+7D) is the way to make a call thru the "outside" commercial
network, and 17 is the emergency number.

Recently, I heard (no specifics given) that some people forget to dial
that leading 9 when making long distance calls to an area code
starting with 7.  Notice that area codes 703 and 717 border Maryland.

> Interestingly I get more wrong numbers on one line than another.  The
> offending one is the second line which is one higher than the first
> line.

Vague.


[Moderator's Note: When I worked at the Amoco-Diners credit card
processing office years ago my centrex extension was 7261. Next door
was a combination delicattessen/cut rate liquor store where employees
would order lunch by phone. Their number was 726-1111 if memory serves
me. Starting at 11:45 AM daily, my phone would ring; I would answer
and the caller(s) would usually curse and hang up, having forgotten to
dial a '9' first. I'd get one or two of these calls every day during
the two lunch hours.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #932
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10797;
          16 Nov 91 4:40 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24617
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:45:29 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15478
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:45:17 -0600
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:45:17 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #931

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 15 Nov 91 22:45:10 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 931

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Future of Printed Books (Jack Decker)
    Re: Phone Gateways? (Bob Frankston)
    Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: Alternative Email Service (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: Call Waiting in the 5ESS (Tad Cook)
    Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Dave Strieter)
    Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption (Robert E. Zabloudil)
    Re: Cellular Antennas (John Gilbert)
    Re: Cellular Antennas (John Higdon)
    Re: Cellular Antennas (Mark Ahlenius)
    Re: Cellular Antennas (Russell Lang)
    Re: On Having Telco as a Housemate (was Question Easement) (Lars Poulsen)
    Finding a Message From Prior Issues (William M. Davidson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 22:01:43 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books


In a message dated 10 Nov 91 14:24:59 GMT, Pat (the Moderator) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Not everyone here would agree with you, but I do.
> For all that was wrong with the old Bell System, we still had the best
> phone system in the world, bar none. That is now very questionable.
> Yes, we have all kinds of new technological gimmicks on the phone we
> did not have years ago, but the network itself has gone to hell in a
> handbasket, and the old-time enthusiasm and dedication to quality of
> service is mostly missing.  PAT]

Pat, you're probably getting a lot of mail on this one, but I'll throw
in my two cents' worth anyway.

I will grant that in some cases the quaility of service has degraded,
though I have to wonder how much of that is specifically related to
the breakup of the Bell System and how much of it is due to the change
in society as a whole.  America once made the best cars and television
sets in the world, too.  It seems that pride in workmanship and an
emphasis on doing things right the first time has fallen by the
wayside in many industries, not just the telephone industry.

On the other hand, when the Bell System broke up we did not have voice
calls from across the continent that sounded as clear as if the person
speaking were next door, and you thought twice about picking up the
phone to make that cross-country call because the tolls were so much
higher.

And, yes, it was comforting to know that if something broke, Ma would
fix it for free ... but was it really worth $5 per month (more if you
wanted a color other than black) per extension phone, for a phone that
Ma paid maybe $20 to produce (and no extra cost per color)?

I think the Bell System really sowed the seeds of its own demise, by
ripping people off in various and sundry ways.  And I think the Baby
Bells are making the same mistakes today, especially with the
imposition of mandatory measured service.  People aren't so dumb that
they don't know when they're being overcharged, and sooner or later
the resentment comes to a head.

The one thing that few people will ever say about the old Bell System
(just prior to divestiture) was that service was a real bargain,
especially if you wanted something more than just one telephone, or
made more than a few long distance calls!


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

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

From: <frankston![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Gateways?
Date: 14 Nov 1991 14:53 -0400


X.PC is a publicly available protocol defined by Tymnet.  I don't know
the current number for reaching them, but I'd guess the main info
number is a start.  XPC code might also be avialable on arious BBSes.

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:13:29 CST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone


[e-mail] (Ken J. Clark) writes:

> I'm not sure when AT&T introduced Touchtone(R) to the market place.

I'm going to GUESS at sometime around 1964 at the latest. We attended
the New York World's Fair that year, and among the neat new things
there were Touchtone(R) payphones around the fairgrounds. I'm pretty
certain that those early ones didn't include the "*" and "#" keys, by
the way. I remember that they made such an impression on the visitors
that people not only made the usual gee-whiz calls ("Hey, Grandpa,
we're calling you from a Touchtone-parentheses-R phone!"), but also
photographed each other standing at the telephone. I know we did.  :-)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Alternative Email Service
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 03:26:56 GMT


[e-mail] (Ken Sprouse) writes:

> I think you should also look at GEnie.(General Electric Information
> Service) They offer email as part of their BASIC services package for
> a flat fee of $4.95 a month with no connect time charges (18:00 to
> 08:00 eastern time) and no limit on the number of email messages.

Currently, GEnie does not have connectivity with outside mail services
(although there are persistant rumors that this will change soon).  If
GEnie does get a hookup with the internet, it will certainly be the
best deal in the commercial arena by far.

When I moved to Japan I gave my CI$ account to my mother so we could
email back and forth.  If GEnie gets internet connectivity, I'll
switch her to a GEnie STAR*SERVICES account the next day.


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

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

Subject: Re: Call Waiting in the 5ESS
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 14 Nov 91 23:21:21 GMT
Organization: very little


[e-mail] (John Higdon) sez:

> I have just been informed by someone deep in Pac*Bell that there IS a
> situation where the 5ESS will allow Call Waiting to a person who is
> the center of a three-way call in progress.

Incredible!  After twice posting that I can do this from my home phone
(served by a 5ESS), my friend Mr. Higdon insisted that I didn't know
what I was talking about ... "reliable" sources had told him that this
is impossible, and I think his comment was something like "are we to
believe these (unnamed) authoritative sources, or Mr. Cook?".

When I offered to demonstrate this for him, he claimed that I didn't
know what flavor of switch I am served by, so my demonstration could
do nothing to enlighten anyone, since as a residential customer I
could not actually PROVE that the Lakeview CO in Seattle is a 5ESS.

Somehow quirks in his 5ESS in PacBell are alleged to be the defacto
standard for the rest of us in US West!


 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  [phone]             |   MCI Mail: 3288544
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   [e-mail]
              |  USENET: [e-mail]          or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 16:57:45 MST
From: asuvax!gtephx![e-mail] (Dave Strieter)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Strieter)
Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 23:57:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott
Coleman) writes:

> phone numbers. I've received all sorts of wrong-number calls,
> including some for the local cable company! It brings to mind the old
> AT&T ad jingle about "second class phones." There appear to be a great
> many second class phones out there ...

Our AT&T cordless phone must have been one of those "second-class
phones" that AT&T was talking about, because it sure had a bad case of
key bounce.  Fortunately, AT&T has agreed to fix it for free, even
though it is out of warranty.  But then, they haven't sent it back to
me yet, so ... :-)


Dave Strieter,  AG Communication Systems,  POB 52179,  Phoenix AZ 85072-2179
*** These are not my employer's opinions, and I have no intent to advise. ***
UUCP:..!{ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!samsung!romed!asuvax | att}!gtephx!strieterd
Internet: gtephx![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert E. Zabloudil)
Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption
Date: 14 Nov 91 16:36:25 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


In article <[e-mail]> Jay.Ashworth@psycho.
fidonet.org (Jay Ashworth) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 907, Message 5 of 10

> If they really mis-encode your bill, I expect you can sue them.  If they

Hate to respond without seeing the original post, but the above would
be rather a drastic first step.  When I got my October statement from
my CU (canceled checks are not returned), I noticed my check to
Kroger's for $8. Something was cleared for $81. Something.  I called
them, they got a copy of the check without the usual $5 charge, and
then fixed my account, reassuring me that nothing had bounced in the
meantime.

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

From: [e-mail] (John)
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas
Organization: Motorola Inc, LMPS
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 02:28:38 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Eric_Florack.Wbst311@
xerox.com writes:

> ...Such a system is all but useless. IF you're seeing two cellular
> antennas, someone has bought a dummy antenna and suck it up there.
> (Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part is, even if the second antenna
> isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to be fouling the performance of
> the first ... but that's another story.

The second antenna might be for another cellular phone as a later
posting points out.  It might also be for a land mobile 800 or 900 Mhz
conventional or trunked radio.

Most likely it is for diversity reception capability.  Some high tier
phones offer this feature that requires two antennas. With diversity
you can switch or combine signals to gain a 12 dB signal-to-noise
improvement. One antenna talks and listens; the other only listens.

The original Chicago AMPS trials telephones all used dual antenna
diversity reception. At one time the Bell System anticipated using
diversity reception on all AMPS telephones.  I don't know why it is
not seen on more phones today, but I would assume it would be
primarily for cost considerations.  More information about the Chicago
AMPS trials is in the Bell System Technical Journal vol 58, pp. 97-122
Jan 1979. (A great publication -- another of the casualties of
divestiture.)

As the earlier posting pointed out, phased transmit antennas wouldn't
make sense in this application.


John Gilbert     KA4JMC    Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div
Astro Systems Development  Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, Illinois                          [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 12:43 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas


[e-mail] writes:

> IF you're seeing two cellular antennas, someone has bought a dummy
> antenna and suck it up there.  (Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part
> is, even if the second antenna isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to
> be fouling the performance of the first ... but that's another story.

This is not necessarily true. Some cellular transceivers (one being an
EF Johnson which happened to be my first cellular phone) use
"diversity reception". The receiver monitors the signal on TWO input
ports and switches to the one that has the cleanest signal.
Transmitting is done through only one of the antennas, but the
receiver can switch at will to either one.

With that particular radio, there was a tremendous difference between
one and two antenna reception. So I would venture to say that if you
see two cellular antennas, the most likely reason is that the radio
utilizes diversity reception.


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

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

From: motcid![e-mail] (Mark Ahlenius)
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas
Date: 15 Nov 91 12:39:18 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Often the reason for two cellular antennas is for diversity reception.
Some mobile phones offer this feature, which permits the radio to
select the stronger of two signals received.  This requires a more
complex front end in the radio, and a technique that measures which
signal is stronger, and then it choses that signal.

Due to the short wavelength of cellular frequencies, multipath
distortion can often occur.  Ever notice how in a downtown area when
you are listening to your radio and you stop at a light, the radio
fades, but if you move a few feet or inches, reception often comes
back?  Well the same concept is applied to diversity reception.  Two
antennas are spaced a specified distance apart, and chances are if the
recieved signal at one antenna is in a fade, the other is not.

The same technology applies to wireless microphone systems with
diversity reception (in building coverage is often a bear!).  Some
cellular manufacturers also provide diversity reception on the celluar
base stations as well for the same reasons.

Now once while driving on Rt. 53 (Illinois) I saw a van with 13
cellular antennas, unless it was a special test vehicle, your guess is
as good as mine.

Hope this overly simplified answer helps.


mark

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

From: [e-mail] (r lang)
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas
Organization: Monash University, Australia
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 21:57:29 GMT


The purpose of twin cellular antennas is most likely space diversity.
The signal at the mobile undergoes rapid fading due to reception of
multiple path reflections (commonly called multipath or rayleigh
fading).  The fading received at two spaced antennas has been found to
be uncorrelated for spacings of several wavelengths or more.  If the
signal drops below a threshold, and if the other antenna has a better
signal, the mobile will change antennas.

References:  Bell Systems Technical Journal circa 1980 (from memory)
             Microwave Mobile Communications, Jakes (Ed.)


Russell Lang   Email: [e-mail]   Phone: [phone]
Department of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering
Monash University, Australia

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 10:58:35 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: On Having Telco as a Housemate (was Question Easement)
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA


PAT,

    Don't leave us hanging like that: Did that lady ever get the
box removed?


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


[Moderator's Note: I don't know. I never followed up on it. If someone
wants to do so, I'll be glad to run a followup story.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 14:03:37 -0700
From: [e-mail] (William M. Davidson)
Subject: Finding Messages From Prior Issues


During the last two years, I have seen several complaints about MCI and
Sprint customer service.  I did not save any of them but I now wish I had.
Does anyone have a collection of complaints towards MCI, Sprint and AT&T?

Thanks!


William [i aM not a dweeb] Davidson
Sandia National Laboratories [phone]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Ah, a chance to plug the subject index in the
Telecom Archives!  A file you will find there is entitled
'index-vol9-10-11.subj.Z'. The /Z/ means it is compressed. This file
contains the subject lines in alphabetical order of all messages in
the Digest since about March, 1989 to the present time. (Actually, up
to issue 900.) Take this back to your site, uncompress it, then grep
it to your heart's content for subjects, author's names, phrases which
appeared in the headers, and (in the left column) the volume number
and block of issues where the desired message is to be found. Grep -i
is recommended for best results. The Telecom Archives is available via
anonymous ftp: lcs.mit.edu; give name@site as password, then you must
'cd telecom-archives'.    Happy hunting!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #931
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21873;
          16 Nov 91 13:54 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03402
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 10:54:31 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14972
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 10:54:22 -0600
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 10:54:22 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #933

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Nov 91 10:54:03 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 933

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? (Ben Delisle)
    New AT&T Mail Rate Clarification (Alan Toscano)
    Method Needed to Test Extension Phone (David Nyarko)
    New SS7 Specifications From Bellcore (Dave Leibold)
    Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch (Cliff Stoll)
    Re: Cellular Antennas (Chris Sattler)
    Re: Two Cellular Questions (Michael Lyman)
    Re: Cellular Phone Rates Boudrie
    Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (Steven King)
    Re: Easements (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking (Vincent D. Skahan)
    Re: Calling Card Wars (Simona Nass)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ben Delisle)
Subject: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them?
Date: 15 Nov 91 08:36:20 GMT
Organization: ESKIMO NORTH [phone] SEATTLE WA.


[Moderator's Note: In this issue, I decided to save the best for
first. Go ahead Ben ...   PAT]

   Something just gave me a great idea, if it would work the way I am
hoping.

   If you have or get call transfer ... and somebody you don't like or
even a telemarketer calls you ... how about using Call Transfer on
them? My plan is to transfer their call to a foreign country or to a
real expensive 900 / 976 number. Now the catch is ... do you pay for
the call from your switch to wherever you send the offending
caller(s), or does the person who you transfered pay for the call to
wherever they happen to get sent? (I'm bustin my belly on this idea,
it's so funny! ;) I want to make their call as expensive as possible
(nasty, ain't I?).


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note, complete with straight face, like that of an unduly
unctious undertaker: Ben, I hate to break the news to you, but I hope
you haven't been trying this little trick. The telemarketers won't
like it, but you'll like it even less when you get your next phone
bill. ANYTHING you dial on your phone is charged to you, Ben. People
only pay for what they dial. Where the call gets extended to is the
responsibility of the extending party -- that's you! -- and if you've
been forwarding or transferring your callers to 1-900-328-7448 or Hong
Kong Telephone Company's Talking Clock, then the joke is on you, I'm
afraid. Thanks for writing to me.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Nov 15 12:31:35 CST 1991
Subject: New AT&T Mail Rate Clarification


I've just spoken with an AT&T EasyLink Services representative,
regarding the scheduled rate increase for AT&T Mail users. She
indicated that the $25/mo usage minimum, and $3/mo mailbox fee, will
not apply until the account's next anniversary. That is, they will
take effect one year after the user was last billed the $30 annual
fee. Also, it is possible to combine several mailboxes under one
Master Account, in which case the $25 minimum will apply to the
combined usage. (I'm not sure when the minimum takes effect if the
several mailboxes had different anniversaries.) Companies with
multiple mailboxes should definitely look into this.

Finally, anyone planning to cancel their AT&T Mail account because of
the rate increase, is encouraged to call 800 242-6005, and register
their intentions.  EasyLink is taking names and numbers in the hope
that they can offer some type of economy plan. For now, it's just a
hope -- there's nothing official.


A Alan Toscano   Work: [phone]         Home: [phone]
P O Box 741982   AT&T Mail:   atoscano         ELN:         62306750
Houston, TX      CIS:        73300,217         Prodigy:      BHWR97A
772741982 USA    X.400: C=US;A=ATTMAIL;S=Toscano;G=A;DDA.ID=atoscano


[Moderator's Note: I see they have linked ATT Mail to the FYI
Information Service run by WU in Bridgeton, MO. I sent a note asking
if the $25 minimum could be applied to FYI usage, in which case I
might consider sticking around. They have not answered me yet.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Nyarko)
Subject: Method Needed to Test Extension Phone
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Nyarko)
Organization: University of Alberta Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 22:25:07 GMT


I would like to know if there is a way (short of asking a friend to
call your number) of testing/phoning an extension phone from another
phone on the same line.


[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: If you know the ring-back number you can use it. PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 18:49:21 EST
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: New SS7 Specifications From Bellcore


Bellcore has just announced a new edition of its Specification of
Signalling System Number 7 (issue 2). The notice that came my way in
the mail had a list price of USD$550, document number TR-NWT-000246.
Covered are such things as Message Transfer Part (MTP), Singalling
Connection Control Part (SCCP), ISDN User Part (ISUP), Transaction
Capabilities Application Part (TCAP), Operation, Maintenance and
Administration Part (OMAP) and Interworking of ISDN Access and Network
Signaling.

SS7 is a protocol that provides signalling within a telephone network;
the idea is that signalling is done on a common channel, away from the
voice circuits, in order to improve security and efficiency of
connections.  Practical examples of the network include the Caller
Number ID service (SS7 delivers the caller's number to the called
party) or the almost instantaneous call completion after Toronto-area
subscribers dial the last digit on most local phone calls.

I do not represent Bellcore; I'm just one who gets mailings from them.
For more information, contact 1 800 521.CORE (USA) or +1 908 699.5800
(other), or check the FAQ for more info (mail address, Bellcore's
activities).


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Cliff Stoll)
Subject: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch
Date: 15 Nov 91 23:33:19 GMT
Organization: ucb


Hi there,

Comp.dcom.telecom isn't the place to post this, but there's a lot of
oldstyle hardware wizards hanging around here, so here goes:

I'm rebuilding an IBM 026 Keypunch and need documentation.
Schematics, service manuals, information on where to grease, and where
to find replacement parts (like belts and printer ribbons).

If you don't know what an 026 is, you're indeed fortunate!

Many Thanx!


Cliff Stoll     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Cliff, it's nice to hear from you again. Your
messages are always welcome here.  Answers, anyone?   PAT]

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Chris Sattler)
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas
Date: 15 Nov 91 20:41:45 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] writes:

> Such a system is all but useless. IF you're seeing two cellular
> antennas, someone has bought a dummy antenna and stuck it up there.
> (Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part is, even if the second antenna
> isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to be fouling the performance of
> the first ... but that's another story.

The purpose of having two antennas for a cellular phone is to supply
antenna diversification when receiving a signal.  Here's the idea ...
When you're stuck in city traffic and just inching along , you can
move the antenna into a small area where the radio signal combines
with a reflected signal which is out of phase.  The two signals cancel
each other out resulting in a weak signal.  Antenna diversification
uses two antennas and select the one with the best signal.  When you
have antenna diversification the probability of both antennas being
affected by such a condition is much less.  These areas are very
small.  Obviously this is not a problem if the mobile is moving very
fast as you are in and out of the area before you notice any effect.


Chris Sattler    Motorola Inc  !uunet!motcid!sattlerc    [phone]
All opinions expressed are my own, not those of my employer.

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Michael Lyman)
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions
Date: 15 Nov 91 23:01:42 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] writes:

> I have two questions:

> When the phone is just sitting there, it tends to transmit for about
> one oe two seconds every hour or so.  What is it transmitting?  Is the
> cellular switch polling it or is the phone taking it upon itself to
> transmit something?

This is most likely because the "reregistration" bit is set in the
overhead signaling stream. This is an option when set by the switching
operator that changes a bit in the signaling scheme to the phone that
tells the unit to start a timer. Upon timeout the unit will
momentarily transmit and send its registration parameters to the
switch ( via the base site of course ). Apparently the system has been
scoped such that this amount of overhead is allowable on that
particular system since with the constant rereg messages going on this
amounts to quite a bit of data above and beyond the normal amount.

> 2.  Is there any advantage to using twin cellular antennas on a car?
> Remember during the CB craze this was the case.  Also, does it matter
> if the antenna is in the back, middle, or side of a car?

I can't be sure which twin cellular antennae you're refering to but
there has been (and still are I assume) a version of cellular receiver
that uses a form of diversity reception ... actually two different
receivers in the same unit. The received signals are processed in
parellel then sumed to give an enhanced recovered waveform. If memory
serves correctly I believe this was the scheme that the AMPS system
originally used.

Although I can't be certain, it would seem a bit defeating to have a
directional cellular antenna as one might normally view the two
antenna philosophy normally used in C.B. radio's.


Michael Lyman, Motorola S.E.D (Iridium)
Chandler, Az.  ...uunet!motcid!lyman (for now..)

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

From: Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 15:04:47 EST
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates


>> cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to
>> maintain.  Should be much cheaper.  Why do people put up with such a
>> ripoff?

You appear to be under the assumption that the goal of carriers is to
provide a service.  No so.  The goal is to lawfully separate the
customer from as much of their money as possible, with as little
corporate expenditure as possible.

Also, given the history of the development of Cellular Service,
society has not regarded it as anything that must be "universal", or
is "essential" for all members of society, whereas public policy does
make that tacit assumption about regular fones.  Hence, there is litle
regulatory pressure bearing on the industry to keep prices low.

Another factor is the limited competetion.  The FCC licenses two carriers
in each local (to stimulate competetion, but avoid chaos in the spectrum).
These licenses were originally raffled off to any entrant who could prove
they had the resources to develop a cellular system (no "get rich quick
by winning a license and selling it" unless you could convince the FCC that
you had a credible chance of using the license yourself).  As a result,
each celluar provider has 1 competitor to worry about.  It is very possible,
and even likely, that the competing providers agree (without ever discussing
it) not to get into price wars.  Each one realizes that if they lower the
price to increase market share, the enemy carrier will as well, they'll
still have 50% of the market but at a lower price (of course demand will go
up, but they seek to optimize the profit integral).  As a result, you see
lots of competetion based on service, innovative billing "arrangements" (a
zillion "plans" to chose from), but no meaningful attempt by any celluar
company to underprice the competetion.  This allows each company to have
roughly half of the subscribers in a given market; maximize their profit;
and minimize the amount of cash left in the subscriber's pocket.

Why do people put up with such a ripoff?  I don't!!!  If they had Hong Kong
style pricing, I'd have a celluar phone.

Another issue relates to recovery of the capital investment.  In the absence
of regulatory pressure, firms will want to recover this ASAP.

In general, I'm a fan of unregulated free market competetion.  Unfortunately,
the nature of celluar fones (limited spectrum and inability of N, n>2
providers, competitors in the market) creates a situation where regulation
may be appropriate.

If I've made any "errors of fact" I invite the net community to post
corrections.


Rob Boudrie
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 17:13:29 CST
From: [e-mail] (Steven King)
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU


John Higdon writes:

>[e-mail] writes:

>> [AT&T's Reach Out doesn't end automatically if you switch carriers.]

> Why is this a problem? Some people may even want to continue AT&T
> plans even with another PIC. Just because a customer has "switched
> carriers" does not mean that they can never use AT&T again.

I'd consider this to be a *major* bug!  As a consumer, I consider
Reach Out and any other special billing plans as part of my AT&T
service.  If I cancel my AT&T service (by switching to another
carrier) I expect AT&T to stop billing me.  Period.  If I were to find
a charge the next month for Reach Out I'd complain bitterly to AT&T.

I realize that some people may want AT&T's Reach Out plan but have
another company as their default carrier.  Provision should be made
for that.  But I expect that this is the exception rather than the
rule.  I'd prefer to see the default be to terminate all billing plans
unless AT&T is otherwise notified, rather than having to explicitly
cancel each plan separately.  Your average consumer just isn't going
to think to do that.  (Heck, I'm hardly your average telecom consumer,
and *I* wouldn't think to explicitly cancel my Reach Out America
service if I changed carriers!)


Steven King, Motorola Cellular  ([e-mail])

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 10:01:57 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: Easements


I'd like to add one more thing about my easement for utilities.  In
New York, as I understand it, an easement gives a utility the
permission to string their lines across your property on under its
surface.

Should a problem occur with an underground installation, the homeowner
is responsible for digging the trench to expose the item and replace
it at my expense.  At least this is true for water. I don't know about
telephone or electric lines since mine are overhead.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Vincent D. Skahan)
Subject: Re: Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking
Date: 15 Nov 91 15:02:36 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplanes - Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
UPENN.EDU (Scott D. Green) writes:

> 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 opponent," he said.

I don't want to have to do ANYTHING to block Caller-ID ... I just want
it blocked positively and absolutely.

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

From: [e-mail] (Simona Nass)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:28:15 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. Philip
Miller) writes:

> Is it war or not between AT&T and the Baby Bells for credit card
> accounts?  Are others using the same advertising strategy?

At least here in New York it is. I just got a notice from NYTel that
AT&T would no longer be able to use customers' home phone number as
part of their calling card. NYTel offered to allow customers ("How
many plastic cards would you like?") to keep the same number (home
phone) and PIN from their AT&T card, but with it under NYTel's
jurisdiction.


(     [e-mail]    or    {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona     )

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #933
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23897;
          16 Nov 91 15:18 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05100
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 11:53:03 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23050
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 11:52:53 -0600
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 11:52:53 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #934

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Nov 91 11:52:39 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 934

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    How Do They >>Know<< ? (Marshal Perlman)
    New Product Review: EmBARC (David Lesher)
    AT&T Early Efforts in Radio Broadcasting (SIGNALS Show via Scott Fybush)
    AT&T Speech Recognition (Charles Hoequist)
    What Information do Phone Companies Process? (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton)
    Are Phone Books Available on Diskette? (John Roberts)
    Problem With Three Way Call (J. Brad Hicks)
    Tone Decoder Wanted (Tatsuya Kawasaki)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Marshal Perlman)
Subject: How Do They >>Know<< ?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 02:50:25 GMT


OK ... I hope you can all understand this ... but here I go.

Today, I got my HI! HELLO catalog...and noticed something neat. I can
fill out a form, fax it in to 1-800-888-0108, and they would send me
back the product information I indicated on the sheet. Anyhow on the
sheet, you are supposed to write your fax number in "ocr handwriting"
so their fax can see it, and send it back to you. Well, I got the
information I wanted, and said "HEY ... THAT IS NEAT". So I decide to
'play' with it and I learned something quite odd.

First and formost (this is important to the story), we have two fax
machines, one 'real one' and one on a computer board. I decided to
type up a little message that said "FAX" and send it to the machine.
Two minutes later a fax came in and said 'we cannot process your
request' and a bunch of other stuff. I wondered how the computer got
my fax number and then I realized that the 'header' had my fax number
in it so I said 'wow it reads that too ... pretty neat' but then I
went out on a limb and tried something. I erased the fax number and
name of my company from the header of the fax (I double checked that I
did erase it by sending a fax to my other machine) and faxed it in. Lo
and behold two minutes later I got another 'we cannot process your
request' thingy.

NOW I am positive that my fax number was not anywhere on the fax, and
it still knew my phone number ... I live in CALIFORNIA and I am 99%
positive that we don't have CID (otherwise I'd have it). How did they
know my phone number? Was it ANI?  And there is NO HUMAN input from
their side. It was all by their machine ... the damn thing knew my
number.

SO again, in the face of science I thought maybe it knows my number
from the 1st two REAL faxes. I went to the other machine, erased the
number and name from the header, and send a blank page to them and
guess what happened two minutes later? I got a fax saying 'we cannot
process your request..." but this time it was on a different fax at a
different number.

Now can anyone tell me how they know my number?


Marshal Perlman    [e-mail]  Huntington Beach, California


[Moderator's Note: You said the answer yourself: They have real time
ANI.  Your number is delivered to them along with your fax.  PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Product Review: EmBARC
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 23:09:02 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


Galvin Manufacturing, sometimes known as Motorola, announced a new
product at NATA - Unicom. EmBARC is a somewhat uneasy marriage of
pagers and commercial email. Your message starts out in their X.400
switch. It then goes to their uplink site, and bounces down to all the
planned 931.9125mhz paging sites in the country.  Then based on how
much the sender paid, all or selected sites transmit the message, up
to 1500 characters, via {quote} State of The Art 1200 bps POCSAG
{endquote} to your special "NewsStream" receiver's 32k buffer. Then
when you plug it into your laptop or HP-95, you can scroll thru all
the received messages.

They showed salesmen getting spreadsheet data, price updates, and the
usual ilk of email. They say their software can sort one from the
other on the PC.

Impressions:
Macy asked about Internet access. The speaker [basically] said no way.
I pointed out they were pushing the transmission of all KINDS of
sensitive data to anyone with a 900 mhz receiver, and asked if it was
encrypted. The answer to that was [basically] "That's YOUR problem...."
[where have we heard THAT before?]

The scheme is one-way. There is no way for the remote to know it has
just missed a vital message. So there is a modem port on the X.400
switch. You can call in, reply to messages still in its buffer, and
get told you missed messages # 245, 246, and so forth. You do get a
notice if you receive #247 that two are missing, etc.

It seems very pricey. Plus, every time someone asked, some new charge
emerged. First there is a $400 cost to buy the pager, including a
startup pack of software for the laptop. There is a $15.00/month
charge for the X.400 mailbox of some finite size.

Then each message needs a $0.13 "stamp" and depending on:
    the urgency {10 minutes --> overnight},
    area {only the #256 transmitter in North Podunk or every
        one in Podunk, or nationwide}
    repetition {once, or repeated pages -- remember,
        there's no feedback of receipt} and other things,

a charge of from $0.05-->$0.50 per 100 bytes. Note that the SENDER
pays all these charges, hence there is a real problem with
establishing accounts, billing, etc. In addition, if you want your
email switch to talk to their X.400, that's more, too. They do have
the gimmick of specifying areas to be covered by area code.  ISTM at
these prices, they should be "900 numbers" ;-}

All in all, I think they'd have rather Macy and I were not there to
ask embarrassing questions. On the other hand, Ogilvy & Mather {the PR
house} provided all kinds of goodies including beach towels, drinks
and great horse-dovers!


[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 12:12 EDT
From: Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Early Efforts in Radio Broadcasting


Our esteemed Moderator asked me to post a transcript of the piece that
I did for SIGNALS a few weeks ago on AT&T's early radio involvement.
I wouldn't dare act against the Moderator's wishes :), so...

AT&T AND RADIO

As heard on *SIGNALS*, 9 November 1991

by Scott Fybush

When you think of AT&T, you probably think of the phone company.
AUDIO: {DTMF dialing, followed by AT&T's "ka-bong} But AT&T had a
radio career as well.  In fact, it was AT&T that invented the radio
network.  Our story takes us back to 1922, when radio broadcasting was
still in its infancy.  All radio was non-commercial, and all of it was
local.  AT&T looked at radio and saw something different -- a money-
maker.  It envisioned a "phone booth of the air," where people could
walk in, pay their money, and address the world.  The first phone
booth station, WBAY New York, signed on July 25, 1922.  It was
something less than successful, though.  The engineers who built WBAY
didn't realize that the steel-framed building that held the
transmitter tower would absorb so much of the station's signal.  For
most listeners, including AT&T's president at his Connecticut Home,
WBAY sounded more like _this_...

AUDIO: {static}

 ...than like a phone booth.  AT&T's engineers went back to work.  On
August 16, the phone booth programs moved to a new transmitter, with
the call letters WEAF.  Twelve days later, WEAF presented the first
commercial broadcast, a fifteen-minute talk advertising apartments in
Queens.

As radio began to take off, stations started bringing listeners
programs from outside the studion.  To present programming from long
distances required the help of the phone company.  And as phone
company engineers worked on these long-distance remotes, it occurred
to AT&T that WEAF's programs could be more valuable if they were heard
in other cities as well.  AT&T prepared a plan for 38 relay stations
across the country.  The first such station, WCAP Washington, signed
on July 4, 1923.  AT&T continued to offer firsts...a four-station
network the same month ... a presidential address over six stations in
December ... coast-to-coast broadcasts by 1924.  That summer's political
conventions were heard in twelve cities.  By the spring of 1925, AT&T
had a regular 12-station network available for use.  It also had a
growing government headache.

The problem was monopoly.  AT&T had the only network of wires
available for radio.  As a network operator itself, AT&T was becoming
unwilling to let other potential networks use its wires.  After
several years of negotiation, AT&T agreed to sell WEAF and its network
to the Radio Corporation of America -- RCA.  On November 1, 1926, the
sale was closed for one million dollars.  And on December 15, the
network, now with nineteen stations, received a new name -- the
"National Broadcasting Corporation" -- NBC.

As for the stations, WEAF was known later as WRCA and as WNBC.  It
left the airwaves for good in 1988.  WCAP's airtime was consolidated
into RCA's Washington station, WRC.  Today the station is known as
WWRC.  And AT&T?  They left the programming business, but their lines
continued to carry radio -- and television -- networks across the
country.  Only the advent of satellite networking in the 1980s took
AT&T out of the business that it helped invent.  AUDIO: {"Thank you
for using AT&T!"}

For SIGNALS, I'm Scott Fybush.

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

My next radio history piece will be heard on SIGNALS Saturday November
23.  SIGNALS airs every Saturday from 11:35 pm to 12:30 am Eastern
time over WWCR, 7435 kHz shortwave.  The topic of the next piece will
be synchronous AM broadcasting ... give it a listen!

For SIGNALS info: [e-mail]
For me: Scott Fybush -- [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: We'll be watching for another report here later
this month. Thanks very much for sending this along.   PAT]

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

Date: 15 Nov 91 12:20:00 EST
From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Speech Recognition


I brought this topic up a while ago with a request for information,
and for those who might be interested, here's a summary of what I've
turned up.

First, thank you to everyone who replied, both in Digest and in direct
e-mail. Apologies for my not directly responding, but I've been so
busy that just keeping up with the Digest has been my main leisure
activity. :)

I had originally inquired about an automatic speech rec system called
the BT-100, which I'd seen referenced in a {DEC Professional} article.

First, it's not clear from what I've been told (and found since then)
just what 'BT-100' refers to. Definitely a board, but whether the
recognizer is also 'BT-100', is pretty hazy. It makes use of AT&T's
DSP-32 chip, which I referred to as 'proprietary', and on which just
about everyone caught me. Of course it isn't proprietary. I _know_
that. My only excuse (aside from momentary brain absence), is that I
was paraphrasing the _DEC Pro_ article without paying enough
attention. There it is also called "AT&T's proprietary DSP-32 chip". I
received enough information about the chip itself that I could
probably write a squib on _it_ for _DEC Pro_.

Most responses included a suggestion that I ask AT&T. Folks, I'm not
trying to get the Digesters to do my legwork. I contacted AT&T
_first_, and they still haven't returned my calls. (This may just be
corporate inertia. DEC never answered my inquiries about DECvoice
either, and we have some cooperative ventures with them, for crying
out loud! I had to contact the author of the _DEC Pro_ piece, and he
then contacted people, and the whole thing bounced around for about
eight weeks before I got any response at all.)

As a side effect of digging, I found that AT&T is plunging more deeply
than I'd realized into speech recognition. They have not only the
collect-call billing system, but their Conversant product is adding on
a digit-recognition option, and a trial starts this month with US West
to use ASR to recognize requests for (CLASS?) features from
residential sets. People in the trial can hit #44, get a prompt and
then say the name of the feature they'd like on their line.

However, after all this, I still haven't been able to match
recognition algorithms (which Bell Labs folks regularly present at
IEEE conventions) to a particular product, though I can make some
guesses. Sigh. One correspondent suggested this was based on AT&T's
reluctance to hand out information of potential use to the
competition.

(1) not likely, since the algorithms are published anyway.

(2) if it is true, I think it's wrongheaded. NT effectively took over
an issue of {IEEE Computer} (August 1990) to brag about their public-
network ASR system, including algorithm descriptions.

There's a great deal more, but this is already getting to be a long
summary. Again, thanks to all those who wrote.


Charles Hoequist   |Internet: [e-mail]
BNR Inc.           | 919-991-8642
PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478

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

Subject: What Information do Phone Companies Process?
From: [e-mail] (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton)
Date: 14 Nov 1991 21:52 MST
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department


I'll be teaching a course on Information Age issues next semester, and
would be interested in pointers to people or resources who could tell
me what sort of information telephone companies do or can collect and
process, and how that's done, e.g., does my local service (C&P
Telephone) retain (and for how long?) a record of all calls made from
and/or to all numbers in its area, do they share records with the long
distance carriers (so as to be able to generate my monthly bill), and
so on.

Does a telco have an enormous computer center?  Or does the system
"forget" information as fast as it's created, e.g., once a call is
made, unless it's needed to account for billing, the fact that it was
made is unimportant and not retained?  As an experienced computer
person and a relative novice in the commercial telecom field, I'd be
grateful for any help, particularly in the form of leads to experts.

Responses to the list or to [e-mail], and thanks!


ras

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

From: [e-mail] (John Roberts)
Subject: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette?
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 21:52:23 GMT


I was interested in aquiring a phone book on diskette to enable quick
searches in locating phone numbers.  I realized that this would make
it much more easy for phone solicitators to bother customers, but it
would be really useful for many computer users.

Does anyone know if this service is offered anywhere?  Is there a
reason for not doing this that I have missed?  Suggestions for
encouraging the phone companies to provide phone books on diskette?

Thanks for your time and efforts!


John S. Roberts, Jr.


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell does not have their directory on
diskettes but they do have a program where you can access their data
base from a terminal at your location. Called 'Directory Express', it
is not inexpensive. I think they get a couple hundred dollars per
month for a few hours of time on line. All you get is whatever the
directory assistance operator gets.  Is it worth it?   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 20:09 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Problem With Three Way Call


I was in the middle of a cross-continental call today. The vendor's
Chicago office set up the call via three-way call using Centel (sorry,
I don't know the IXC), to conference rooms in our St. Louis office and
their Wayne, PA office.  Whenever anybody in St. Louis talked, it shut
their microphone in Wayne down cold ... until the woman in Chicago
talked, at which point it turned back on again.

What was happening?  To whom should we have complained?

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

From: [e-mail] (& Kawasaki)
Subject: Tone Decoder Wanted
Organization: Brigham Young University
Date: 14 Nov 91 16:39:12


Does anyone know any reliable and inexpensive tone decoder??


Tatsuya  [e-mail]   EMT:901006  Ham: N7UQJ

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #934
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29988;
          16 Nov 91 19:17 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18266
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 16:22:28 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13090
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 16:22:16 -0600
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 16:22:16 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #935

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Nov 91 16:22:11 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 935

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New FCC Rule Threatens Higher Long Distance Costs for Info (Dave Leibold)
    Internet Access In Berlin (Kee Nethery)
    I Want to Locate BBS or E-Mail in China (Dmitry Dmitriev)
    Silicon Valley Networking Conference - Call For Papers (B.V. Jagadeesh)
    Wanted: Network Engineering Software (Boudi Sahyoun)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 19:01:38 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New FCC Rule Threatens Higher Long Distance Costs for Info


[Moderator's Note: This article appeared before in the Digest, but
there have been several requests for a reprint for folks who cannot
use the archives to obtain a copy.   PAT]


<The following is from FidoNews 8-45, 11 Nov 1991; reproduction
permitted for noncommercial uses. The following statements are those
of the author of that article (Mike Riddle) and not necessarily mine -
djcl>

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

Mike Riddle, Esq.
Nebraska Inns of Court
1:285/27


      NEW FCC RULE THREATENS HIGHER LONG DISTANCE COSTS FOR BBS'S
      ===========================================================


o WHAT'S HAPPENING?

In July the FCC, in an action virtually unnoticed by the bulletin
board community, issued its "Final Rule" in Docket 89-79.  The
innocuous-sounding title is "Amendments of Part 69 of the Commission's
Rules Relating to the Creation of Access Charge Subelements for Open
Network Architecture."  Industry sources estimate that this rule, when
fully implemented, will result in an average increase of from three to
five times the current costs for users of "Enhanced Service Providers
(ESPs)," such as GEnie, Compuserve, PC Pursuit and Starlink.

Already someone is reading this and saying something like:

"Hoo boy!  Doesn't this jerk realize that's an old rumor?"

Well, I'm sorry to say I wish it was, but it isn't.  For those who
want to know all the details (and I'm one of them), the Notice of
Proposed Rule Making NPRM is 89-79, FCC 89-105, and the Final Rule was
announced at 56 Fed Reg 33879-01 on July 24th, 1991.  It took effect
on August 23, 1991.

What it seems to me, after some hours of research and analysis, is
that the FCC is attempting to do indirectly in 1991 what it could not
do directly 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.


o WHY ARE WE JUST HEARING ABOUT IT?

The "posture of the proceeding" is important.  When the FCC issued the
NPRM in 1989, it 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
the Enhanced Service Providers and others are asking for from their
users is support for their petition to reconsider the rule.


o OKAY, YOU CONVINCED ME!  WHAT SHOULD I DO?

Public input, to the FCC, to key Congressmen and Senators, and to your
own Congressional delegation, will likely make a difference now, just
like it did in 1987.  GEnie, among the services I use, has taken the
lead on generating public input.  The last part of this article is the
GEnie "Call to Action."  Some of you may have seen it before.

  +------------------------------------------------------------------+
  | If you do choose to write, please do NOT call it a "modem tax."  |
  | It isn't a tax at all, and most likely you'll be told (with a    |
  | straight face) there isn't any such proposal.  To the best of my |
  | knowledge this is *NOT* the case.  No new taxes on existing      |
  | services are currently under consideration.                      |
  +------------------------------------------------------------------+

The issue which we need to mention is the FCC's *approved* pricing for
Open Network Architecture (ONA) services [passed by the Commission on
July 11, 1991 as part of CC Docket No. 89-79 "Amendments of Part 69 of
the Commission's Rules Relating to the Creation of Access Charge
Subelements for Open Network Architecture"].  We need to ask the
Commission to reconsider its decision to require "enhanced service
providers" and other end users that wish to subscribe to federally
tariffed basic service elements, to pay usage-based rates for access
to these new services.  You should write the Commission, supporting
this request for reconsideration.

o WHAT DO I SAY?

Here's the GEnie "Call to Action" (reproduced verbatim with
permission):

"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."

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 10:34:17 PST
From: "Kee Nethery" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Internet Access In Berlin


The following is a shortened version of all the replies to my question
on what someone in Berlin needs to know to get a connection to the
internet.  Thanks to all who replied.

[e-mail]

part 1 : the law
part 2 : technics
part 3 : prices
part 4 : mailboxes

Part 1 : The Law

In Germany there are two kinds of modems: legal ones and illegal ones.
Legal modems got an OK from our government. Modems bought in the US
may not be used legally in Germany, unless they get an FTP number
(that is, they are "legalized" by the Federal Postal Services).
Modems bought in Germany have such a number already when you buy them.
I guess, nearly 70% of the modems in Germany have no FTP approval.

Technically they are comparable. Usually the illegal ones are better
because they are Hayes compatible. The "officially OK modems" have to
strip some of the Hayes commands. If someone is caught working with an
illegal modem he or she has to pay a fine and police will probably
take his/her computer. It is common to use an illegal modem. In 1992
even in Germany law will be less restrictive due to common market
regulations.

As for using a foreign modem. Telekom, which is the phone company of
the Bundespost (post office), has a legal monopoly on telecommun-
ications in Germany.  EVERYTHING dealing with this stuff has to be
inspected and certified by Telekom. And if you haven't heard any of
the horror stories of German bureaucracy, trust me, getting
certification for a foreign telecommunications device could take
forever. All Hayes-compatible modems will work with the European phone
systems, including, I think, the VERY antiquated German phone networks
(they're over 30 years old; no touch-tone dialing, no clean
connections, etc.).

Part 2 : Technics

Illegal modems usually come with English documentation and
English/American phone jacks. You need a "German" 230V voltage
transformer (around 20 Deutschmarks) and an adapter RJ11-->TAE 6
(German plug (around 10 Deutschmarks)) if the phone line is installed
by the Deutsche Bundespost. You have to buy the adaptor and install it
yourself. (It's just a different phone extension cord.)

To install something to your phone is against the law ... of course.
Do not tell the Deutsche Bundespost about this subject because most US
modems are probably not tested by Deutsche Bundespost and as such a
little bit illegal. But don*t worry about this!

Usually modems come without a cable connection to your computer. So
you have to buy this too. If you are using a Mac, this will be
difficult (at least expensive) in Germany. (I soldered my cable
myself.)

The Global Village Teleport modem gets power from the Desktop Bus
(same as a mouse or keyboard) and thus does not need an special power
supply to work in the US or in Germany.

Part 3 : Prices

A modem could be bought over here without any problems. They're a tad
bit expensive, but it'd work, and they already have Telekom/Bundespost
certification.

German approved modems are about 50% more expensive than in the US.
Many people who are rather working in private settings buy modems in
the US and just use them here, without legalization. It works, but it
is illegal.

Part 4 : Mailboxes

Your friend does not have to get a Compuserve account. He only needs
to be admitted to one of the many privately run mailboxes here in
Berlin that offer internet gateways. The oldest and still one of the
most popular ones is "Telemail" (Tel Berlin 492 66 43). He would have
to sign in (the usual procedure, first you are a guest, then you
apply, then you pay your membership fees (about DM 120, per year),
then you get access to the e-mail. Of course, you have to pay your
e-mail separately (by k-byte, about 0.06 DM per K, I think). I myself
am using a smaller box, called Parrot (Tel72 44 67). However, access
to international e-mail is restricted to certain users there.

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

Organization: Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 20:11:35 +0200 (EET DST)
From: [e-mail] (Dmitry Dmitriev)
Subject: I Want to Find BBS or E-Mail in China
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Commodity-Stock Exchange 'Bison'


Hi, everybody!

I'm anxious to know about BBS or e-mail, located in China (better if
it be in the Harbin City).  Could you please tell me BBS's phone or
e-mail address.

Thanking you beforehand for your cooperation, I remain,


Dmitry Dmitriev.     | Information Company EastNet Co.Ltd.
dMITpIJ dMITpIEW.    | Khabarovsk, Russia; tel. [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (B.V. Jagadeesh)
Subject: Silicon Valley Networking Conference - Call For Papers
Date: 15 Nov 91 21:40:59 GMT


           Silicon Valley Networking Conference - 1992
       -------------------------------------------
               Call For Papers

Papers are solicited for the Silicon Valley Networking conference
(SVNC-92) to be held April 27th to 29th 1992 at Santa Clara Convention
Center, Santa Clara CA 95052, USA.

Papers are solicited in the following areas:

Distributed Systems
Internetworking
Network Management
X-windows
Advanced File servers
High Speed Networking
Standards activities (IEEE, CCITT, IETF etc )
Network Monitors
WireLess Networking

SVNC typically attracts over 400 engineers every year and is a nice
forum to discuss system design architecture and solutions to complex
networking problems.

If you are interested in presenting a paper, please send me an
abstract of the paper before December 4, 1991. If accepted for
submission, a rough draft of the paper should be submitted before
January 10, 1992 and camera ready copy should be submitted before
February 1, 1992.  Please include your address, telephone and fax
number in the abstract and mail it to:

B.V. Jagadeesh
Silicon Valley Networking Conference
1248, Olive Branch Lane
San Jose, CA - 95120   USA.

Fax Number: (408)- 997-8265

Thanks.

Jagadeesh   [e-mail]   (408)-764-5169

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

From: [e-mail] (Boudi Sahyoun)
Subject: Wanted: Network Engineering Software
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 16:44:45 GMT


I'm not sure this is the right group but does anybody know of a
network engineering software?

It should be capable among other things to do traffic engineering on
the network.

Commercial software ok, preferably running on PC or Sun platforms.


Thanks in advance,

Boudi

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #935
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03285;
          16 Nov 91 21:23 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09873
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 19:41:59 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18534
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 19:41:47 -0600
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 19:41:47 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #936

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Nov 91 19:41:25 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 936

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New Bell Labs Findings! (Humor) (Mike Riddle)
    Telecom Sucks on the Road (Dennis G. Rears)
    New Equipment in Athens, GA.? (Michael A. Covington)
    Two Line Selector Box Schematics Wanted (Mike Gordon)
    ANI Number Wanted For Ohio Bell 216-891 (Phil Pavarini, Jr.)
    Follow Up: Credit Card Fraud Attempt (John Parsons)
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Bob Ackley)
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Jack Decker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 08:20:51 cst
From: [e-mail] (Mike Riddle)
Subject: New Bell Labs Findings! (Humor)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE


A Humorous Interlude stolen from a local BBS, original source unknown:

                        A Light In The Dark

              Bell Labs Prove Existence of Dark Suckers
              (Reprinted from the Bell Labs Newsletter)

     For years it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light.
However, recent information from Bell Labs has proven otherwise.
Electric bulbs do not emit light, they suck dark.  Thus they are now
called dark suckers.  The Dark Sucker Theory, according to a Bell Labs
spokesperon, proves the existence of dark, that dark has a mass
heavier than that of light, and that dark travels faster than light.

     The basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck
dark.  Take for example the dark suckers in the room where you are.
There is less dark in the immediate area of the dark suckers than
there is elsewhere in the room.  The larger the dark sucker, the
greater its capacity to suck dark.  Dark suckers in a parking lot have
a much greater capacity than the ones in this room.  As with all
things, dark suckers don't last forever.  Once they are full of dark
they can no longer suck.  This is proven by the black spot on a full
dark sucker.  A candle is a primitive dark sucker.  A new candle has a
white wick.  You will notice that, after the first use, the wic turns
black -- representing all the dark which has been sucked into it.  If
you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, the tip
will turn black because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the
candle.

     Unfortunately, these primitive dark suckers have a very limited
range.  There are, fortunately, portable dark suckers.  The bulbs in
these cannot handle all of the dark by themselves, and require the use
of additional dark storage units.  When the dark storage unit,
referred to by some as a battery, is full it must either be emptied or
replaced before the portable dark sucker can operate again.

     Dark has mass.  When dark goes into a dark sucker, friction from
this mass generates heat.  Thus it is not wise to touch an operating
dark sucker.  Candles present a special hazard because the dark must
travel in the solid wick instead of through glass.  This generates a
large quantity of heat, which makes it inadvisable to touch an
operating candle.

     Dark is also heavier than light. If you swim deeper and deeper
you notice that it slowly gets darker and darker.  When you reach a
depth of aproximately 80 meters, you are in total darkness.  This is
because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the water and the
lighter light floats to the top.  The immense power of dark can be
utilized to humankind's advantage.  Dark which has settled to the
bottoms of lakes can be pushed through turbines to generate
electricity.  In this way dark can be forced into the oceans where it
can be safely stored.

     Prior to the invention of the turbine it was much more difficult
to get dark from rivers and lakes to the oceans.  The Indians
recognized this problem and tried to solve it.  When on a river in a
canoe traveling in the same direction as the flow of dark, Indians
paddled slowly, so as not to stop the flow of dark.  When they
traveled against the flow of dark they paddled quickly to help push
the dark along its way.

     Finally, it becomes clear that dark is faster than light.  If you
stand in an illuminated room in fromt of a closed, dark closet you
notice that, as you slowly open the closet door, light slowly enters
the closet.  However the dark moves so quickly that you are not able
to see the dark leave the closet.

     In conclusion, scientists from the Bell Labs have noted that dark
suckers make our lives easier and more enjoyable.  So the next time
you look at an electric bulb remember that its function is actually
that of a dark sucker.


AMAX 2.20   The Nebraska Inns of Court (1:285/27)


[Moderator's Note: What kind of suckers do you take us for, anyway?  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 14:47:17 EST
From: "Dennis G. Rears " <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Sucks on the Road


   I went on business travel for the first time in months about two
weeks ago.  I am so disgusted with the telecom service in hotels.
Here's why:

   1) Charges for 800 and calling card services.  I stayed at the
Orlando Airport Marriot for three nights.  The hotel services guide
said something to the effect of "To make things easier for the
business traveler we do not charge you for toll free calls".  I look
at the telephone page of the guide and it states clearly "75c charge
for these calls".  I talk with the manager about these and he said
"they changed the policy and they do charge for these cards.  I asked
why and he stated "we normally only get business travellers here and
the business reimburses them for it.  He further stated they haven't
had time to change the services guide completely.

   2) Lack of modular jacks.  I stayed at the Tampa LaQuinta (budget
hotel) and they had free calling card calls and 800 numbers but no
modular jack.  After lugging my laptop (Zenith 286) around I thought I
would use it.  But no!!!  No modular jack.  I was able to take the
phone apart and and use a special cord I had made for the occasion
with alligator clips.  Unfortantely the maid saw the phone was taken
apart and had wires leading from it. I had to explain to the manager
that I was not vandalizing the phone but using it for offical
business.  Thank Gawd, I had all sort of government ID on me.

   3) Time outs.  The last hotel I stayed in Tampa would time me out
every 15 minutes.  I spoke to the management and they said they limit
every outgoing call to 15 minutes.

   4) 900 numbers.  I ran the NYC marathon the day I left for travel.
I was anxious to get my results and call the 900 number for my
results.  I have since found out I can't use my Sprint FON card, AT&T
credit card, NJ bell calling card, or even coins in a pay booth.  It's
only $2.00 a minute.


Dennis

P.S.  Has anyone heard about the county government subpoenaing the
telephone records of the {Orlando Sentinel}?  While I was in Orlando,
I was reading that the paper was ticked off because the county
government subpoenaed the telephone records of it from the local
telephone company.  The newspaper wasn't informed of the subpoeona
until after the records were delivered.  It seems as if someone was
whistleblowing to the newspaper and the county did not like it.

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: New Equipment in Athens, GA?
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 06:04:03 GMT


Does anybody happen to know whether Athens, Georgia (404-549)
installed new switching equipment last night?

At 2:45 AM my phone went dead, cutting off a call in progress, and it
came back to life about a minute later.  I understand this is the
normal scenario for installing new equipment.


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: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 08:10:02 CST
From: Mike Gordon N9LOI [e-mail]
Subject: Two Line Selector Box Schematic Wanted


I know this is probably one of those FAQs that isn't on the list, but
has anyone ripped apart one of those Radio Shack two line controller
boxes and drawn up a schematic for it?  I finally have the need for
one, and since they've been discontinued, nobody who has one want's to
give it up.

I haven't seen a box with similar functions ("pick the ringing line"),
and I don't have the cash for a bunch of two line phones right now.
One thing I would like, is if it would reset to line one after you
hang up a call on line two.  Line one is voice and line two is data,
but I may get hunting or call-forward-on-busy, to forward voice calls
to the data line when I'm on the voice line.  What I don't want, is
someone picking up the phone and knocking me off the modem. (The
reason for second line in the first place.)  I also need to keep the
modem line clear for incoming calls when I'm not on the modem.)

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!


Mike Gordon  N9LOI  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 12:55 EST
From: [e-mail] (Phil Pavarini Jr.)
Subject: ANI Number Wanted For Ohio Bell 216-891
Organization: PAVNET News & Mail Service


Does anyone know of the ANI number for OHIO BELL 216-891?  I've tried
1-200-555-1212, I've tried many others -- some suggested here on
Telecom.  None work.  Any help is appreciated!


Phil Pavarini Jr.  --  Voice 216.891.1122 Fax [phone]
INTERNET: [e-mail] -- UUCP: pavnet!pep
        P.O. Box 360302  --  Cleveland, Ohio 44136

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 19:39:52 -0700
From: John Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Follow Up: Calling Card Fraud Attempt


Two weeks ago I related an incident whereby a person impersonating an
employee of Telecom USA tried to obtain our calling card number.  My
story concluded:

> 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!

> [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]

PAT, you're on!  The bill came today, and his number is 212 221-9242.
Is this a pay station or not?  If I win, you owe me a Chicago pizza.
If you win, I owe you a plate of Rocky Mountain oysters!


John Parsons   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You win. The phone is a pay station located 'next
to the pizza restaurant' by the subway entrance at 42nd and Broadway
in New York City. That shouldn't make it too hard to find out who
called you. Just check out the people in New York City who like pizza
and ride the subway to/from 42nd Street. To make sure you don't miss
any suspects, also check the ones who don't like pizza but may have
ordered the beef and sausage combo sandwich with fries. (Dipped, but
hold the mustard and hot peppers!)  Cross check these names against a
list of people with criminal histories of fraud and/or deceptive
practices who hang around 42nd Street at night. We'll find out who it
was, by god, and use the Tucker Telephone to convince him it is in his
best interests to confess his practice of phreakcraft  :)   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 09:57:40 cst
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ackley)
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a message of <05 Nov 91 15:26:58>, TELECOM Moderator noted:

> [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.

In computer programming circles this is known as the 'salami slicing'
technique.  It's illegal, and current auditing software can and will
catch it.  It dates to the early days of computers in banking when a
'creative' programmer thought it up.  I know it's been done, but I
don't know who, where, or when.  There are a number of ways, mostly
illegal and completely unethical, for programmers (and others) to get
other people's money into their own accounts -- and all are off topic. ;-)


msged 1.99S ZTC    Bob's Soapbox, Plattsmouth  (1:285/666.7)

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 22:18:52 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?


In a message dated 8 Nov 91 08:50:29 GMT, Pat (the Moderator) notes:

> [Moderator's Note: The phreak intends to steal something from you if
> possible; ie your computing and telecom resources. The telemarketer
> wishes to sell you something if possible. There is legally and
> otherwise a difference between selling you something and stealing from
> you.  PAT]

With all due respect, Pat, I think your logic on this one may be a bit
shaky.  Granted the phreak MAY be looking to steal something but on
the other hand he may just be interested in exploring your system, in
which case all that he is really "stealing" from you is the use of a
phone line that could be used for more important calls, and perhaps
processor time that could be allocated to other tasks.  Now, when a
telemarketer calls, isn't he pretty much doing the same thing?  He's
tying up your phone line and wasting your time, and depending on how
legitimate the organization he represents is, he may be looking to
steal something from you as well (as is illustrated by the numerous
posts of telemarketing scams that have been seen in the TELECOM Digest!).

Looking at it from that perspective, I'm a bit hard pressed to find a
real difference.  I'm not condoning phreaking at all, but I think if I
were an attorney and had to argue the point, it would not be too
difficult to argue that phreaking and telemarketing are VERY similar,
especially considering some of the slime that work in the telemarketing
industry.  I personally would have more respect for the curious
15-year-old hacker that is trying to learn about computers than for
the sleazeball that calls with the intention of selling me shoddy
merchandise.

This brings to mind another point.  How many readers have received
calls in which the telemarketer was blatently and openly lying?  I've
caught a few in this.  One that's been pulled twice on me already is
where someone calls and says, "Mr. Decker, you probably don't remember
me, but about ten or twelve months ago we spoke and you told me that
if I ever came across a good investment opportunity I should let you
know."  For various reasons I won't go into here, the chances of that
conversation having actually taken place are about as likely as me
getting struck by lightning in November in Sault Ste. Marie.  The last
time this happened, I just said "You are a LIAR and I don't deal with
LIARS" and I hung up.

My wife works in a dental office and one of her duties (especially
during the summer) is keeping the books and (sometimes) ordering
supplies.  Apparently they get calls from a company selling those
disposable rubber gloves that dentists and doctors use.  Typically,
someone will call and find out who is responsible for purchasing such
supplies.  Then a week or two later, they call back and say something
like "The gloves that so-and-so ordered last month that were
backordered have arrived, and we'll be sending them out today."  I'm
not sure what happens if the person who answers the phone says "okay",
but in the office where my wife works they have tried to pull this
scam so often that she just automatically says "I'm sorry, you must be
mistaken, we didn't order anything from your company" and hangs up
(she is probably more polite about it than I would be!).

I am really beginning to believe that telemarketing scams are becoming
a VERY serious problem, especially because now that the economy is
getting tight, more people seem to be turning to unethical means of
obtaining cash.  I'm not sure what the answer is, though.


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


[Moderator's Note: On conviction, these people would be required to
make all their calls in the future from 212-221-9242, and take all
their meals at the subway pizza stand.  :)  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #936
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08006;
          17 Nov 91 0:28 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10233
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 22:13:10 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17307
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 22:12:59 -0600
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 22:12:59 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #937

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Nov 91 22:12:11 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 937

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telemarketing and the Slippery Slope (Jim Haynes)
    Re: Telemarketing COS (John Higdon)
    Re: Telemarketing COS (Michael A. Covington)
    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Mark E Anderson)
    Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? (Glenn R. Stone)
    Re: ATTMail Rates, Service (Help Ticket ID: 17050) (Paul S. Sawyer)
    Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Mark Oberg)
    Re: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch (Mark Fulk)
    Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls (Joel M. Hoffman)
    Re: Call Waiting in the 5ESS (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketing and the Slippery Slope
Date: 16 Nov 91 07:03:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


I got to thinking about this along the following lines:

  How much would it annoy you if you got one telemarketing call in
     six months?
  How about once a month?
  Once a week?
  Once a day?
  Once an hour?
  Five times in an hour?
  Every two or three minutes?

Clearly most people would tolerate the once in six months call; and at
the other extreme one would have the phone taken out or changed to
outgoing only service if possible.  Slippery slope theory says if we
don't do something about a problem while it is minor then we will have
to deal with it when it becomes major.  While this isn't always a
realistic view of things it isn't clear to me that there is any reason
for telemarketing to be self-limiting.  The machinery and phone
service are cheap enough.  What's to keep someone from setting up a
machine that simply calls people and delivers a canned advertising
message, not caring whether it gets a response?  What's to keep 500
people from doing the same thing?


[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 01:39 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Telemarketing COS


[e-mail] (Simona Nass) writes:

> Wouldn't local telephone companies also oppose having telemarketers
> check a database of folks who don't want calls, simply because it
> would cut the revenue of the local telcos?

Hey, no problem! The telcos would "estimate" the loss of revenue and
build it into the price for those telemarketing lines. Remember, I
suggested that these special lines would actually be a revenue
generator for the telco in that they could be priced at several times
whatever the telco deemed the actual cost of the service.

This would be in keeping to what they already do to 900/976 service
providers who pay exhorbitant monthly charges for what amounts to
ordinary incoming lines. In addition, whenever a caller refuses to
pay, it 'recharges' the provider AND collects all of its charges for
carrying the call from the provider as well. It is a "Win-Win-Win-Lose"
system. The customer wins (he got the service for free), the telco
wins in that it got its money OR the telco wins in that it got its
money (it gets its money either way), and the provider loses.

Why not apply this to telemarketers -- the ones who are truly a pest.
Again, I ask you: when was the last time your dinner was interrupted,
or you were awakened from a sound sleep by a 976 number? (976-WAKE
doesn't count.) So let us start soaking the telemarketers. Let them
pay for the database. Let them pay for the lookup. Let them pay the
costs of adding to the database. And let them pay for the calls that
telco does NOT complete because of a negative entry in the database.

The more I think of this, the more it sounds like a good, workable
idea.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing COS
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 16:11:29 GMT


Instead of a "national list of numbers that cannot be junk-called" I
propose going even further:

- require each telephone directory to show (by means of an asterisk
  or something) which subscribers do not want junk calls;

- require telephone companies to offer this asterisk at no charge to
  each subscriber once.

Yes, that would kill auto-telemarketing dead.  But that's what it
deserves.  It would be a victim of nothing but individuals' rights.


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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 10:51:31 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood


In <[e-mail]> PAT writes:
[   text deleted   ]

> They get three or
> four legitimate calls per evening most days; I get one or two. As
> noted above, telemarketing calls are extremely rare here, which for
> whatever reason, suits me fine. If I got four or five a night,
> I would be annoyed by it also. So I can see why some of you want to
> devise schemes to avoid the calls when possible. Is three or four a
> night about average for most people? That seems like a lot.

My monthly average for telemarket calls is less than ten and I don't
live in a "red-lined" area, so to speak.  At the rate of three or four
a night, I, too, would be willing to go to the extremes when dealing
with these outfits.


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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 17:16:37 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mark E Anderson)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I've lived in Rogers Park (in Chicago) for about three years and
around Belmont and Lake Shore Drive for the past five years.
Throughout this time, I've received around one or two telemarketer
calls per year.  Most of these would be from from the local police or
fire departments selling tickets to their annual dances to raise
money.

Considering the going rates for rents around here, it is far from
"inner city."  I think some of the reasons for the lack of
telemarketers in this area would be that:

  - Most people are single and are rarely home to answer calls.

  - People move very often so there may be a higher percentage
    of phone numbers that are being "aged."

  - The lifestyle of people around here is atypical of the
    average American.

My parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles live in the surrounding
suburbs.  They receive about four or five telemarketer calls per week.
My cousin, who is intelligent yet telecom naive, got duped into
calling that 1-900 number to get free tickets to Hawaii.  While my
aunt was explaining this story to me, that same telemarketer called
and left a message on her answering machine.


Mark Anderson   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Interesting ... I've lived in Rogers Park (or more
correctly in the part of Rogers Park known as Northtown/West Rogers
Park) for many years with the same phone numbers all that time, give
or take a couple extra lines at one time or another to run my BBS,
etc. I think telemarketers have largely redlined 312 while keeping 708
as fertile territory. The last three or four telemarketing calls I've
received have in fact come in to my 708-voicemail number, a line which
never has a human being attached to it. If you were in the East Rogers
Park area until 1986 (I assume you were; I doubt you'd have moved from
West Rogers to Newtown) then you know how bad things have gotten all
along the lakefront area with crime up about 300 percent.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them?
Date: 16 Nov 91 17:37:15 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dead Poets Society


In the referenced article [e-mail] (Ben Delisle)
writes:

> If you have or get call transfer ... and somebody you don't like or
> even a telemarketer calls you ... how about using Call Transfer on
> them?

[Moderator's note about what YOU dial being charged to YOUR phone.]

Well, so, if you can't stick'em with 976 charges, I'd say, throw'em
for a loop by dialing the local freebie time/temperature service ... or
the local NWS forecast recording or some such.  Can you imagine the
look on some poor telesleaze's face when he realizes he's been had?
It may not get you fewer calls, but it'd sure be good for a laugh ...
'specially if you three-way it and speakerphone the reaction ...

Then again, I usually opt for POTS, and just use the hold function
built into my phone and watch and see how long the silly critter blabs
on before he realizes he's talking to nothingness ...


Glenn R. Stone ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: ATTMail Rates, Service (Help Ticket ID: 17050)
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 14:01:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul S.
Sawyer) writes:

> If I cannot get an answer via e-mail to a question I posed via e-mail
> to a provider of e-mail concerning their e-mail rates, then I guess I
> really don't need their service ...

To be fair, after I sent them the above message, they did reply via
e-mail that the $300.00 per year does apply, and that I was free to
cancel the service....  I seem to remember that we originally signed
up because it was the "only way" to contact our AT&T representatives
via e-mail....  :-


Paul S. Sawyer    - University of New Hampshire CIS - [e-mail]
Telecommunications and Network Services             - VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                   - FAX: [phone]

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

From: grout![e-mail] (Mark Oberg)
Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message
Date: 25 Nov 91 14:28:14 GMT
Organization: Eric's PC, Landover MD


    If the person who wished to place an Out-of-Service recording
on their answering machine has a Sound Blaster digital audio card in
their machine, the solution may be easy.  I have seen a file available
on some BBS's that cater to MIDI and Sound which contains digital
samples of various intercepts and samples of the 0-9 digits.  I had it
here for a while and experimented with messages such as:
7-3-0...9-0-6-9.  IS OUT OF SERVICE.....FOR INCOMING CALLS.  7-3-0...
9-0-6-9.

    I also live in an area which is targeted for telemarketing
calls.  I receive them regularly and have been able to stop most of
them short by agreeing to take the call upon payment of a fee for my
time.  I ask them: "How do you wish to pay for this call?  Visa,
Master Card and company check in advance are accepted."


Mark Oberg   NATel, Inc.   |  UUCP: wb3ffv!grout!mark
Voice: [phone]       |  Internet: [e-mail]
  BBS: [phone]       |  Fidonet: 1:109/506


[Moderator's Note: The correct phrase is 'not in service for incoming
calls', not *out of service*. Incidentally, does anyone know the
reason some idle numbers return the message 'xxx has been disconnected'
while others return the message 'xxx is not in service'. I've heard
both on IBT idle numbers. I think the latter is used if the line never
did have anyone on it, ie, a relatively new prefix.  Other ideas?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Fulk)
Subject: Re: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 19:40:30 GMT


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

> I'm rebuilding an IBM 026 Keypunch and need documentation.
> Schematics, service manuals, information on where to grease, and where
> to find replacement parts (like belts and printer ribbons).

> If you don't know what an 026 is, you're indeed fortunate!

Sad to say, I do know.  I still don't use my right pinky to shift,
even for Z, because I got used to the right shift key being "alpha."

If you're ever in New York, walk down Canal Street in Manhattan,
between Broadway and Seventh Avenue.  There are quite a few used
equipment dealers there, with bins and cabinets full of obsolete
hardware.  Frequently you can find manuals, usually stained and torn,
stuffed in with the goods.  Some places will let you cannibalize from
old stuff, although that is less likely now that trash disposal has
gotten so expensive.

Anyway, Met Life used to be up in the thirties.  They must have dumped
tens of thousands of keypunches, fifteen or twenty years ago.  I'd bet
lots of them ended up on Canal Street.


Mark A. Fulk            Computer Science Department
[e-mail]        University of Rochester
Omit needless words -- Strunk    Rochester, NY  14627


[Moderator's Note: Have you seen any of those little red stick-um tape
things we used to cover up a punch made in error recently?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 22:22:48 GMT


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

> "Federal and State tariffs state that for a telephone conversation to
> be recorded, on of the following conditions must be met:

> 1. All parties being recorded must give their prior consent to being
> recorded; or,

> 2. All parties being recored must hear a "beep" tone approximately
> every 15 seconds.

Does this mean that in some sense average citizens are supposed to
recognize the beeps as some sort of "standard" signal that recording
is in progress?  How common is this knowledge in actual fact?


Joel

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

Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 00:05 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Call Waiting in the 5ESS


[e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

> Incredible!  After twice posting that I can do this from my home phone
> (served by a 5ESS), my friend Mr. Higdon insisted that I didn't know
> what I was talking about ... "reliable" sources had told him that this
> is impossible, and I think his comment was something like "are we to
> believe these (unnamed) authoritative sources, or Mr. Cook?".

Tad, please get off your righteous soap box. I asked in virtually
every post on the subject if perhaps you had any special conditions on
your phone. I even tried to contact you via e-mail and it bounced.
Even now, you do not state whether or not your phone has "Call Hold",
which would tie up loose ends and make the situation clear.

Is that indeed the case? Do you have Centrex-style features (such as
Call Hold)? Are we really interested in getting to the bottom of the
5ESS characteristics and features or are you simply going to sit back
and wait for an apparent opportunity to say, "Hee, hee, hee. John has
no idea what he is talking about and I know everything"? Notice that
when I got an answer that made some sense (rather than just some
raving about how "my phone can do it and it is served by a 5ESS and I
know what I am talking about"), I shared it with the forum, even
though it proved some of my publicly stated opinions to be in error.

I did not ask for a demo; what I was looking for was an explanation
why the feature did not work. It did not work on the phones that I
tried and all the demos on your part would not change that. AT&T
engineers said it would not work, and your demo would not change that,
either.  Pac*Bell said it would not work, and again...well, you get
the point.  Not once, NOT ONCE, did you answer the question about why
it was not working on the phones that I tried.

But now, no thanks to you, but rather thanks to someone at Pac*Bell,
it is clear. If you are going to be indignant and self-righteous at
least impart some knowledge in the process, please.


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


[Moderator's Note: Thread closed. Thanks to all who responed.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #937
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08691;
          17 Nov 91 0:53 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17536
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 20:34:02 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26658
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 20:33:50 -0600
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 20:33:50 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: History of Morkrum Company - Ancestor of Teletype Corporation


[Moderator's Note: Attached is a very interesting piece I received
which is too large for a regular issue of the Digest. I thought it was
fascinating and hope you feel the same way.   PAT]

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: History of Morkrum Company - Ancestor of Teletype Corporation
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


        A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MORKRUM COMPANY
                            Howard L. Krum
                       circa 1925

                   ABSTRACT

  This is a first-hand report of Teletype's early years.  Although the
original manuscript was found unsigned and undated, it has been
positively identified as the work of Mr. Howard L. Krum, son of Mr.
Charles L. Krum, a co-founder of the original Morkrum Company.  The
date of writing seems to have been somewhere between 1925 and 1928.

  The fame of Howard Krum does not depend on his illustrious
parentage.  His own contributions to the printing telegraph art, among
them the invention of _stop-start synchronization_, were of lasting
importance.

                 -----

  In the year 1902, Mr. Joy Morton, nationally known as the founder
and head of the Morton Salt Company, became interested in the
possibility of developing a printing telegraph system.  He called Mr.
Charles L. Krum, who was at that time Mechanical Engineer of the
Western Cold Storage Company, into consultation on the matter.  While
cold storage seems rather a far cry from printing telegraph
development, Mr. Krum had had considerable experience on the design of
intricate mechanisms, including adding machines.

  Inventors had been working on the development of printing telegraph
for forty years prior to this time but had not succeeded in producing
apparatus which was simple and practical enough to find any market or
any considerable use by the communication systems in the United
States.  As is the case with most others who started work on printing
telegraph, Mr. Krum was fascinated with the possibilities of this
development, and Mr. Morton agreed to go ahead with the proposition
and finance it.  How important this decision was did not become
apparent for many years, as certainly no one realized the vast sums of
money and the years of hard work which would have to be expended
before satisfactory printing telegraph apparatus would be produced and
widespread use made of it.

  In 1906, Mr. Howard Krum received his degree in electrical
engineering and immediately started work with his father on this
problem.  The combination of the electrical engineer and the
mechanical engineer proved to be a happy one and experiments were
diligently prosecuted for a couple of years, until in 1908 a system
was developed which looked good enough to try on an actual telegraph
line.  The first trial of this system was made on the lines of the
Chicago & Alton Railroad.  While operation was secured and the results
were sufficiently satisfactory to cause the inventors to feel quite
jubilant, still they were hard-headed enough to see the weak points of
this system in the state of development in which it was at that time.
The experience acquired in this actual line test of the apparatus was
made the basis for further research, and after two more years of work,
the start-stop printing telegraph system which has become the basis
for all successful single channel printer systems of the present day,
was born.  The apparatus which embodied the start-stop system at that
time bore little resemblance to the present apparatus but the
principles of operation were there and the working out of them was
sufficiently satisfactory to justify a commercial installation.

  In their pursuit of a satisfactory system of transmission, the
mechanism for recording the signals was not neglected.  Several
different kinds of commercial typewriters were modified to perform the
duty of recording the received signals, but strange as it may seem, it
was found that commercial typewriters were not satisfactory for the
rigorous job of recording telegraph signals.  It was therefore found
necessary to design a typewriter especially for this work.

  These first tests also pointed out the advantages and superiority of
mechanical over electrical operation, with a result that all functions
outside of the bare selection are now performed mechanically by the
Teletype in its present form.

  Having finally produced a system and apparatus which they felt
certain was commercially practical, the inventors were then faced with
the necessity for finding a communication company who would permit the
installation of this apparatus in regular commercial operation.  The
Postal Telegraph Company proved to be the most receptive and a commit-
tee headed by Mr. Minor M. Davis, at that time Electrical Engineer for
the Postal Telegraph Company, visited Chicago to investigate this new
Morkrum system.  It is interesting to note that Mr. Davis, who had
years of experience in the telegraph business and who had seen many
attempts at the development of a successful printing telegraph system,
was not so much concerned in the actual functioning of the recording
apparatus but was more concerned in learning if the basis of the
system, that is, the line signal, was of a type which would function
on ordinary telegraph lines in good weather and bad.  After a thorough
investigation of the system, he became convinced that the start-stop
line signal devised by the Krums would meet the rigorous service
requirements, and the committee decided to permit an actual commercial
installation on the Postal lines between New York and Boston.  This
installation was made in the summer of 1910.

  After years of work, the inventors felt that they had finally
reached their goal.  The apparatus was packed and shipped and Mr.
Howard Krum went to Boston to supervise the installation at that end
of the circuit and Mr. Charles Krum went to New York to take care of
the operations at that end.  However, the difficulties were not yet
over, for when the apparatus arrived at its destination it was found
that due to rough handling the delicate instruments were so badly
damaged that instead of proceeding with the installation they had to
spend months of work to get the machines back in shape for operation.
Finally the day came when everything was in readiness and the two
sets, one at New York and one at Boston, were hooked together by a
telegraph wire and the first commercial message was transmitted by the
Morkrum system.

  From the start good results were obtained, but as operation
continued the inventors realized more and more that the operating
requirements for commercial telegraph service were terribly exacting.
The percentage of accuracy required was much higher than with any
other form of mechanism; it must work twenty-four hours a day; it must
operate on good telegraph wires and on telegraph wires whose quality
was impaired by rain and other adverse weather conditions.  The
apparatus was too delicate to function over long periods of time
without the necessity of close supervision.  However, as in the case
of the earlier installation, the inventors profited by their
experience and went steadily along perfecting their apparatus, making
changes here and there to improve its accuracy [and] to make it
sturdier and simpler.  Further Postal Telegraph lines were equipped
and an installation was made on the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy
Railroad between Chicago and Galesburg, Illinois.

However, in spite of the fact that these circuits gave good service,
the growth of the business was very slow.  Telegraph companies and the
railroads seemed loath to adopt the new system.  Possibly this slow
growth in the early days of the Morkrum system was due to the fact
that the telegraph companies and the railroads could easily secure
good Morse operators at low wages.  Therefore, they were loath to
abandon Morse operation, concerning which they were thoroughly
familiar, and to replace it with machine telegraphy which would force
them to go to school all over again.

  However, the telegraph business continued to grow and good Morse
operators became harder to secure, wages increased, and above all, the
Morkrum system steadily improved and finally installations of the
system were made by the Western Union Telegraph Company, and the
Canadian Pacific and Great Northwestern Telegraph companies in Canada.
Due to increased business, Morkrum Company were able to enlarge
their plant facilities, to engage expert assistants and to steadily
improve their product.

  In 1917, Mr. Sterling Morton, son of Mr. Joy Morton, who had had
wide experience with the Morton Salt Company, became president of the
Morkrum Company.  Mr. Morton brought to the Morkrum Company not only
his great organizing and executive ability, but also an unusual talent
for machine design work.  The page printer and the Simplex tape
printer, which are the most widely used units at the present time, are
the joint work of Mr. Morton and Mr. Howard Krum.

  Up to this time, the laboratory and manufacturing work had been
carried on in an old building near the business district.  A careful
survey of the employees showed that the majority of them lived on the
north side of Chicago and this study determined the location of the
present factory.  In 1918, the factory was moved to the first unit of
the present building, which is entirely fireproof and is considered
one of the finest factory buildings in Chicago.  Since that time, a
total of six units have been built and a seventh is just being
started. [1]

  As the demand for printing telegraph apparatus grew, the standards
were steadily raised and apparatus which was thought quite wonderful a
few years previous became obsolete and was replaced with newer types
having greater margins of operation, higher speeds, and which were
much simpler to maintain.  Installations were made in new fields and
each new field offered new and more difficult problems.

  In 1914, Mr. Kent Cooper, who was then head of the Traffic
Department of the Associated Press, became convinced that the method
of delivering copy to the New York newspapers by messenger boy was
decidedly unsatisfactory and asked the Morkrum Company if they could
make an installation of their apparatus by which one operator in the
Associated Press could transmit the press matter simultaneously to all
of the newspapers in New York City.  A simple problem in the light of
our present-day knowledge, but at that time it was an undertaking
which offered many problems as yet unsolved.  However, it was
undertaken; the problem was studied, suitable apparatus was designed
and within a year all of the newspapers in New York City and nearby
towns, as well as in Philadelphia, were receiving their press matter
simultaneously from a transmitting set controlled by a single operator
in the Associated Press office in New York City.

 From this small beginning in the service of the Associated Press, the
use of printing telegraphs has spread until over 800 newspapers
belonging to the Associated Press receive their news dispatches by
these machines, and some of the wire circuits of which this matter is
transmitted involve as much as 4,000 miles of wire.  The other press
associations are using the apparatus to much the same extent.

  Up to 1917, the Morkrum Company had devoted all their efforts to the
design of single channel printing telegraph systems and had developed
both direct keyboard and tape transmission, but at this time the
Postal Telegraph Company asked the Morkrum Company to develop a
Multiplex system to meet the requirements on their heavy trunk lines.
This development was undertaken and in less than a year a satisfactory
Multiplex system had been designed, manufactured and installed on the
Postal Company's line and proved so valuable that its use was extended
to all their main trunk lines.

  As the use of printing telegraph became more general, needs
developed for different types of apparatus to meet different classes
of service, and the Morkrum Company attacked these problems and devel-
oped different types of apparatus until at present there are available
both direct keyboard and perforated tape transmission systems,
printing either on tape printers or page printers, operated either
single channel or Multiplex, using either five-unit or six-unit code,
the latter being especially valuable for stock quotation work.

  The use of the apparatus in the telegraph companies continued to
grow until at the present time fully 80% of all commercial telegrams
are handled by printing telegraph.  As the use of the machines grew,
the requirements became more and more rigid and these were met by
intensive research and development work which has never ceased.
Printers are operating today under service conditions which would not
have been considered possible even two or three years back.  The
latest development, the so-called "Typebar Tape Teletype" has proven
so simple and reliable that it bids fair to drive Morse operation even
 from the way wires.

  Always on the alert for new fields for its equipment, the Morkrum
Company several years ago became convinced that its apparatus could
render valuable service for the communication needs of business
houses, factories, hotels, etc.  To sell this idea required a lot of
time and much hard work, and the first few installations proved that
this service was much more exacting that the use of the machines in
regular telegraph offices where expert maintenance was instantly
available, The experience gained in these early commercial install-
ations paid big dividends, in that it resulted in such marked
improvement in the apparatus that the use has grown so that today
there is scarcely a city or town in the United States where this
apparatus is not used for some communication need outside of its
primary field -- that of telegraphic message traffic.

  The development of an organization that could satisfactorily handle
the complex problems of developing and manufacturing a printing
telegraph system has been quite as remarkable as the development of
the apparatus itself; in fact, the successful culmination of the work
would not have been possible had it not been for the splendid loyalty
and intelligent work of the whole organization.  This is particularly
true in the case of the many men who had courage enough to stick to
the proposition through the many years that it took before practical
commercial results were obtained.  The Morkrum Company is particularly
proud of the fact that the outstanding men in the organization have
developed in their own organization.  It is a fixed policy of the
company to develop its own men for important positions wherever
possible.

  Mr. Howard Krum met Mr. J. O. Carr, who is now head of the Sales
Engineering Department, in Boston in 1910 and engaged him for testing
and engineering work.  About the same time, Mr. G. Heding, who is now
Factory Manager, came to the company as a tool maker.  During their
long years of service these two men have filled practically every
position of importance in the organization and much credit is due them
for their part in the final success of the work.  We believe there are
few companies where such a large proportion of the men in supervisory
positions have grown up with the company and developed as the company
has developed and there are certainly few companies where there is a
greater spirit of loyalty and co-operation.

  Just a word about the manufacture of this apparatus.  The requirements
which printing telegraph apparatus must meet are extremely severe.
This is readily understood when it seen that when a printer is opera-
ting at the rate of 60 words per minute it is printing six characters
per second.  The printing of a character requires at least four
successive operations of the various portions of the machine; in other
words, many of these mechanisms have less than a twenty-fourth of a
second in which to do their job.  Coupled with this is the fact that
the control of this rapidly moving mechanism is by means of a current
of electricity so weak that it would hardly cause the smallest
electric light globe to even glow.

  Knowing this, it is easy to understand that continuous work and
research must be carried on to secure proper alloys and devise the
proper methods of heat treating and hardening to permit all of the
parts of the machine to function properly.

  Another requirement which is successfully met by Morkrum apparatus
is absolute interchangeability of parts.  This has been secured by the
work of a force of highly trained designers and engineers and by the
policy of the company of unhesitatingly securing the finest machine
tool equipment available to permit parts to be made with the highest
degree of accuracy.  The present plant of the Morkrum-Kleinschmidt
Corporation [2] at Chicago contains about 135,000 square feet of floor
space devoted solely to the manufacture of this type of apparatus,
filled wit the best machine tool equipment that can be purchased and
manned by a force of highly trained employees, many of whom have been
in the service of the company for a great many years.

                    -----

[1] This would be the building at 1400 Wrightwood Ave., in Chicago
which was occupied by Teletype until early in the 1960s, when the R&D
portion of the complex at 5555 Touhy Ave., Skokie, was completed.  I
hear it has now been remodeled into luxury apartments.

[2] E. E. Kleinschmidt had a competing printing telegraph company in
the 1905-1920 time frame.  His company eventually merged with the
Morkrum company because of the dominance of the Krum patent on
start-stop operation.  In the 1950s Mr. Kleinschmidt got back into the
business with his own company, located in Deerfield, IL.


[e-mail]
[e-mail]











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18285;
          17 Nov 91 5:11 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03851
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 03:24:38 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01205
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 03:24:25 -0600
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 03:24:25 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #938

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 Nov 91 03:24:14 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 938

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: All Saturday Night Messages Lost (TELECOM Moderator)
    History of Teletypewriter Development (Teletype Corp. via Jim Haynes)
    Need Help With ATT Speaker Box (Roger Clark Swann)
    Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: Method Needed to Test Extension Phone (Yanek Martinson)
    Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls (Tatsuya Kawasaki)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 02:35:29 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Administrivia: All Saturday Night Messages Lost

If you sent a message to the Digest Saturday afternoon or evening it
was probably lost due to a glitch in the filter/autoreply program
which has since (hopefully) been fixed. More than likely you did not
get an autoreply message because the messages were simply being
trashed in the process of passing from the filter to the autoreply.

You may have gotten a reciept because a fix (incorrect) was installed
at one point in the evening, but I still didn't actually get the
message.  And that includes your article, Lauren W ... both times you
sent it!  Even though the filterlog had it listed (which is how I was
able to notify some people of the loss of their articles) twice for
Lauren, which included my request to retransmit it, it failed the
second time also.  As of 1:30 AM CST Sunday, things are running okay
again.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: History of Teletypewriter Development
Date: 17 Nov 91 08:34:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


Here's another one (and that exhausts my supply). These two came into
my hands as Monographs when I was working for Teletype in 1963-1966.
The main reason I typed them in is to get them into the telecom
archive since they contain information that isn't readily available so
far as I know.


              HISTORY OF TELETYPEWRITER DEVELOPMENT

             R. A. Nelson

             K. M. Lovitt, Editor


October 1963                    Teletype Corporation
                        5555 West Touhy Avenue
                        Skokie, Illinois

            ------

              ABSTRACT

  The success of the modern teletypewriter began with Howard L. Krum's
conception of the start-stop method of synchronization for permutation
code telegraph systems.  The purpose of this paper is to provide a
brief historical account of events which led to that achievement and
of those which ensued.

  Four areas of development will be covered:

  (1) The contributions of Sterling Morton, Charles L. Krum and
      Howard L. Krum.
  (2) The contributions of E. E. Kleinschmidt.
  (3) The contributions of AT&T and Western Electric.
  (4) The contributions of L. M. Potts

            -----

     _HISTORY OF TELETYPEWRITER DEVELOPMENT_

  Area I.  In 1902 a young electrical engineer named Frank Pearne
solicited financial support from Joy Morton, head of the Morton Salt
interests.  Pearne had been experimenting with a printing telegraph
system and needed sponsorship to continue his work.  Morton discussed
the matter with his friend, Charles L. Krum, a distinguished
mechanical engineer and vice president of the Western Cold Storage
Company (which was operated by Joy's brother, Mark Morton).  The
verdict for Pearne was favorable, and he was given laboratory space in
the attic of the Western Cold Storage Company.

  After about a year of unsuccessful experimenting, Pearne lost
interest and decided to enter the teaching field.  Charles Krum
continued the work and by 1906 had developed a promising model.  In
that year his son, Howard, a newly graduated electrical engineer,
plunged into the work alongside his father.  The fruit of these early
efforts was a typebar page printer (Patent No. 888,335; filed August
22, 1903; issued May 19, 1908) and a typewheel printing telegraph
machine (Patent No. 862,402; filed August 6, 1904; issued August 6,
1907).  Neither of these machines used a permutation code.

  They experimented with transmitters as well, applications filed in
1904 and 1906 maturing into Patents No. 929,602 and No. 929,603.
These patents covered modes of transmission which depended both on
alternation of polarity and change in current level.

  By 1908 the Krums were able to test an experimental printer on an
actual telegraph line.  The typing portion of this machine was a
modified Oliver typewriter mounted on a desk with the necessary
relays, contacts, magnets, and interconnecting wires (Patent No.
1,137,146; filed February 4, 1909; issued April 27, 1915). As a result
of the successful test of this printer, Charles and Howard Krum
continued their experiments with a view to developing a direct
keyboard typewheel printer.

  They sought most of all to discover a way of synchronizing
transmitting and receiving units so that they would stay "in step."
It was Howard Krum who worked out the start-stop method of
synchronization (Patent No. 1,286,351; filed May 31, 1910; issued
December 3, 1918).  This achievement, which more than anything else
put printing telegraphy on a practical basis, was first embodied (for
commercial purposes) in the "Green Code" Printer, a typewheel page
printer (Patent No. 1,232,045; filed November 28, 1909;issued July 3,
1917).

  The transmitters first used by the Krums were of the continuously-
moving-tape variety. (A stepped tape feed, they maintained, would have
reduced transmission speed.)  In order to permit sequential sensing,
the rows of code holes were arranged in a slightly oblique pattern
(with respect to tape edges).  This method of transmission is more
fully elaborated in Krum Patents No. 1,326,456, No. 1,360,231, and No.
1,366,812.

  Keyboard-controlled cam-type start-stop permutation code transmitters
were developed by Charles and Howard Krum in about 1919.  Such a
device is the transmitter component of the Morkrum 11-Type tape printer
(Krum Patent No. 1,635,486).  This kind of transmitter employs a
single contact to open or close the signal line.

  In about 1924 the Morkrum Company introduced the No. 12-Type tape
printer (H. L. Krum Patent No. 1,665,594).  On December 23, 1924,
Howard Krum and Sterling Morton (son of Joy Morton) filed an
application on the 14-Type type-bar tape printer which matured into
Patent No. 1,745,633. [1]

  Area II.  It appears that the early efforts of E. E. Kleinschmidt
were directed toward development of facsimile printing apparatus and
automatic Morse code equipment.  He patented first a Morse keyboard
transmitter (Patent No. 964,372; filed February 7, 1095; issued
January 11, 1910) and later a Morse keyboard perforator (Patents No.
1,045,855, No. 1,085,984, and No. 1,085,985).  (The latter became
known as the Wheatstone Perforator.)

  In 1916 Kleinschmidt filed an application for a type-bar page
printer (Patent No. 1,448,750 issued March 20, 1923).  This printer
utilized Baudot code but was not start-stop.  It was intended for use
on multiplex circuits, and its printing was controlled from a local
segment on a receiving distributor of the sunflower type.  Later,
around 1919, Kleinschmidt appeared to be concerned chiefly with
development of multiplex transmitters for use with this printer
(Kleinschmidt Patent No. 1,460,357).

  It seems that Kleinschmidt first became interested in modern
start-stop permutation code telegraph systems when H. L. Krum's basic
start-stop patent was issued in December 1918.  Shortly after that
Kleinschmidt filed an application entitled "Method of and Apparatus
for Operating Printing Telegraphs" (Patent No. 1,463,136; filed May 1,
1919; issued July 24, 1923).  The system described therein employed
the start-stop principle with a modified version of his earlier
multiplex distributor. That patent, accordingly, was dominated by the
Krum start-stop patent.  The conflict of patent rights between the
Morkrum Company and the Kleinschmidt Electric Company eventually led
to a merger of the two interests.

  Shortly after the new Morkrum-Kleinschmidt Corporation (later called
the Teletype Corporation) had been established, Sterling Morton,
Howard Krum, and E. E. Kleinschmidt filed an application covering the
commercial form of the well-known 15-Type page printer (Patent No.
1,9904,164).  [2]

  Area III.  Teletype entered the Bell System in 1930.  From this
point on, advances in the Teletype product can be considered the
result of the pooled efforts of the AT&T Company, the Western Electric
Company, and the Teletype Corporation.  Teletype Corporation, of
course, holder of the basic patents and expert in the art, was the
chief contributor.

  Although it appears from the report of R. E. Pierce, dated December
24, 1934, that the Bell System was active in the development of
telegraph printers and transmitters as early as the year 1909, a
review of the patents issued to Bell reveals no significant
contribution to modern teletypewriter development (using start-stop
permutation code) until the introduction in 1920 of the 10-A
teletypewriter (Pfannenstiehl Patents No. 1,374,606, No. 1,399,933,
No. 1,426,768, No. 1,623,809, and No. 1,661,012).

  The 10-A teletypewriter was the first embodiment of such basic
design features of the 15-Type printer as stationary platen, moving
type basket, and selector vane assembly, but the majority of
improvements incorporated in the 15-Type were proprietary to the
Teletype Corporation.

  Area IV.  The earliest contribution of Dr. L. M. Potts to the
start-stop method of synchronization appears to have been set forth in
a patent application filed November 18, 1911, covering a reed-type
start-stop selector (Patent No. 1,151,216).

  In 1914, Dr. Potts filed an application for a single magnet page
printer which used an eight-unit code (Patent No. 1,229,202; issued
June 5, 1917).

  In 1915, Dr. Potts filed an application covering another single
magnet page printer, this one using the start-stop permutation code
(Patent No. 1,370,669; assigned to AT&T March 8, 1921).

  Potts Patents No. 1,517,381 and No. 1,570,923 were also assigned to
AT&T.

                           ----------

[1] For anyone who is old enough to have seen a Western Union Telegram
where the typing is on narrow gum-backed tape that is moistened and
stuck to a telegram blank, this is the machine that produces that kind
of printing.  The same mechanism is the basis of a typing reperforator,
a machine which punches received signals into a tape for retransmission
and also types on the tape so an operator can read it.

[2] This is the machine used until the 1960s or so by the news wire
services.  Some radio stations still use a recording of the sound of
one of these machines as background during news broadcasts.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for two very excellent articles this
weekend on the history of Teletype and its predecessor companies.
Jim's earlier article on the history of the Morkrum Company was
distributed as a special mailing sent out between issues 936-937 on
Saturday evening. Watch for your copy to arrive if it hasn't yet.

But I am curious about something not mentioned in either article. Did
the Bell System buy out Morkrum and change the name to Teletype in
1930 or did Teletype start and later buy out Morkrum?  How did that
transition occur? I love these history articles because so much
telecom history happened right here in Chicago -- the Chicago I like
to remember from years ago.  PAT]

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

From: ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail] (Roger Clark Swann)
Subject: Need Help With ATT Speaker Box
Date: 16 Nov 91 06:28:24 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


I am looking for hardware help in connecting up an ATT speakerphone
unit that I just acquired. The numbering on the backside is: S101A.
This is a single box unit that connects to Merlin and similar
insturments. It has two push switches on top of the unit, one for
on/off and one for mic mute. There is a sliding volume control across
the bottom. I found a listing in the ATT sourcebook for these devices
as a QUORUM 101 & 102 speakerphone. The 101 being for digital
telephones and the 102 being for analog telephones. There is also a
listing under the Merlin section for what looks like the same thing,
but different part numbers.

Since I don't have a Merlin set handy, can I hook this little gem up
to a POTS insturment? There is an 8 conductor modular jack on the rear
of the unit for connection to a Merlin or whatever. I assume that I
can get hookup info from ATT, if I knew what to ask for, no?  OR am I
just flat out dead w/o a Merlin type set?


    Roger Swann               |   email:  [e-mail]
         @                    |     fax:  [phone]
The Boeing Company            |   voice:  206-773-5491

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot?
Date: 16 Nov 91 04:26:53 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jack Decker) writes:

> rural areas.  If they had to use 950 or 10XXX access just like any
> other OCC, we'd probably have access to at least one of them here in

950.1288 answers in Boston with an AT&T info access system message. I
assume it isn't everywhere, yet.

I have no idea what their prices look like. I think this is a CDC/ATT
offering.

I also assume they are using Primary Access's modems that take up to
20 T1s of voice lines (that is 488 ckts) and convert it all to several
x.25 ckts all without any rats-nest of eia cables between modems and
pads, and without bothering to take the incoming modem signals back to
analog -- they process them digitally the whole way. Since Primary
Access boxes understand FG-B and FG-D signalling, this is a trivial
application for them.

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

From: Yanek Martinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Method Needed to Test Extension Phone
Date: 16 Nov 91 17:45:18 GMT
Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science


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

> I would like to know if there is a way (short of asking a friend to
> call your number) of testing/phoning an extension

Call a unix system with a dialout line you can access. Then

nohup "sleep 180; cu <your-number>" &
logoff

and in three minutes the computer will call you back.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (& Kawasaki)
Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls
Organization: Brigham Young University
Date: 17 Nov 91 00:46:52


Speaking of recording phone conversations:

The federal government does not require that all parties being
recorded must give their prior consent or that all parties being
recond must hear a 'beep'. According to FCC rules, as long as one of
parties is aware of the conversation is been taped it is legal.  But
some states impose strict laws such as insisting both parties be
aware.  For example, in the state of Utah, there are no regulations.
My attorney checked it for me a few weeks ago.  If you are interested
about the FCC regulations, I will try to post them for you.


Tatsuya  [e-mail]   EMT:901006  Ham: N7UQJ

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #938
******************************






ISSUE 939 DELAYED IN TRANSMISSION AND APPEARS FOLLOWING ISSUE 940






Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16504;
          18 Nov 91 0:57 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00841
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 22:53:41 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24030
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 22:53:31 -0600
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 22:53:31 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #940

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 Nov 91 22:53:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 940

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The ZZZZZZ Saga -- Part 1 -- "The Books" (Lauren Weinstein)
    Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Housholds (Barry Ornitz)
    Are Personal 900 Numbers Available? (William R. Mark)
    Embassy Suites Hotel Advertises AT&T Service (Joel Upchurch)
    Vacant Chair Telecommunication Networks (Rudi Westerveld)
    X.PC, was Re: Phone Gateways? (John R. Levine)
    What Does Internet Cost Per Person? ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 20:56:35 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: The ZZZZZZ Saga -- Part 1 -- "The Books"


 ====
This is Part 1 of a series chronicling the history of the ZZZZZZ
telephone entertainment service; from 1970 to 1980 the last listing
in the Los Angeles telephone directory, and at the time "the most
frequently dialed residential telephone number in the world".
 =====

The ZZZZZZ Saga

Part 1 -- "The Books"

It was February, 1970.  Richard Nixon was President.  The Vietnam War
continued to grind up lives.  The previous summer, an obscure farmer
named Max permitted his land to be used for a rock festival named
"Woodstock".  It was a time when men with hair over their collars were
still chastised for their "long hair" (little did the parents of the
time know that such hairstyles would be considered "short" by later
standards!)

It was the age of Ma Bell; a time when The Phone Company (TPC) owned
virtually all of the phones, hooking up your own answering machine
without an expensive "coupler" rented from telco was illicit, and
modular plugs a development yet to come.  The thought of paying for
directory assistance, either local or long distance, or having to pay
for non-local phone books would have been viewed as totally ludicrous
by most.

I was of high school age at the time.  I sat in the Century City (a
West Los Angeles pseudo-"downtown" area) waiting room of an office one
afternoon that month, idly looking through the cartoons in "The New
Yorker" (does anyone ever look at anything other than the cartoons in
there?  Never mind ...)  As I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there
came (no, not a tapping!) but rather a loud THUMP as a large pile of
new phone books were dropped onto the receptionist's desk by a burly
telco employee.

Having finished the cartoons, I wandered over to the pile of books,
pulled the local area code 213 (Western Section [orange area]) L.A.
white pages book from the pile, and started to thumb through it,
looking for any interesting changes in the telco information pages.
Out of curiosity, I turned to the last page of the book, and looked
for the last listing -- I thought there might be a particularly
amusing surname present (there usually was!)

But this time, it was different.  The last listing was:

Zzzzzz ...................................... 837-5566

Here was a double oddity.  Not only was the listing obviously not that
of a person, but there was also no address (non-address listings were
fairly rare back then ...)

For no good reason, I turned to the front of the book, where various
triple-A's and related listings could normally be found.  Egads!  Look
at the first listing:

A ........................................... 837-5566

There were a couple of other "A" listings as well, but all of the
other ones had addresses, and the "mystery" number was in front of
them all.  The same number as the last listing!

This was getting interesting.  There was obviously only one thing to
do.  Heading for the nearest phone, I dialed the number (yes, with a
genuine rotary dial).  It rang about five times.  A Click!

"Z", said a somewhat disgruntled voice.

"Uh, hello.  I noticed your listing in the new Western book.
 What is this, anyway?", I inquired.

"What do you want it to be?" asked the voice.

"Well, uh...", I started ...

"Well if you don't know, goodbye", said the voice ... "CLICK!"
And that was that.

All in all, not a very satisfying conversation, but certainly an
amusing one.  This was a number that would need to be called again
later; there was obviously something going on and I wanted to find out
what it was.

I was indeed to find out.  Little did I know then that the chain of
events that had started would eventually lead to one of the strangest
sagas in "telephone history", ultimately involving not only the local
AT&T telephone company (Pacific Telephone) but the California PUC as
well, and a wide variety of rather interesting people over the next
decade.

But that was all to come.  At the time, all I had was a phone number,
and a mystery.  I'd wait a few days and try the number again ...

TO BE CONTINUED ...

[Note: I'm still willing to provide a few digitized samples of classic
ZZZZZZ tapes for the amusement of the readership, but I have yet to
receive any mail from persons with some anonymous ftp disk space
they'd be willing to donate to the cause.  Gigantic amounts of space
would not be required, but the space available for the Telecom
archives is quite limited, so they can't go there.  If you have some
space you'd like to make available for this purpose, please let me
know.]

 --Lauren--

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Barry Ornitz)
Subject: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Housholds
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co.
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 23:49:55 GMT


I learned late Friday afternoon (after business hours) that the local
telephone company has assigned another household the same telephone
number as ours.  This was evidently done approximately three months
ago, and it certainly explains the very large increase in the number
of calls we have received for another party.  I called the repair
office after verifying through the directory assistance operator that
indeed two households were listed as having the same number.  The
repair office told me this situation would have to be handled through
the business office.

A few minutes later, two telephone company troubleshooters came
through my office area (ECC is putting in a fancy new phone system).
Since it was after normal hours and I was the only one around with
keys, they asked me to let them in a few laboratories.  While talking
with them, I mentioned the problem with my home telephone.  They said
this happens more frequently than United Intermountain [United
Intermittant] cares to admit.  They said the most likely problem is
that the ESS was programmed improperly.  They also said theft of
service was far more common than phone company also liked to admit.
In my case, since the other party was listed in the directory files,
they said the problem was in the ESS.  I might add that I have never
picked up my home telephone and heard another conversation already in
progress.

The next day, a repairman came to my house to check my phone.  He
plugged in his portable set, and when it worked, he declared
everything fine.  He said it was impossible for the central office to
assign two lines to the same number.

Checking back through my past few bills, I can find no additional long
distance service charges.  Of course I use AT&T long distance and it
is possible the other household uses another service.

I will call the business office tomorrow and complain loudly.  I will
also call the state Public Service Commission.  United Telephone
rarely listens unless you do this, and the commissioners love to take
every available opportunity to make the telephone company responsive
to their customers needs.  I have found that getting the Public
Service Commission involved makes dealing with the phone company far
more pleasant.

My questions to the telecom group are: how easy is it to assign
duplicate numbers on different lines, how are long distance charges
assigned back to a household (rather than a number), and is it worth
asking for credit for the added inconvenience and potential lost
service (and quite a few wrong numbers in the middle of the night)?

Thanks.

    Barry L. Ornitz     [e-mail]
    Eastman Chemical Company Research Laboratories
        Kingsport, TN


[Moderator's Note: First of all, *who told you* another party had the
same phone number? You mention you 'found out', but don't say who told
you or why they could not fix it. I think it is far more common to
have two subscribers on the same pair by accident rather than two
subscribers with two pairs but only one number. If you have never once
heard anyone else talking on the line; never once called and found the
line busy when you knew it should not be; never once come across
charges on your bill that should not be there, then I suggest you do
not have anyone sharing your number and/or your line. What probably
happened was the other party got listed incorrectly in the data base
with your number attached instead of theirs; no more, no less. The
large number of calls you receive for the other party is due to the
number of people trying to call the other party who check with
directory assistance for the number. Is it also in the phone book?
Have you yet talked to the other party to see if they consider
themselves to have the same phone number, or if they understand it to
be just a typographical error yet to be corrected, or something else.
If I were you, I'd approach the Business Office saying you believe
someone else has been listed in the directory data base with your
number, and let them handle it from there. And no, you have no
compensation coming. Your service was not interuppted.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 19:40:33 CST
From: William R. Mark <[e-mail]>
Subject: Are Personal 900 Numbers Available?


Would it be possible for long distance companies to provide personal
900 numbers similar to their personal 800 numbers?

I can quickly think of two uses for such numbers:

1) Establishing 900 numbers similar to those which are already
available, but which are useful to a much more limited audience.  It
is my understanding that it currently requires a fairly large
investment to establish a 900 service.  If it was easy, and relatively
cheap, to establish such services, there would probably be an enormous
increase in useful 900 numbers

2) An extremely effective way to discourage the telemarketing calls
that seem to be disturbing many of the posters to TELECOM Digest.
Suppose that your phone number was a 900 number.  If a telemarketer
did call, then you could suffer through the call knowing that you make
a couple of dollars from it.  The obvious problem is that friends,
relatives, etc. would also have to pay the charges.  A solution to
this problem would be to provide a method to "reverse the chargers"
and make the callee pay instead of the caller (perhaps flashing and
dialing a code).  If this system was priced reasonably (a big "if"),
then you would make money off of annoyance calls and pay charges
similar to WATS charges for calls that you did want.


Does anyone think there's any chance of such a service ever being
provided?


[Moderator's Note: It is being provided. Call any 900 vendor and tell
them you want a line. Telesphere was asking for about $1000 up front
to install one, including the channel between the 900 point of
presence and your location, which would come in like an FX or a ring
down via your local telco to your premises from the vendor's switch.
Tell the vendor how much you want to charge per call and minute. They
rake off the first 40-50 cents a minute, maybe less, which includes
the local telco's charge for the ringdown before you see any of the
net proceeds. But tell me this: what kind of fools do you take the
telemarketers to be? Who do you expect will call your number?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel Upchurch)
Subject: Embassy Suites Hotel Advertises AT&T Service
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 17:46:05 GMT
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL


My November 18th {Newsweek} has an ad for Embassy Suites on page 71.
They highlight that they have AT&T long distance and that AT&T calling
card and Universal cards work from the rooms. They also mention that
computer modem hookup are available in most suites.

It sounds like it isn't just the readers of comp.dcom.telecom that are
getting annoyed with hotel telecom policies if a major hotel is
mentioning this as a sales point.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Rudi Westerveld)
Subject: Vacant Chair Telecommunication Networks
Organization: Delft University of Technology
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 15:55:07 GMT


[Moderator's Note: This message was previously published and is being
repeated in an effort to help fill the position.   PAT]

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]

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

Subject: X.PC, was Re: Phone Gateways
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 17 Nov 91 13:01:09 EST (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


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

> This reminds me of the X.PC protocol supported by Xtalk Mk 4.
> Publisher of Xtalk won't release it.

The X.PC protocol is in the public domain.  It is basically a version
of X.25 designed for regular old async phone line modemss.  On-line
copies of the spec are floating around all over the place.  MCI Mail
and Tymnet themselves currently use it.  Only Tymnet uses it for
multiple simultaneous sessions.

If there is suffiecient interest, I can send along the spec to put in
the telecom archives (it's about 125K long.)  You can get a paper copy
along with some handy DOS software by sending a request for the X.PC
Packet and a check for $35 made out to BT Tymnet to:

X.PC Distribution
Tymnet Network Resources
M/S C41
South Bay Center
2560 North First Street
P.O. Box 49019
San Jose, CA  95161-9019


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
Subject: What Does Internet Cost Per Person?
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 00:49:57 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department


[e-mail] (Herman R Silbiger) writes:

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

>> Contrast that with the situation of the Internet RFCs, freely
>> available by FTP.

> They're not free, you pay for them in your income tax, whether you
> need them or not.

Has anyone calculated the exact cost per taxpayer to support the
Government's share of Internet operating expenses? (I must admit, I
wish all standards could be implemented as RFCs ...)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #940
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18894;
          18 Nov 91 2:30 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24231
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 21:28:09 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22610
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 21:27:56 -0600
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 21:27:56 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #939

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 Nov 91 21:27:47 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 939

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Peter da Silva)
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (John Higdon)
    Re: Telemarketers: One Good Solution (Roger Fajman)
    Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (S.E. Williams )
    Re: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette? (Mark Oberg)
    Re: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette? (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: Two Line Selector Box Schematic Wanted (Charlie Rosenberg)
    Re: What Information do Phone Companies Process? (Peter Marshall)
    Re: Easements (Charlie Mingo)
    ANI Numbers That I Know of (Joe Stein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 18:14:21 GMT


TELECOM Moderator noted what [e-mail] (Colin Plumb) had
written:

> [Moderator's Note: The phreak intends to steal something from you if
> possible; ie your computing and telecom resources. The telemarketer
> wishes to sell you something if possible. There is legally and
> otherwise a difference between selling you something and stealing from
> you.  PAT]

I agree that there is a legal difference, but there are quite a few
telemarketers that *do* have every intention of stealing from you,
courtesy of a 900 number call-back and the local operating company.

So, there are three groups of people: the legitimate telemarketers,
the telescammers, and the phreaks. Of the three, I'd put the telescam
folks at the bottom of *my* list.

Plus, with Caller-ID I'm more likely to get the phreak's number.

[e-mail] (Jack Decker) writes:

> I personally would have more respect for the curious
> 15-year-old hacker that is trying to learn about computers than for
> the sleazeball that calls with the intention of selling me shoddy
> merchandise.

I wouldn't. "Learning about computers" is no excuse for phreaking,
less so today than at any time in history. For the price of a decent
terminal, you can get a UNIX clone with source code, compiler, and
everything and a computer to run it on.

What's he going to learn from a binary-only system which, half the
time, doesn't even have compilers on ... over a 2400 baud phone link
 ... that he wouldn't learn from a cheap used PC clone and MINIX?

Not to condone telemarketing scams or anything, but phreaking is no
different than joyriding.


Peter da Silva   Taronga Park BBS    [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

From: zygot![e-mail] (John Higdon)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 20:27:58 PST
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes:

> I am really beginning to believe that telemarketing scams are becoming
> a VERY serious problem, especially because now that the economy is
> getting tight, more people seem to be turning to unethical means of
> obtaining cash.  I'm not sure what the answer is, though.

Telemarketing scams ARE becoming more blatant and crooked. But as with
most things the answer is probably to be found in education rather
than legislation. Barney Frank and other congressmen are all ready to
attempt to legislate the telemarketer out of business with a patchwork
quilt of complex laws (that will be next to impossible to enforce),
but there is a better way.

Most of us have come to adopt the "I don't do unsolicited business
over the phone" method of handling junk calls. The reasons for this
are many. You know nothing about the seller. Your chances of getting a
"good deal" are remote. Your dissatisfaction recourse is non-existent.
Now, if most people dropped the receiver on telemarketers, they would
go away without passing any laws. It is called marketplace regulation.

Just as with 900 services, knowing what is going on is more than half
the battle. Oh, yes, there will be some who will never figure it out
but we cannot protect everyone from themselves and their own
ignorance.  And, yes, the telemarketers are looking for that one
sucker to make their day. But for the victim, consider the transaction
the cost of education.

The slime will do it to itself. If the vast majority of people are
irritated enough, the fruits of telemarketing will disappear and the
perpetrators will have no reason to continue the practice. It WILL
happen, but let us not jump off the deep end in the meantime.


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

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

From: "Roger Fajman" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91  14:38:03 EST
Subject: Re: Telemarketers: One Good Solution


I received the following a while back in a newsletter from my bank:

The Direct Marketing Association, a trade organization for direct mail
and telephone companies, maintains a list of people who do not want to
receive unsolicited mailings or telephone calls.  The DMA will send
your name to hundreds of national companies, and your name will come
off those firms' solicitation lists.

To get on the association's list (and removed from many mailing and/or
telephone lists), send your name address and telephone number to:

   Mail Preference Service and/or Telephone Preference Service
   Direct Marketing Association
   6 East 43rd Street
   New York, NY 10017

It takes several weeks for your action to take effect because the
Direct Marketing Association updates and distributes its list once per
quarter.

Not all companies belong to the Direct Marketing Association.  You'll
have to write to some companies individually to have your name removed
from their lists.

(from "Bank Notes," Sandy Spring National Bank of Maryland, Spring 1991)

I sent my name into the Telephone Preference Service some years ago
after it was mentioned in the newspaper.  I think it does cut down on
the telemarketing calls, but it does not eliminate them completely.


Roger Fajman                    Telephone:  [phone]
National Institutes of Health   BITNET:     RAF@NIHCU
Bethesda, Maryland, USA         Internet:   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 13:13:19 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


[e-mail] wrote:

> Create a national list of phone numbers that could not be junk-
> called or junk-faxed.  The crucial point that I didn't hear made
> specific is whether this list would prevent human junk calls too, or
> just the machine ones.

    Seems like this could be another option sold (or maybe even
provided standard) by the telco.  As I recall, existing switch
software will disallow collect calls or third number billing.  Perhaps
there could be a "junk call refusal" flag.  Telco probably would not
go for this, though, since I'm sure they make a fair amount of money
on "telemarketing".  Maybe something could be done with caller ID.  Do
telemarketers use any sort of bulk long distance that could be
identified by a caller ID (similar to the personalized junk mail I get
third class, carrier route sorted -- how personal can they get)?.

    At present, I just try to talk the telemarketers out of using
that sales technique.  They just lost the sale.  Next time, try direct
mail.  Automated calls that do not meet the CPUC requirements are
reported to PacBell.

    My favorite opening line from a telemarketer is "You wanted us
to give you a call when we had an especially good deal on ...".  This
is typically used to sell stocks, bonds, rare metals, etc.  I NEVER
told them I wanted a call (I don't have enough money for any of that
stuff.  Besides that, I try to earn money the old fashioned way -- by
working).


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (S.E. Williams )
Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 16:35:28 GMT


> reason some idle numbers return the message 'xxx has been disconnected'
> while others return the message 'xxx is not in service'. I've heard
> both on IBT idle numbers. I think the latter is used if the line never
> did have anyone on it, ie, a relatively new prefix.  Other ideas?   PAT]

Has anyone ever created/compiled a list which includes all the phrases
a switch can say, and when it will say them?  I think it might be
interesting ...


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


[Moderator's Note:
The number you reached [dialed] (area code xxx) xxx-xxxx

1.  is not in service (for incoming calls).
2.  has been disconnected. (Calls are being taken by (areacode xxx) xxx-xxxx).
3.  (at the customer's request) has been temporarily disconnected.
4.  is being tested [checked] for trouble. Please try your call again later.
5.  cannot be reached from outside the customer's premises.
6.  is a working number. Please hang up and dial the call again.
7.  has activated call screening, and is not accepting calls at this time.

[Some use this phrase instead] ... (ocassionally this phrase is added).
In the case of #3 above, if (at the customer's request) is added, they
will be the first four words spoken before the number is read. Without
that phrase present at the beginning, the customer is almost always on
a credit disconnect. Example #6 applies when your call is manually
intercepted by an operator who bubbles in what you tell her you
*think* you dialed. Obviously in an automatic intercept the switch
knows what you dialed -- you couldn't have dialed a working number and
still gotten intercepted. It will say what you dialed. On the other
hand the operator has to take your word for it and you may have in
fact intended to dial a good number but misdialed.  There are many
more, but these came immediatly to mind. Anyone want to compile more?  PAT]

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

From: grout![e-mail] (Mark Oberg)
Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette?
Date: 26 Nov 91 18:18:34 GMT
Organization: Eric's PC, Landover MD


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

> I was interested in aquiring a phone book on diskette to enable quick
> searches in locating phone numbers.  I realized that this would make
> it much more easy for phone solicitators to bother customers, but it
> would be really useful for many computer users.

    Complete telephone directories are published on CDROM and
available in EAST and WEST editions.  Bureau of Electronic Publishing
(advertised in most PC magazines) offers these for $995 each.  They
also offer a complete U.S. Yellow Pages listing on CDROM for about
$400.  I have not purchased either of these ROM's, so cannot vouch for
the accuracy or timeliness of the data provided.


Mark Oberg   NATel, Inc.   |  UUCP: wb3ffv!grout!mark
Voice: [phone]       |  Internet: [e-mail]
  BBS: [phone]       |  Fidonet: 1:109/506

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

Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 13:40:42 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


> I was interested in aquiring a phone book on diskette to enable quick
> searches in locating phone numbers.  I realized that this would make
> it much more easy for phone solicitators to bother customers, but it
> would be really useful for many computer users.

> [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell does not have their directory on
> diskettes but they do have a program where you can access their data
> base from a terminal at your location. Called 'Directory Express', it
> is not inexpensive. I think they get a couple hundred dollars per
> month for a few hours of time on line. All you get is whatever the
> directory assistance operator gets.  Is it worth it?   PAT]

    Seems like the information in the telephone directory is
"public information" that is made available to people at the cost of
duplication.  I think the "alternate phone direcories" (such as Key
Marketing) get all the name/address/number information on nine track
tape.  If there were enough demand, it would appear that someone could
buy this 9 track tape and transfer it to whatever other medium might
be desired.  I don't think diskette would be appropriate (unless you
go with Garrison Keilor's "Condensed Phone Book").  A CD ROM would
probably be appropriate.

    I also get mailings from a company that generates mailing
lists from telco yellow page directories.  They actually subscribe to
every phone book in the country and hand key the yellow page entries
into their system.  Amazing!

    As far as online directory assistance, as I recall, the French
telephone company (probably government owned) figured it was cheaper
to give everyone a terminal and provide online directory assistance
than it was to reprint all those directories.  Thus, the Minitel
system was born.  I don't know if it actually WAS cheaper.  It does
seem, however, that providing machine accessible directory assistance
would be less expensive than paying all those operators (though they
probably make money on that now that they charge).  Similarly, I'd
like the Postal Service to have zip code and rate information on line.
Today, I'm trying to figure out what it costs to send a three pound
package to Puerto Rico.  No answer at the local PO.  Tomorrow, the
line will be busy all day ...

    Online directory assistance may become more common as the US
telcos adapt to the recent court decisions allowing them to be
information providers instead of just information carriers.


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: Sun, 17 Nov 91 05:45:06 PST
From: Charlie Rosenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Line Selector Box Schematic Wanted


I was at Radio Shack yesterday in Cambridge, MA and they had a bunch
of these devices for $21.95.

If you get the schematic, how about a copy for me?

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

Subject: Re: What Information do Phone Companies Process?
From: [e-mail] (Peter Marshall)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 09:24:29 PST


One suggestion might be to utilize the questions presented to US West
and the responses provided some time ago to the US West Regional
Oversight Committee, composed of regulators from the US West region.
Dr. Stapleton might want to contact the Arizona PUC for this
information.


Peter Marshall

  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA
                          PEP, V.32, V.42bis
                  +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 17 Nov 91 03:10:31
Subject: Re: Easements


[e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes:

> I'd like to add one more thing about my easement for utilities.  In
> New York, as I understand it, an easement gives a utility the
> permission to string their lines across your property on under its
> surface.

> Should a problem occur with an underground installation, the homeowner
> is responsible for digging the trench to expose the item and replace
> it at my expense.  At least this is true for water. I don't know about
> telephone or electric lines since mine are overhead.

    An easement is simply a right of way.  An easement does not of
itself impose any burden on the landowner to excavate cables every
time the utility asks him to.

    Perhaps if *you're* having problems with your utility service, due
to a cable on your own land, you may have to pay for excavation as
part of the cost of repair.  Not otherwise.

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Stein)
Subject: ANI Numbers That I Know of
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 18:34:08 GMT


I know of several.  Here in GTE-Northwest, you dial 999, or 611.
In US-West territory, it is 956-2742

Also, 1-200-555-1212 is supposed to work in the "little" offices.


Joseph W. Stein
[phone]   [e-mail] -or- [e-mail]
My opinion is that I have no opinion but my own... So there!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #939
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29421;
          19 Nov 91 1:34 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16029
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 18 Nov 1991 23:31:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21319
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 18 Nov 1991 23:31:02 -0600
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 23:31:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #941

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Nov 91 23:30:53 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 941

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Fax Etiquette (Nigel Allen)
    Telescum Targeting Families of Vietnam MIAs (Dave Niebuhr)
    Moscow: Direct Dialing Overseas Now Available 11/15/91 (J. Philip Miller)
    Information Needed: GlobeCom91 in Phoenix (Anders Johansson)
    Wireless Access For Email Users (Ericsson Press Release)
    Offing Telemarketers (Chris Arndt)
    AT&T InterSpan Locator Service (Lauren Weinstein)
    Shared Area Codes (Ted Hadley)
    AT&T Home Office Network - What am I Risking? (Roy Stehle)
    Job Descriptions in Telecom (Stan Reeves)
    Call-Waiting Signal Sounds Different (Marcus Adams)
    One Second Telephone Charges (Steve Dillinger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 22:08:50 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Fax Etiquette
Organization: FidoNet Node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto


Most people who read this echo understand their fax machines.  But you
may want to take a look at the other fax machines in your
organization.

I wish that users of fax machines and fax boards would set their
machines up properly. (I could say "program" their machines, but
perhaps that's not the best way to describe pushing a few buttons in
the appropriate sequence.)

Most fax machines can be set up to display the number of the phone
line that they are attached to, and ten or more alphanumeric
characters that can be used for the name of the organization that uses
the fax.  Some fax users never bother to key in the number and name,
which can be annoying if this information isn't provided on the
organization's cover sheet or letterhead.

And if a fax machine has been bought second-hand, or if it has been
switched from one phone line to another, the fax number it identifies
itself with can be wrong.

I appreciate that there are times when someone deliberately chooses
not to include a fax number (a fax machine on a line used primarily
for voice or BBSing, for example). But most missing fax numbers are
caused by sloppiness, not be deliberate choice.

As well, I wish that people sending a fax message with small type or
fine detail would remember to send it in fine mode, particularly if
the recipient will have to mark changes on it and fax it back.


Nigel Allen
52 Manchester Avenue
Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3
Canada
telephone [phone]
fax [phone]

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 6:33:41 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr 516-282-3093)
Subject: Telescum Targeting Families of Vietnam MIAs


A new scam (at least it is to me) that telemarketers are using is the
"In-Touch" database of Vietnam Veterans who are still listed as MIAs.
This information is free to those who access it.

These scum will call relatives of the MIA and say that they are almost
100% postive that their loved one is alive; if not, for a small fee,
they will have the servicemen/servicewomen's name engraved on the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington.

If PAT will allow, I'll post the entire article and let others see
just how low these people have gone.  They should all be
tarred-and-feathered and then shot.


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


[Moderator's Note: Yes, by all means give us a bit more background on
these creeps ... and *anyone* who would dare to speak up to or solicit
the family of a missing vet with some kind of commercial nonsense *is*
a creep. You've got my word on it.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Philip Miller)
Subject: Moscow: Direct Dialing Overseas Now Available 11/15/91
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 8:16:47 CST


According to a news release from {NewsByte}, direct international
dialing is now available from Moscow from 0000-0900 each day.

Local analysts say the reason for the start of direct-dial service is
that a second international phone exchange, originally scheduled to
start six months ago, has finally been launched.

To dial international numbers from Moscow, one must dial 8, then wait
for a second dial tone, dial 10 + country code + city code + phone
number.


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

From: [e-mail] (Anders.Johansson)
Subject: Information Needed: GlobeCom91 in Phoenix
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 14:58:53 GMT


Someone told me about a conference called "GlobeCom91", and that it
will be held in Phoenix in the beginning of December, but that's all I
managed to find out about it.

If You happen to know more about it, where to get information, where
to register, which topics will be addressed, please send me an email
about it!


Anders Johansson
Telia Research Sundsvall Sweden
email: [e-mail]
   or  [e-mail]
(Yes, only one 's' in Johanson)

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 19:00 +0100
From: ERICSSON CORPORATE RELATIONS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wireless Access For E-Mail Users


PRESS RELEASE
1991-11-18

ERICSSON GE, ANTERIOR TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH IN MOTION (RIM)
ANNOUNCE WIRELESS ACCESS FOR E-MAIL USERS

Ericsson GE announced today that it signed joint development and
marketing agreements with Anterior Technology and Research In Motion
(RIM) to develop a wireless E-Mail gateway service. This service will
allow out-of-office workers to use their portable computers to access
major public and private E-mail systems over Mobitex mobile data
networks.

Anterior's RadioMail gateway will connect the RAM Mobile Data Mobitex
network to public E-mail systems such as ATT-Mail, LAN-based systems
such as Lotus cc:Mail and the worldwide TCP/IP Internet and
UUCP/USENET. RIM will develop an E-mail applicaton software package
which will allow portable computers to access the RadioMail gateway
using Ericsson GE radio modems.

"A major limiting factor of electronic mail and information services
has been their dependence on deskbound communications technologies,"
stated Geoffrey S. Goodfellow, president and CEO of Anterior
Technology. "The utility of these services are greatly enhanced when
they are available anywhere and anytime."

Anterior Tehcnology, located in Menlo Park, California, is a
communications services company, and has been providing electronic
mail and information services since 1988. In addition to RadioMail,
Anterior offers turnkey communication services for Internet, UUCP and
 cc:Mail sites.

Research In Motion, headquartered in Waterloo, Ontario, specializes in
software development and electronic engineering in the portable
communications field. It also provides an application program
interface (API) for Mobitex, which allows software companies to
rapidly develop applications without the need to acquire specialized
knowledge of radio communications protocols.

Ericsson GE Mobile Data Inc., based in Paramus, New Jersey, is part of
the Ericsson GE joint venture in mobile communications. Ericsson GE
Mobile Data markets radio modems, mobile data terminals and
communications software for the Mobitex system in the US. The company
is also responsible for supplying and installing the RAM Mobile Data
Network infrastructure which uses Mobitex technology.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT

Kathy Egan, The Ericsson Corporation
 Tel. [phone]
Lars Jonsteg, The Ericsson Corporation
 Tel. [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 11:52:49 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Chris Arndt)
Subject: Offing Telemarketers


I've been following the discussion on screening telemarketers. Here is
a rather elegant way of dealing with nuisance calls, without missing
important ones.

I have a FAX/modem switch (sorry -- the name escapes at the moment)
which has several jacks on it one for the answering machine, one for
other phones, one for the FAX, and one marked AUX. The key feature of
this particular switch is that after tripping on the first ring, it
not only looks for FAX or modem tones, but DTMF tones. The
programmable DTMF tones can also be used to switch incoming calls to
different jacks.

Hook up your answering machine to the appropriate jack, and the rest
of the phones to the AUX jack. Give 'important' people the access code
to the AUX jack. They can ring through to the house phones and get in
touch with you directly, while the trash calls, and those from
'not-so-important' people route to the answering machine, where you
can screen 'em or ignore 'em.

You could even add a second answering machine on the AUX jack for
'important' messages.

Some cellular companies have a plan that allows the subscriber one
number he can call locally at no charge for airtime. Using the
FAX/modem switch and a Melco Remote Access Unit to access a second
line, you could cut your local outgoing cellular airtime charges to
zip just by dialing a few extra digits!

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 12:23:21 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: AT&T InterSpan Locator Service


Greetings.  A press release from AT&T today officially announced their
"InterSpan (SM) Locator Service", which enables customers to reach the
nearest location of a business via a call to a single 950 number.  As
reported here previously, Domino's Pizza has been testing this for
sometime.

While it sounds like a useful service, I imagine there will be some
interesting geographic anomalies from time to time.  If the routing
database is based on official exchange area locations, some customers
might end up being routed to stores which aren't actually closest to
their locations.

For example, the Topanga Canyon (310-455) prefix where we are located
is in the Santa Monica exchange/rate area (it's served from a Remote
Service Unit via Pacific Palisades).  But as a practical matter, Santa
Monica locations would be close to a 20 mile drive, while *much*
closer commercial areas are located in the San Fernando Valley (area
code 818) in the opposite direction.  A smart database could deal with
this of course -- but not one based only on exchange area information!

I can't actually test this yet.  Calls to the Domino 950 number
(950-1430) do not go through from here at this time.


 --Lauren--

[Moderator's Note: 950-1430 does not work from Chicago-Rogers Park yet
either, but tra-la! 950-1288 now answers with modem tone and accepts
9600 baud from me to connect with AT&T Mail.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 13:23:18 PST
From: [e-mail] (Ted Hadley)
Subject: Shared Area Codes


Simple trivia question:

What cities (towns, etc) in the US and Canada are split by differing
area codes? By cities, I mean only that, not metropolitan areas. The
only example I know of is Sunnyvale, CA, which has 415 on the NW edge
and 408 elsewhere.  Are there any others? And why would the Bell
Companies do that (i.e., not cut at city boundries)?


Ted A. Hadley ---------------- [e-mail] ---------------- [phone]
        Cylink Corporation, 110 S Wolfe Rd, Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA
  All opinions expressed are my own, and probably not liked by my employer.


[Moderator's Note: It's a little bit of a cheat answer to your
question, but 'Unincorporated Norwood Park Township', a fully
developed residential area fully surrounded by Chicago (312) and the
villages of Harwood Heights (708) and Norridge (708) -- themselves
both surrounded on all sides by Chicago -- but not part of any of
them, is split between two area codes and two telcos. A couple
sections of the township are served by Illinois Bell on 312; a section
is served by Illinois Bell on 708; a section is served by Centel on
312; and a couple sections are served by Centel on 708. The whole
unincorporated area has about 1000 residents in total. They are
appealing now to the state legislature to allow them to incorporate
themselves as a town, apparently to avoid being gobbled by Chicago.
Once an actual municipality, the new town of about 1000 people will
have two area codes and two telcos with no easily defined boundary as
to who gets service from where or by whom.  I think they also have two
different postal zip codes.   PAT]

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

Subject: AT&T Home Office Network - What am I Risking?
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 08:57:14 -0800
From: [e-mail]


AT&T has recently sent me an offer, listing my home phone that rarely
is used for modem traffic, for a free membership to the Home Office
Network.

I haven't decided if I think there is anything of value being offered.
They offer discounts on AT&T 800 STARTERLINE, Network Autoquote
software, PARTNER Comm System, fax machines, 800 Business Directory,
Safari notebook computer, Find/SVP and offerings from Avis, Days Inn,
Hilton, Embassy Suites, Egghead, Continental, H&R Block, IDS,
Panasonic, Reliable, CompuServe, and UPS.  Most of these are
discounts, rather than freebies.

There is a Member Profile to complete including the question:

    I currently (check one):
       o  operate a home-based full-time business
       o  work from home for a company (telecommute)
       o  bring work home after hours

If I sign up:  will I become a telemarketing target?
           will I have my residence phone upgraded to business?


Roy Stehle, SRI International    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 13:55:24 CST
From: Stan Reeves <[e-mail]>
Subject: Job Descriptions in Telecom


Sorry, I'm not offering any jobs here.  :-) I am teaching an undergrad
class in communications.  I was thinking that it would be instructive
to give the class an idea of some of the kinds of jobs that B.S.-level
electrical engineers do in the communications field.  The experience
and observations of the readers of this group should be relevant, so I
thought I would ask you.

If you're in a position to observe the kinds of jobs that B.S.-level
electrical engineers do in the communications field, then I would
appreciate your sending me a *short* description of the job (general
problem being worked on, particular responsibilities of B.S.-level
people, etc.).  It needs to be pretty succinct because I won't be able
to go into a lot of detail in class.  Please EMAIL your responses to
me, and if there's enough interest, I'll summarize to the net. Thanks.


Stan Reeves
Auburn University, Department of Electrical Engineering, Auburn, AL  36849
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcus Adams)
Subject: Call-Waiting Signal is Different
Date: 19 Nov 91 00:37:17 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


It used to be that when I got a call on my call-waiting, there would
be a click that was audible to whoever I was talking with at the time.
It was handy because they would hear the click and say something like
"Sure, go ahead and answer that."

Sometime a couple years back, I noticed that this click disappeared on
my phone. Friend's call waiting would still emit a click, but whenever
I get a call-waiting call, the tone is only audible to me (although my
girlfriend says she can hear my voice "drop out" for a second instead
of the click).

What happened? Is it my phone that caused the change? Is it the switch
in my area? I really hate not having that audible click because its a
pain to stop someone mid-sentence to tell them I have another call,
and some people don't believe me, saying "I didn't hear a click ..."

Is this the price of progress?

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

From: [e-mail] (Dill)
Subject: One Second Telephone Charges?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 20:03:14 GMT


    Is it not the case that AT&T would not bill for a call until after
the first second or two or five?  I remember hearing that somewhere.

    Recently, I noticed that I have had a large increase in one minute
calls.  So, last month I tried making a few calls and hanging up the
moment the other side picked up (say it was an answering machine or
something to that effect).  Sure enough, these 1 minute calls showed
up on my bill.  Is AT&T trying to dig out a few pennies or am I just
wrong?

    I guess I just cannot help being suspicious of telco's ...


Steve Dillinger :: ramoth.cso.uiuc.edu
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #941
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01929;
          19 Nov 91 2:56 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22905
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 19 Nov 1991 00:49:02 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04294
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 19 Nov 1991 00:48:49 -0600
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 00:48:49 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #942

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 19 Nov 91 00:48:47 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 942

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Value-Added Service and Local Competition (Jack Decker)
    Copyrights on Phone Books (Was Phone Books on Diskette) (Dale Gass)
    Why I am Down on Chicago (TELECOM Moderator)
    USWest Voice Mail Problems (Bob Maccione)
    When Will 410 Start Appearing on Pay Phones? (Carl Moore)
    950-1288 Officially Anounced (John R. Levine)
    Re: Toll Restricted Local Service (Peter da Silva)
    Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls (Dave Levenson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 16:31:14 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Value-Added Service and Local Competition


A thought occurred to me the other day and I will present it here
because, quite honestly, I don't have the resources to develop this
idea myself.  But it seems like it could kill several birds with one
stone.

As just a bit of a preface, let me point out that many have bemoaned
the lack of competition for telephone service at the local level.
However, it's not that there is NO competition, just that the
competition is not priced in such a way as to be a real threat to the
so-called "monopoly provider".  I'm referring, of course, to cellular
service.  A person could tell the local telephone company to take a
flying leap and use cellular service exclusively, but in most cases it
would not be economical to do so, thus everyone overlooks the fact
that the so-called "monopoly" really isn't, IF price is not considered
(the same is true in the postal service ... only the United States
Post Office can legally deliver "First Class" Mail, yet courier
services deliver what is essentially first class mail at a much higher
price!).

Now, the difference is really not so much one of price as it is one of
added VALUE ... the cellular companies (and the courier services)
offer services that the monoply provider does not.  What I wonder is,
suppose you could provide a service that the phone company has no
interest in providing, but that would be of sufficient added value
that a few people would be willing to pay premium rates for it?

Before I answer that, remember that most telephone companies have
tariffed rates for continuous private line service over the proverbial
"bare pair of wires".  It's typically used for broadcast station
feeds, alarm systems, background music feeds, "ringdown" phones for
taxi companies and the like, and anything else where continuous
service is desired.

Now, suppose you offered a service where a person's phone line,
instead of being directly connected to the phone company, was instead
sent to another location.  In other words, when that person picked up
your phone, they wouldn't be connected directly to the telephone
company's central office exchange switch, but rather to a piece of
equipment is some other location.  They'd still be using the
facilities of the telephone company for the circuits, but not for dial
tone.

And what would be connected at the other end?  OPERATORS!  Real,
human, flesh-and-blood OPERATORS, that could complete calls between
subscribers and also to customers served by the "real" telephone
company!

And who would this service appeal to?  Well, first consider that you
could actually offer three classes of service:

1) Screened outbound calls -- you pick up the phone and get an
operator, who completes your call for you.  The equivalent of the old
"Number Please!"  operator.  Operators could assist in dialing the
phone, or in some cases restrict outgoing calls based on certain
pre-specified (by the customer) criteria.  Special features like
conference calling, etc. could also be offered.  Inbound calls (which
would come into the company on DID trunks) would cause your phone to
ring directly, with no human intervention.

2) Screened inbound calls -- someone calls YOU and gets the operator,
who would pre-screen your call per your instructions and then either
complete the call to your phone, send it elsewhere if necessary (call
it EXTREMELY selectable and programmable call forwarding!), take a
message or whatever.  When you placed an outbound call, you'd get a
dialtone from the company's PBX and could then dial another customer
of the company directly (of course, the call would first go to the
operator if it were screened) or dial "9" for an outside line, etc.

3) Combination of the above, where all incoming and outgoing calls
would be screened.

Who would this appeal to?

* Those who have difficulty getting to or using a conventional
telephone. For example, in the case of a handicapped person who has
trouble getting to the phone in the first place and dialing it once
there, the operator could pre-screen inbound calls to make sure that
they are really for the proper person and that they are really someone
important enough to disturb the person, then advise the caller that it
may take extra rings for the person to reach the phone.  On an
outbound call, the operator could assist in dialing.

* Those for whom English is a difficult language, if the service
provided multilingual operators.

* Busy executives who don't want to have to wait online for a call to
complete and who don't wish to be bothered with incoming calls from
telemarketers, but who may wish to have calls pre-screened even when
not in the office.  For example, this kind of service might even save
money for cellular phone users since calls could be pre-screened and
only forwarded to the cell phone when they are really important ...
and being able to have an operator do the dialing would be a definite
plus in some situations, too!

* Those who have multiple users on (or uses of) the same phone line ...
presumably an operator could generate many different types of coded
ringing.

* Those who need outgoing calls allowed or denied based on complex
criteria ... for example, allow calls only to certain 900 numbers and
then only on certain days of the week at certain hours, unless it's
the owner placing the call.  Or, allow outgoing toll calls ONLY to a
list of certain emergency numbers, but notify certain executive
officers immediately if such a call is placed.

I'm not even getting into the various ways that one could charge for
such a service.  Note, however, that such a service would be able to
charge premium rates while still introducing a factor of local
competition (for example, you could charge maybe $25 - $50 per month
for the service, or even more in some cases, but allow unlimited calls
between subscribers for calls that never go onto the switched network
 ... and you wouldn't be in DIRECT competition with the phone company
because you'd be providing the "Value Added" service, just as courier
services aren't considered to be in competition with the Post Office.

So, you'd be providing a useful service, getting a foot in the door
for local competition, and employing people who may now be unemployed.
You would have to price the service in such a way that your operators
are paid (and paid fairly well, so you get good people and don't have
constant turnover) and you'd never want to run a service that appeals
to EVERYONE ... you're going after a select market.  But I think this
could be a real money-maker for someone, if it's done right.

If you use this idea, just remember where you got it, please.  I might
knock on your door asking for employment some day (I'll be the guy who
is NOT wearing a necktie ... I hate 'em with a passion)!  :-)

Question: Do you think that such a service could be operated profitably
under existing telephone company tariffs?


Jack Decker/voice [phone]/1804 W. 18th #155, Sault Ste. Marie MI 49783
Jack Decker           : [e-mail]              : FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: mkseast![e-mail] (Dale Gass)
Subject: Copyrights on Phone Books (Was Phone Books Diskette)
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Atlantic Canada Branch
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 02:46:31 -0400


[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

> I was interested in aquiring a phone book on diskette to enable quick
> searches in locating phone numbers.  I realized that this would make
> it much more easy for phone solicitators to bother customers, but it
> would be really useful for many computer users.

I noticed that the Halifax (Nova Scotia) phone book is copyrighted
(and I assume most are), so I assume it's up to the phone company to
provide it on diskette.

This started me thinking about a numerically-sorted phone book I saw a
few years back; it obviously wasn't produced by the local phone
company.  Was this an outright case of copyright violation?

How far does this copyright extend?  Is it a violation to copy down a
name and number onto a piece of paper?  How about ten names/numbers?
How about one page?  How about the whole book?  Is it a copyright
violation for a company to input information from the phone book into
a computer database for their own use?  (If they type it?  If they
scan and convert to ASCII?)

Another interesting point: a notice in the white pages states that the
book itself remains property of MT&T.  What's the significance of
that?  (Confiscation of your phone book isn't going to hurt that much;
there's plenty on the black market :-)


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


[Moderator's Note: As far as telco retaining ownership of the book is
concerned, there was a time many years ago when Southwestern Bell
threatened to disconnect someone's service because they had one of
those plastic phonebook covers with advertising on it. Telco referred
to it as an 'unauthorized attachment' (straight face here, I am not
kidding about this.) You might want to check out the rules on what is
termed 'compilation copyright'. This is something publishers of
reference books (which is what the phone directory is) use to protect
their work from being ripped off. Cross reference directory publishers
generally have to get permission from telco to compile their books
unless they can show their work was done independently with their own
research and not just by backwards key-punching the telco book.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 01:39:17 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I am Down on Chicago


Over the weekend, a letter from Adam Ashby in the Digest asked me why
I was so down on Chicago ... I answered him, and had planned to send
out a mailing on it ... but it grew lengthy and I thought I'd just send
it to whoever wants a copy.

If you want to know why I feel as I do about Chicago in recent years,
just write to [e-mail] and ask me for a copy of
the letter I sent to Ashby.


Patrick Townson

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

From: asuvax!anasaz![e-mail] (Bob Maccione)
Subject: USWest Voice Mail Problems
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 19:04:10 GMT


At last, a reason to post to telecom! I have USWEST (tm, no doubt)
voice mail and am experiencing a problem with missing data (so to
speak). It seems that whenever someone pauses the next couple of words
are lost. This is most apparent when the person is leaving a phone
number; I seem to lose at least one digit.  I did call the friendly
USWEST rep and her reply was that it was supposed to happen whenever a
person paused. I said (in my Monday voice) "But that's not acceptable,
I shouldn't lose any of the message", her reply was "That's just the
way it works" ...

Needless to say I'm pissed. Any net hints on what to do?


Thanks,

Bob Maccione

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 13:43:26 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: When Will 410 Start Appearing on Pay Phones?


Yesterday, I saw a panel truck with area code 410 noted on it.  It was
parked near Maryland Route 3 in Anne Arundel County, not far north of
the Prince Georges County border (which is apparently also the new
301/410 border in that area).  The prefix was 721 Crofton, and I also
saw use on that truck of area code 301 (apparently for a Washington-
area prefix, possibly 261).

But I have yet to see 410 on pay phones.  There is a long period (one
year from the publicly-announced start for 410) before 410 is fully
cut over; when in relation to full cutover does the new area code
start appearing on pay phones?


[Moderator's Note: The rule here with 312/708 was that payhone number
stickers got very low-priority. When a repairman or coin collector was
otherwise at the phone during the month or so before or after the
conversion, he'd change the number sticker as part of his other
duties. No special effort was made to change them otherwise.   PAT]

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

Subject: 950-1288 Officially Announced
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 1:04:47 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


AT&T sent out a press release yesterday officially anouncing their
national data access number 950-1288 under the name "AT&T InterSpan
(SM) Information Access Service (IAS)."  The 950 number, as well as an
800 number (which they didn't give) connects to AT&T's existing public
packet switch network.  They are marketing it to organizations who
want to make it easy for travelling salesmen and the like to dial in
from the road by providing a nation-wide free number they can dial
into.  Calls can run at up to 9600 bps V.32.

They also announced AT&T InterSpan Frame Relay Service, a fast packet
network which can run at up to T1 speeds, and is implemented by frame
relay switches purchased from StrataCom.

Also new is InterSpan Locator Service which is supposed to allow
people to find the nearest office of a national company by calling a
common nationwide number.  This is probably the service that Domino's
Pizza uses.

Incidentally, the 950-1288 service is unlikely to be price competitive
with the usual packet nets such as Tymnet due to the per-minute
charges, about six cents, on the FG B 950 number.  This kind of access
is exactly what Genie and Adapso are fighting to avoid in the
continuing "modem tax" arguments with the FCC.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Toll Restricted Local Service
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 22:04:38 GMT


[e-mail] (Dan Hepner) writes:

> It's a US West phone. The phone cannot be used to make any toll call,
> regardless of the proposed method of payment (_I_ couldn't call out
> either with a valid telephone credit card, to charge to my home
> number, or to call collect.)

Even via 1-800-877-8000 with a valid Sprint FONCARD?


Peter da Silva   Taronga Park BBS     [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 22:16:22 GMT


[e-mail] (Steven King) writes:

> I'd consider this to be a *major* bug!  As a consumer, I consider
> Reach Out and any other special billing plans as part of my AT&T
> service.  If I cancel my AT&T service (by switching to another
> carrier) I expect AT&T to stop billing me.  Period.  If I were to find
> a charge the next month for Reach Out I'd complain bitterly to AT&T.

I have AT&T as my primary carrier, and Sprint as my secondary one. If
I switch the order of those two I would be severely pissed if they
blithely cancelled my accounts, either way.

No matter *what* they do automatically, they're damned. The only
appropriate action is to call the customer and ask.


Peter da Silva    Taronga Park BBS   [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls
Date: 18 Nov 91 13:00:04 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Does this mean that in some sense average citizens are supposed to
> recognize the beeps as some sort of "standard" signal that recording
> is in progress?  How common is this knowledge in actual fact?

That has been stated in the front pages of the telephone directory in
every place I have lived for the last 40 years or so.  I just checked,
and in NJ Bell territory, it still appears today.  Apparently, they
expect that it is general knowlege.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #942
******************************










TELECOM Digest     Tue, 19 Nov 91 23:58:41 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 943

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed (Terry Kennedy)
    Re: Telemarketing Prevented (S. Spencer Sun)
    Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? (Roy Smith)
    Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Bernard Rupe)
    Re: Telemarketers and Crank Callers (Ted Hadley)
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Paul A. Houle)
    Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Jim Rees)
    Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Jack Decker)
    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Alan M. Gallatin)
    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Granville Barker)
    Re: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette? (Pushpendra Mohta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 04:35:56 GMT


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

>[e-mail] wrote:

>> Create a national list of phone numbers that could not be junk-
>> called or junk-faxed.

> Seems like this could be another option sold (or maybe even
> provided standard) by the telco.  As I recall, existing switch
> software will disallow collect calls or third number billing.  Perhaps
> there could be a "junk call refusal" flag.

Take it a step further, and make the market solve the problem.

1) Require telemarketers to register with the phone company.  The
phone company can easily detect who the telemarketers are, in any
case, by scanning call records.  In addition, allow customers to punch
a * code to tell the phone company "I think the previous call was a
telemarketing call."  Set up stiff fines for violators.

2) Allow each phone customer to set a per-minute fee (default $0.00)
which he wishes to be paid for any telemarketing call.  He can change
this fee once per week, or perhaps once per month.

3) The phone company collects the fees, keeps a percentage, and
credits the rest to the customer's phone bill.

4) Telemarketers can call up a database and make requests such as
"give me all the telephone numbers in 212-345 that have their per-
minute fee less than 10 cents."

5) Customers can thus balance their tolerance for telemarketers with
their desire to reduce their phone bills.

6) Marketers can avoid annoying potential customers.  Furthermore, by
matching phone numbers with addresses (easy, alas), they can send
direct-mail solicitations to the "don't phone me" crowd and still get
their message across _at a lower price_.

7) The phone company gets richer.

8) I will become the idol of millions, having cut the gordian knot.
There ought to be some lucre coming my way too, as this idea is:

    (C)1991 Robert J Woodhead   ;^)


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


[Moderator's Note: Since you put the smiley afrer your copyright
notice I left the notice intact and am including your message in this
issue. Ordinarily nothing in the Digest is copyrighted as that would
give me extra work responding to people asking permission to reprint
things. (Permission is always given.)    PAT]

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed
Date: 18 Nov 91 11:16:22 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


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

> Seems like this could be another option sold (or maybe even
> provided standard) by the telco.  As I recall, existing switch
> software will disallow collect calls or third number billing.  Perhaps
> there could be a "junk call refusal" flag.  Telco probably would not
> go for this, though, since I'm sure they make a fair amount of money
> on "telemarketing".  Maybe something could be done with caller ID.

  Well, at least in this area, they *lose* money. The telemarketers
advertise in the "make big bucks at home" sections of papers and
magazines for people who are "willing to allow the use of their
telephone while they are not at home". The telemarketers drop a
sequential dialer into the residence and make thousands of calls
within the flat rate calling area. When they've saturated the market,
they move on. Of course, another outfit then moves in.

  Since this is an improper use of flat rate residential service, the
phone company doesn't make a nickel on it. Around here, they're quite
interested in receiving reports of such activities 8-}


   Terry Kennedy           Operations Manager, Academic Computing
   [e-mail]     St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
   [e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented
Organization: Princeton Class of '94
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 04:37:20 GMT


I've always wondered ... how sophisticated are the automated whatevers
that are used to call up people where they say "At the sound of the
tone, please leave your name ... at the sound of the tone, please
leave your address ..." etc.

Cuz one thing I've always wanted to do was stick a Guns N' Roses or
otherwise heavy metal tape into the player, put the phone down next to
the speaker, and walk off for a while ...


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: Most have an automatic time out in addition to VOX
operation, and will drop out after a minute or so.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 10:24:45 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them?
Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York)


[e-mail] writes:

> My plan is to transfer [an unwanted call] to a foreign country or to a
> real expensive 900 / 976 number.

Our Moderator notes:

> ANYTHING you dial on your phone is charged to you, Ben. People
> only pay for what they dial. Where the call gets extended to is the
> responsibility of the extending party -- that's you!

    Ok, how about this devious little twist.  Let's go on the
assumption that, taken out of context, most people won't recognize a
540 number for what it really is.  Step one, find a very expensive 540
number (even better, set one up yourself).  Step two, when a
telmarketer calls, feign interest, but say "I'm interested in your
product, but I'm waiting for an important call on this line, could you
please call me right back on my other line, 540-xxxx, and I'd be glad
to talk to you".


[e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA


[Moderator's Note: Well if the guy who pages beepers to call those
numbers is found guilty of fraud, then you would be also. If he is
not, then I guess you are off the hook also.   PAT]

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Bernard Rupe)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood
Date: 18 Nov 91 15:58:19 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


> [Moderator's Note: Interesting ... I've lived in Rogers Park (or more
> correctly in the part of Rogers Park known as Northtown/West Rogers
> Park) for many years with the same phone numbers all that time, give
> or take a couple extra lines at one time or another to run my BBS,
> etc. I think telemarketers have largely redlined 312 while keeping 708
> as fertile territory. The last three or four telemarketing calls I've

I don't think area code necesarily has a major impact.  I live in the
708 area code (Arlington Heights) and get virtually zero calls from
telemarketers.  I can`t remember the last time I got a call from a
telemarketer, certainly not within the last month or so.


Bernie Rupe     1501 W. Shure Drive  Room 1315
Motorola, Inc.     Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Cellular Infrastructure Group  [phone]
[e-mail]  or  motcid![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ted Hadley)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers and Crank Callers
Organization: Cylink Corp.
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 21:16:28 GMT


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

> Then again, I usually opt for POTS, and just use the hold function
> built into my phone and watch and see how long the silly critter blabs
> on before he realizes he's talking to nothingness ...

I used to just quietly set the phone down. When I heard the off-hook
signal, I would go hang up. This worked wonders until a telemarketer
got pissed ... she ended up calling me six + times a night for a week
just to harass me. I found out then just how little Pacific Bell cares
about crank calls at the same time.  She was never caught (I'm sure).
Now I just say "No thanks; I'm not interested." And I hang up.
(fortunately, I receive few calls).


Ted A. Hadley ---------------- [e-mail] ---------------- [phone]
        Cylink Corporation, 110 S Wolfe Rd, Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 19:35:39 MST
From: [e-mail] (Paul A. Houle)
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology


[Moderator's Note: This message arrived truncated. Below is the part I
received. PAT]

   ......

radical viewpoint,  and similarly trash the telemarketers.  Now,  I'll
agree that phreaking is illegal and immoral;  and between ham packet
radio,  BBSing and programming,  they could and should be doing lots of
legitimate things with communication and computer technology.   I
think that phreaking is a byproduct of our culture in two ways:

(1) The first of which is the lack of positive structuring that leads
kids to do things like cruising, joyriding and drinking (The Alcoholic
pattern) and (2) which is the negative structuring of the corporate
world, designed to impound the flow of information.

    This doesn't justify phreaking, but not only are phreaks
motivated by #1, but many of them are fighting against #2 in the only
way that they see available.  (Of course they should really join Earth
First! :-) Phreaks motivated by #2 are basically honest (not lawful,
but truthful) people who feel they can become ~empowered~ by being
phreaks; I think that they would grant some kind of human validity to
their victims.

    This is unlike telemarketers who want to take advantage of the
human organism's stupidty (because of the impounding of information)
and the human organism's suggestibility and vunerability to coersion
under high- stress situation.  Telemarketers treat people like cattle,
they don't see them as valid human beings who deserve good information
and time to think before making a decision.

    What telemarketers do is legal.  Of course it's legal to
insult the human spirit; of course it's legal to sell people stuff
that's totally worthless.  Of course it's legal to get college
students to sign up for credit cards that they can't pay off so they
can rip off their parents for 20% interest.  Yet, all of these
activities collectively diminish the spirit and intellegence of man.
All of these activities debase Man to simple stimulus and response
system, not a wonderfully complex and well-assembled organism in a
joyous universe.  At least phreaking teaches people to use their
minds, instead of trying to intimidate them into submission and
inactivity as does telemarketing.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 19:09:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill
Gripp) writes:

> Speaking of causing trouble for these jerks, is there any way to
> generate the message you get when you call an out of service phone
> number for a specific number (one that YOU can specify or call
> from)?

When I order a new line, I always call the number before it's
connected and record the intercept.  One of my lines is connected to
an answering machine that delivers the intercept if anyone calls it.
This is a modem line that's "always" busy, and if it's not, I don't
want to get any calls on it.  The line doesn't even have a ringer on
it.

I know some people who call around to other area codes to find an
intercept for their number, starting with the sparsely populated codes
like Wyoming.  I wouldn't do that myself because I think it's an
intrusion if you get a live person while hunting for an intercept.

Another thing you can do is just record the generic intercept, which
we get around here if we call an unallocated prefix (not many of those
left in 313).

I'd also like to collect a nice generic Japanese language intercept.
Can someone suggest a number?

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 16:30:43 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message?


In a message dated 14 Nov 91 19:46:35 GMT, Pat (the Moderator) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: You may have hit on a very good solution. Call them
> back and waste as much time of theirs as they do of yours. Seriously,
> time is money to those folks. Waste it for them.   PAT]

For some odd reason that comment brought to mind something I saw over
20 years ago in, of all places, MAD Magazine.  It was a bunch of
suggestions for how to handle annoying telephone salesmen (the term
"telemarketer" didn't exist back then) and one of them was something
like, "as soon as you discover it's a telephone salesman, sound
interested and then say something like 'Excuse me a moment, I have to
answer the door, but don't hang up 'cause I'll be back!' Then just
listen and see how long it takes them to finally hang up.  You can
have real fun by timing them to see which company stays on the line
the longest!"  The accompanying illustration showed a smiling lady
with phone in hand standing next to a chalkboard, on which was written
the names of various companies, and times in minutes and seconds.
Like I say, I saw this one 20 years ago or more but it has always
stuck with me as being a perfect form of revenge, though I can't say
as I have ever personally done it.


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

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

Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 23:16:24 EST
From: [e-mail] (Alan M. Gallatin)
Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.


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

> I know of several.  Here in GTE-Northwest, you dial 999, or 611.
> In US-West territory, it is 956-2742
> Also, 1-200-555-1212 is supposed to work in the "little" offices.

Is anyone compiling a list?  If so, two additions: NY Telephone (at
least in NYC and on Long Island) = 958 GTE-South (at least in Durham,
NC) = 711

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

From: [e-mail] (Granville Barker)
Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of
Date: 18 Nov 91 05:17:02 GMT


In most places there is some special number you can dial and it will
tell you what number you are dialing from.  In some places in MS you
can dial 1 - 310 - 555 - 1212 or 5555 and a Computer voice will come
on and say the number you are calling from.  I was wondering if anyone
knew of any other simular numbers?


Thanks,

Granville Barker   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: We get a spate of these messages now and then for
the Digest and the only answer is that the number to call for ANI is
different in almost every city. There is no standard, and frequently
it is a seven digit number whih is changed every month or two.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Pushpendra Mohta)
Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette?
Date: 18 Nov 91 07:14:56 GMT
Organization: CERFnet


> [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell does not have their directory on
> diskettes but they do have a program where you can access their data
> base from a terminal at your location. Called 'Directory Express', it
> is not inexpensive. I think they get a couple hundred dollars per
> month for a few hours of time on line. All you get is whatever the
> directory assistance operator gets.  Is it worth it?   PAT]

At the TCA tradeshow in San Diego last month, AT&T demoed a similar
service. I think it was called Find America, and had listings from all
Baby Bells.


Pushpendra Mohta  [e-mail]  [phone]   CERFNet

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #943
******************************
^A^A^A^A
^A^A^A^A

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17300;
          20 Nov 91 4:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08815
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 02:53:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07233
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 02:53:23 -0600
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 02:53:23 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #944

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 Nov 91 02:16:51 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 944

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    RCMP Raids Montreal BBS (Nigel Allen)
    Pac*Bell Clears the Way (John Higdon)
    Pac*Bell Repair (or, the Mother Of All Black Widows) (Kevin Collins)
    Does Each Long Distance Carrier Have Its Own 800 Service? (Bill Gripp)
    Re: Telemarketers - Why Not Transfer Them? (Bill Gripp)
    Cute Phone Number (Nigel Allen)
    G1 Capabilities Question (Don Preuss)
    AT&T Phone Poster (Bill Cerny)
    Taking Notebook w/Internal Modem to London, U.K. (Richard Campbell)
    Australian 2nd Carrier License Awarded to Optus Comm (Niall Gallagher)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Date: 19 Nov 91 (21:48)
Subject: RCMP Raids Montreal BBS


I know nothing about the case beyond the press release, and I have no
affiliation with either the CAAST or the BBS in question.

                             --------

Press Release from Canadian Alliance Against Software Theft

14 November 1991

MONTREAL, QUEBEC -- The Federal Investigations Section of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police today seized components of an electronic
bulletin board system (B.B.S.)  "90 North" at a West Island residence.
This is believed to be the first execution of a search warrant under
the Copyright Act of Canada against an electronic bulletin board
system.

The seizure included ten micro computers, seven modems and the
software present on these systems (approximate value of $25,000). An
electronic bulletin board is a service which allows personal computer
users to exchange messages and to exchange or receive computer files
including software, text and digitized images over telephone lines via
a modem.

During a four-month investigation, it was established that the 90
North B.B.S. enabled users to obtain software in exchange for other
files or for an annual fee of $49.00. While some of the programs
consisted of "shareware" which may legally be distributed in this way,
much of the available material was protected under the Copyright Act
including beta versions of commercial software packages which have not
yet been released on the market.

More than 3,000 software programs were available to users of this
B.B.S.  including WordPerfect 5.0, Microsoft DOS 5.0, Windows 3.0,
Lotus 1-2-3 for Windows, Borland C++ 2.0, Quattro Pro 3.0, d-Base IV
1.1, SCO Xenix for DOS, Netware 3.11 and Clipper 5.0.

Charges of commercial distribution of pirated software are planned
against the owner and operator of 90 North. Paragraph 42 (1) (c) of
the Copyright Act states that "every person who knowingly distributes,
infringes, copies of any work in which copyright subsists either for
the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially
the owner of the copyright, is guilty of an offense and liable on
summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding six months or to both, or on conviction on
indictment, to a fine not exceeding $1 million or to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding five years or both."

For further information contact:

Allan Reynolds
[phone] [voice]

                          ---------

Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario   NorthAmeriNet Host


[Moderator's Note: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] is
essentially the same as the FBI in the United States.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 23:33 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Pac*Bell Clears the Way


Pac*Bell has already started clearing the field in preparation for its
entry into the information business. Recently, it announced its new
refund policy for its 900/976 services. To make a long story short, it
is essentially an unlimited, unconditional refund for anyone who asks.
Under this policy, it is possible to call 900/976 numbers in Pac*Bell
land and simply not pay for it. Pac*Bell couldn't care less.

And why should it? The more IPs that go out of business before
Pac*Bell's own offerings come on line, the better. Of course, those
liberal refund policies will NOT apply to services offered directly by
the telco itself. But as we all know, everyone will be completely
satisified with official telco IP services so refunds will not be
necessary.

In a previous move, Pac*Bell stopped billing for "adult" services. The
audiotex industry has been reading the handwriting on the wall and
before long most will leave the world of 900/976 and go to direct
billing. Those that have done this already report higher profits and
less collection problems than when telcos and IECs "did it for them".
A side benefit is that once off the 900/976 bandwagon, anything goes.
Adult (smut, if you will) sells. And without the Prudence Peabody
Telco looking over its shoulder, an IP can literally do anything it
wants.  All of the "900 standards and safeguards" are out the window.
It then becomes a one-on-one transaction between provider and customer
with no carrier in the middle.

This should make many readers here very happy. The telcos will no
longer be collection agencies (and poor ones at that) for those
providing information and other things. If 900/976 dies completely,
the terminally stupid will no longer have to suffer heavy charges on
the bill (even though they are easily removed).

I can imagine the attractiveness of being out from under the thumb of
the telcos. My own play "party line" from time to time comes under the
attack of some idiot parent or another. Usually it is some father on
the warpath because his thirteen year-old daughter got on the party
line, impersonated a real human being, and gave out the family
telephone number and address. The father's complaint is that
twenty-six year-old men come at all hours to visit the daughter. The
angry dad goes complaining to Pac*Bell about my "service" (of course
his daughter is blameless :-( ). And what does Pac*Bell do? Nothing,
of course.  There are no rules, regulations, tariffs or laws
regulating what can be said on my private, residential lines. No one
forces anyone to call my lines. I run no advertising. I advertise
nothing on the party line.  It is terribly refreshing to not be
content-limited by the telco so it is easy to believe that IPs are
eagerly looking forward to direct billing in its many forms.

My prediction is that eventually the current audio IPs will all go to
subscription and that the telcos will fall flat on their corporate
faces with their laughable offerings, as they have always done in the
past. Anyone who has been watching knows what silly things Pacific
Bell has thought people would be willing to pay for.


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

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

From: aspect![e-mail] (Kevin Collins)
Subject: Pac*Bell Repair (or, the Mother Of All Black Widows)
Date: 19 Nov 91 01:57:07 GMT
Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca


I'm in the process of moving (from 408-733 to 510-794), so I've had
the opportunity to deal with everybody's favorite PC, Pac*Bell. They
handled the billing name change at my old address just fine, and I
scheduled installation of the new number on 11/15. When I got to the
apartment on that day, I found a note from Pac*Bell stating that the
installation was complete. So, I rambled over to the phone and picked
it up -- dead air.  Same story for all three jacks in the condo, and
the phone and wire were the same ones I had been using at my old
address.

I called Pac*Bell Repair and told them what was up, and they asked me
to meet a repairman at the condo between 5-8. The repairman knocked on
my door at about 5:30; he couldn't find the manager (office was
closed), and the door to the wiring closet for my building was
padlocked! We made another appointment for the next afternoon, and he
left.

About 15 minutes later, I heard some banging around at the wiring
closet.  The repairman, unsatisfied with leaving a job unfinished, had
decided to unscrew the hinges on the closet door and see what was up.
Fate rewarded his efforts with the _biggest_ black widow spider either
of us had ever seen! Luckily, the beast did not attack and the
repairman had a can of bug spray handy -- he quickly ended its
apparently long and well-fed life. He then discovered that my pair was
punched down to the wrong location and rectified the problem.
Hopefully, the unintended recipient of my dial tone didn't make too
many calls to 900-SEND-ME-$.  Then again, if they did, _I_ won't be
the one paying for the calls!

I was quite impressed with the repairman's sticktoitiveness (not to
mention his aim with the bug spray!). After all of the posts here
about the RBOC's lack of commitment to quality service, it was
pleasant to see an example to the contrary.


Kevin Collins                   |  My opinions are mine alone.
USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc  |  GO BEARS! (That's Chicago, not Cal!)

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Does Each Long Distance Carrier Have It's Own 800 Service?
Organization: The Bank of New York
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 22:07:11 GMT


Does each long distance carrier have it's own set of 800 numbers?

About 2 1/2 years ago I was in Groton, CT for a training course.  I
was listening to a local radio station who was soliciting listeners to
call in and make some comments on some topic.  The number was
1-800-abc-defg.  Well I called and got somebody other than the radio
station.  I guess I dialed wrong.  Call again, same party answers.
You're not W123, who are you?  Turned out to be some company in BOISE,
IDAHO!!!  I check the number I had written down with the next
announcement on the radio station and they were the same.

I'm not sure, but I think the SNET payphone I was using was set for MCI.

So do AT&T, MCI, SPRINT, etc each have their own 800 services so that
1-800-abc-defg on AT&T is Spacely Sprockets,
1-800-abc-defg on MCI  is Yutzo Widgets,
1-800-abc-defg on SPRINT is Scuzo Telemarketers???


[Moderator's Note: No they do not. Each carrier has its own 800 number
space, or group of prefixes. The lion's share belongs to AT&T because
they were the sole player for so many years. For example, 800-373 and
800-747 both 'belong to' Telecom*USA. All the telcos follow the same
routing tables, handing off calls to the carrier assigned to the
prefix code. Your example seems to be one where a local telco was
somehow misrouting the call.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them?
Organization: The Bank of New York
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 16:50:03 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: ...  Where the call gets extended to is the
> responsibility of the extending party -- that's you! -- and if you've
> been forwarding or transferring your callers to 1-900-328-7448 or
> Hong Kong Telephone Company's Talking Clock, then the joke is on
> you, I'm afraid.

Does this mean that I can talk to Alaska from New York as a local call
if I can get enough people to keep forwarding me over to their West
most or North most local exchange???  =8^).


[Moderator's Note: Yes, you can do that, subject to a few considerations
such as the quality of the transmission by the time all the connections
are in place, and the cost for all those local calls. I have said before
it is very rare when two or more local calls patched together to avoid
a toll charge wind up costing less than the straight-thru toll charge
itself. Yes, there are instances where contiguous communities have
some form of unmeasured service, but I think it would kind of rare to
find three or four such communities in a row in the direction you are
traveling, all of whom are local to the one next to them and all of
whom offer unmeasured service. The first time you have to pay for a
local call at some measured rate in the path, you lose price-wise. As
an example, a call from Chicago to Alaska at night costs 12 cents per
minute on Reach Out. A call from Chicago to one of the western suburbs
costs 3-4 cents per minute, and that just gets you 20 miles or so away
from downtown. Call forwarding was designed as a convenient way to
have your calls catch up with you; not as a way to reduce toll
charges.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Date: 19 Nov 91 (05:12)
Subject: Cute Phone Number


A Toronto eye surgeon is running radio commercials to promote surgery
to cure near-sightedness. (I'm almost tempted, but the Ontario
government regards surgical correction of mild near-sightedness as
cosmetic surgery, which the provincial health insurance plan won't
cover.  Surgeons who perform medically necessary surgery are busy
enough that they don't have to advertise.)

Anyway, the good doctor has gotten himself a vanity number to help
drum up business: [phone] (twenty-twenty, meaning perfect
vision).

(As an aside, most vanity telephone numbers spell something; this is
one of the few times where the number itself has some significance.)


Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario   NorthAmeriNet Host


[Moderator's Note: Wasn't / isn't Domino's Pizza trying to load up
with all the 3030 numbers they can get?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Don Preuss)
Subject: G1 Capabilities Question
Organization: National Institutes of Health
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 00:22:17 GMT


I have run into a problem with the installation of a G1 and the AT&T
rep says that what I want to do can't be done. This doesn't sound
correct. The situation is that there is a G1 being installed to
support data and voice lines. The dial tone is provided by a centrex
system. With the centrex we currently dial a '9' to get an outside
line.  For local calls on campus, we just dial the seven digit number.
Now that the switch is in place, we have been told that we must dial
'99' to get the outside line, and 9-xxx-xxxx for local calls. The
double 9 can be worked around by the ARS (?) software by capturing the
first 9, and inserting a second 9. However, we are told this cannot be
done for our local seven digit numbers.

The question is, can we make the switch transparent to the users?  We
want it to appear that nothing has changed. (ie no extra digits or
pauses).

Thanks.


[e-mail]   Al Graeff   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: In other words, from now on *everything* you dial
has to start with a 9, is that it?  Then program the switch for what I
shall call '9 assumed', meaning have it automatically prepend a 9 to
the start of each call. With a user-provided 9, there will then be two
9's on the front.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: AT&T Phone Poster
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 01:31:17 GMT


> From the 3Q91 AT&T Shareowner's Report:

_Phones old and new_

A colorful 22-by-28 inch poster that traces the development of the
telephone from Bell's first model to the latest high-technology
feature phone can be purchased for $12.  Send check to:

    Poster
    AT&T Archives
    WV A102
    5 Reinman Road
    Warren, NJ  07059-0647

    [phone]


Bill Cerny  <[e-mail]>   |   ATTMail:  !denwa!bill

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Campbell)
Subject: Taking Notebook w/Internal Modem to London, U.K.
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 14:12:01 GMT


I'll be taking a 386 notebook with an internal 2400-baud modem over to
London for about six months. What will I need to do to use the machine
for telecommunications:

Are phone jack adapters needed? Line voltage changers?  Do British
BBSs understand the same modem characteristics?  Any other differences
I should know about?


ric

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

Date: 19 Nov 91 14:25:00 EST
From: Niall (N.) Gallagher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Australian 2nd Carrier License Awarded to Optus Comm


Extracts from a Government of Australia news release, Nov 19th:

"Government selects Optus Communications as Second Carrier

Optus will pay the goverment a total of AUS$800 million for the
opportunity. It will invest almost AUS$2000 million over the next
six years in building a network to compete with Telecom/OTC

Optus is committed to providing a comprehensive range of services
including:

  o  A comprehensive modile telephone service in early 1992
  o  STD and IDD telephone service from Sydney and Melbourne
     in late 1992
  o  Competitive services to all of Australia by 1997"

The Optus consortium is led by Bellsouth and Cable and Wireless.
Northern Telecom will be providing DMS switches for wireline and GSM
access.


Regards,

Niall Gallagher   BNR, PO Box 3511, Stn C, Ottawa, CANADA  K1Y  4H7
                  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #944
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17526;
          20 Nov 91 4:59 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26228
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 03:02:51 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17480
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 03:02:39 -0600
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 03:02:39 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #945

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 Nov 91 02:47:46 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 945

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet? (Jack Winslade)
    'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. (Jack Winslade)
    Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Christopher C. Stacy)
    Re: Shared Area Codes (Robert L. McMillin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 19:43:59 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


Yet Another Telecom Tale from Omaha, but this time I won't bastardize
any Kipling quotes.  ;-)

A couple of years ago, some of the system operators in Omaha thought I
needed something to occupy my spare time <semi grin> so I was elected
'Echomail Coordinator' of the local Fidonet network.  For those of you
not familiar with 'Arfnet', Echomail is very similar to Usenet News.

I coordinate a cooperative method of sharing the cost of importing
megapiles of echomail to the various Fidonet systems in Omaha.  We use
a dedicated box and Sprint Plus for v.32 and HST.  By feeding most of
Omaha's echomail through one hose, all of us save quite a bit.  (My
typical share is about two bucks.  The highest in the net averages
around $18 or so.)

Anyway, this morning I got the following in my inbound mail.  I assume
all other EC's (Echomail Coordinators) in the known universe got it as
well.  (A mass e-mailing of stuff like this is often referred to as a
'bombing run' and is frowned upon in Fidonet.)  I don't mind junk e-
mail nearly as much as I do junk phone calls, but I usually kill such
junk before reading one screenful.  This one caught my eye, and I read
the attached file(s).  I'll share this with you and ask your feedback.

> Greetings...

> ... describes how the AT&T Software Defined Network is saving my company
> a lot of money in their long distance charges.  Additionally, NETxxxx
> is using the AT&T SDN to cut their costs of echomail.

> I am very impressed with the program and thought all NECs might like
> to take advantage of the savings.

> Best of all... the rates are CHEAPER than ANY OTHER CARRIER for
> daytime rates!  It has enabled us in Netxxxx to call at anytime of the
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> day and get nighttime rates.

I noticed that nowhere did they quote rates for, or even mention
evening and late-night rates.  As of last month we were paying (with
discounts) the equivalent of about 9.4 cents per minute late night out
of state using Sprint Plus.

>                     3  Get AT&T Cheaper than MCI, Sprint,
>                     3  and all the rest!  Get the BEST for
>                     3  the least!
> Reach Out Cheaper...CDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>                     3
>                     3  A Report by Gxxxxx T. Gxxxxxx
>                     3

(drivel deleted)

This is the one that caught my eye, and made my BS detector go 'beep'.

> Now I have tried almost all the other long distance carriers; Sprint,
> MCI, etc. ... AT&T is the only company that offers true answer-back
> supervision.  The result is that you only pay for calls that are
> connected.  Other Common Carriers use other methods to determine if
> your party has answered like noise sampling and timing. ....
> At the end of this report there is a comparison of the technical aspects
> of this overbilling.

I thought all but the crudest tin-cans-and-string AOS services had
far-end supervision by now.  I >>KNOW<< Sprint does.

Here's another thing that I thought AT&T did not officially support

> With their calling card, you dial a TOLL-FREE 800 number and enter
> your special code (your social security number) and the number you
> want.  Sounds like a lot of numbers but it is only four more digits
>than a using a regular AT&T card.

Huh ??  Does this mean anyone who knows my SS number can ... ??

> In order to qualify for AT&T SDN your bill must be greater than twenty
> dollars a month in long distance charges ..... It takes about six weeks
> to switch over to the SDN.  The BEST part is this:  If you sign
> up before December 31st, 1991, there is absolutely NO SIGN UP FEE or
> monthly charge.

Is there usually a monthly charge for this ??  I wonder how much this
normally is, and how long the 'free' monthly charge will last.  What
would be the typical monthly charge for this ??

(I am editing out the pseudo-boxes included in this chart.  It looks
like hell on anything but an IBM-PC.  I wish people would quit
assuming everyone in Fidonet runs an IBM or compatible! :-(  In our
network, PCs and clones are in the minority. ;-)

>    TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPARISON OF LONG DISTANCE CARRIERS

>                                                              OCC
>                                   AT&T                   (Other Common
>                                                            Carrier)
> Call Set Up                  4 Seconds                  10-15 Seconds
> Blocked Calls                Less than 1%               3%-5% of all calls
> Circuit Take Down            0 Seconds                  2-5 Seconds
> Ringing Time                 6 Seconds/Ring             6 Seconds/Ring
> Conversation Measurement     100% Answer Supervision    Timing, Noise
>                              Electronic Signaling       Sampling, Software
> Disconnect Measurement       100% Answer Supervision    Timing, Noise
>                              Electronic Signaling       Sampling, Software
> Off-Net                      0% - AT&T is EVERYWHERE    Varies, as needed
>
>                             OCC COMPARISON
>
>       If Average OCC Setup Time is                    12 Seconds
>       If Average Client Call rings 5 times             0 Seconds
>       If Average Circuit Take Down time is             2 Seconds
>                                                    ______________
>       Total Overhead per call is                      44 Seconds
>
>       If OCC "Grace" Period is  0 seconds            -30 Seconds
>                                                    ______________
>       OVERBILLING by OCC is                           14 Seconds
>
>           Formula to calculate estimated overbilling by OCC:
>
> Divide 14 (seconds) by average call time (seconds) = % of OCC overbilling
>
>                                Examples:
>       Overbilling on an Average 2.5 Minute Call (14/150) = 9.33%
>       Overbilling on an Average 3.5 Minute Call (14/210) = 6.67%
>
>
>         Losses Due to Decreased Productivity Are Not Included!

Not to call anyone a liar, but I do not believe Sprint (MCI, etc.)
regularly overbill 2.5 minute calls by 9.33 %.

I don't mean to appear to be flaming AT&T at all here.  They are my
primary carrier at home, work, and on cellular.  I use Sprint Plus as
a secondary carrier primarily because I can just send the total of the
Sprint bill to the guy who handles the 'Arfnet' $$$.  Sprint does,
however, provide very clean connections for v.32 and HST.

Questions for those who are more in the know on these telecom issues:

Is this type of promotion officially sanctioned by AT&T ??

What would the rate typically be for late-night calls, out state, a
few hundred miles ??  Is this plan REALLY a good deal ??

How long would these rates (and the lack of monthly charge) last ??

Is this guy getting a kickback from the calls placed by those he signs
up ??  I >KNOW< some LD companies do this.  I was offered to just such
a deal myself recently if I would sign others up for a certain plan.


That's about it.

Good day      JSW

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

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 21:55:26 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


About eight years ago I (of all things) got married and moved from the
inner city out to Yuppieville.  When I was downtown, my phone service
was on one of those oddball prefixes that was 90% businesses, like
airlines, car rental agencies, some of the Centrex of The Phone
Company <tm> and various small businesses.  Some of the extra numbers
were given to single-line residence service in the area.  I >>NEVER<<
got telemarketing calls.  About the closest thing was AmVets phoning
to remind me when they would be in the area.  Likewise, I >>NEVER<<
got wrong numbers.

Shortly after moving out here, I noticed two things about the
telephone.  One was a sharp increase in the number of wrong numbers.
We have xxx-1379, which has no repeated digits, and I would not call
it an 'easy' number to remember.  I would say we get a couple of wrong
numbers per week.  In spurts, we will get calls where the caller is
either silent or immediately hangs up.  We've had this number for
about eight years, and the frequency of wrong numbers has not
decreased at all.

The second was the number of telemarketers.  (I now believe that
telemarketers are living proof of Darwin's missing link.)  On the
nights we are home, we usually get at least one per night.  At first I
put up with them, but now when I answer the phone and the calling
party asks 'Mr. Wine-slad ?' (or if they ask for my wife, grossly
mispronouncing her name) I immediately ask if it is a sales call.  90%
of the time they will say it is, to which I politely say that we do
not accept sales calls, and they will usually give up, often with an
apology for bothering us.  The other 10 percent, well -- (&*%^#$@) --
they may say something like 'this is a courtesy call', 'this is a
survey', 'this is a prize notification' etc.  They are a tough bunch.
Some do not seem to understand 'I am not interested', in which case I
simply hang up.  Occasionally I've done nasty stuff like saying 'hold
on a minute', putting the receiver down, and hanging it up when I hear
the ROH 'clanking'.

Some years ago, when I took a course in Urban Geography, we learned
that telephone prefixes, like zip codes and census block groups, are
rated as to the buying potential of the residents.  The point is well
made.  My old neighborhood, while certainly not a slum, is inner-city,
and considered as 'changing'.  I am also familiar with Patrick's
neighborhood, as I have (or rather had, all of them have moved well
north of Howard {and a bit further north than Jonquil or Juneway
<grin>}) relatives in the area and used to visit frequently when I was
younger.  I can see that Pat's neighborhood would appear to a
telemarketer to be in the same class as that from which I moved.

I think the best thing we can do if we do not like telemarketers is to
refuse to do business with them.  If we firmly state that we do not
accept sales calls, and that we never donate anything in response to a
telephone call, eventually they will get the point.  However (comma)
SOMEBODY has to be buying and giving.  They are just as persistent as
ever.


Good Day       JSW

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

From: [e-mail] (Christopher C. Stacy)
Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone
Date: 19 Nov 91 01:09:10 GMT


Mr. Moderator, and Mr. Lewis:

> Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort
> some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What
> is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words
> from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up? Oh, I see, you
> are such a busy person, such a dillitante, so important and full of
> yourself that you'd rather go through

I cannot believe the incredible arrogance that some people will
display just because not everybody conforms to their odd lifestyle.

Different people have different ideas about how to live in their
homes, and their reasons for wanting a telephone and how they expect
it will be used can be a big part of that.  Some of us like to have
peace and quiet, and not be constantly interrupted by random phone
calls from people we don't know.

Caller-ID technology (including free ID supression for privacy
purposes) is a going to be a great boon to alot of us.  I can't wait
to program my telephone to automatically punt the invaders.  (Of
course, this will cost maybe $500-$2000 to do effectively anytime
soon, and most people cannot afford that luxury.)

But that kind of technological solution is not quite enough, because
without a social compact about how the network is to be used, things
will just degenrate into wars of technology, with the average consumer
losing. Social problems cannot generally be solved by technology.

> Doesn't *anyone* have a right to call and ring your phone when they
> please?

No, not necessarily.

> It seems to me that by purchasing service on a public network, you are
> implicitly permitting anyone else on that public network to attempt to
> call you.

It doesn't seem that way to everybody.

I have an unpublished (can't get it from 411 or the book) number, for
which I pay an extra montly premium of several dollars, but I am not
sure why I bother.  This morning I was awakened at 5 AM (after four
hours of sleep) by a recording of someone trying to get me to call an
800 number to buy some crap or another.  I could not get back to
sleep, and my whole day (and probably tomorrow) has been badly
disrupted.  This is not what I signed up for when I got a phone.

To make this feel more personal to you, here is a proposal.  Maybe I
should arrange to have your numbers called constantly with irritating
calls at all hours?  Dinnertime, at your office, 3 AM.  Every 20
minutes maybe.  Do you have a wife and children?  (You don't need to
answer -- I can cross-reference that information from the network
marketing databases.)  Perhaps I can find some very special messages
to give to them.  This would all be alot of trouble for me, but not
more trouble than telemarketers will go to.  I am sure that I could
find ways to do this which would satisfy any legal requirements
(concerning things like harassment and telemarketing) in your state,
and I think I could probably "outgun" you in technology battle, given
what's commonly available.  Anyway, if you have better equipment,
perhaps I could pick on some close elderly relative of yours who
cannot defend themselves as well as you.  After all, anyone has the
right to call you anytime they want -- you're on the public network!
Right?

Well, that's just an idea, to let you know how "some people" feel.

> Face it -- if you want restrictions on whether or not a call is
> permissible based on the reason for the call, the intent of the call,
> or whether or not the call has a "legitimate purpose" or some such,
> you're getting into regulating content.  And having anyone --
> certainly the telco, but even worse the government -- starting to
> regulate content of telecommunications is to me a very scary thought.

Your argument is a red-herring, because nobody has to regulate
content!  They have to regulate that there will be conventions wherein
you announce the nature of the content of unsolicited communications.
I feel that there should be absolutely no restrictions on the content,
even though we have some in today's society.  The mechanics of how to
make this all work are not totally obvious, but I am quite sure we can
come up with suitably libertarian solutions.

All these same problems will be worse when everybody has multi-media
telecommunications terminals.

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

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 08:35:11 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes


Ted Hadley <[e-mail]> asks:

> What cities (towns, etc) in the US and Canada are split by differing
> area codes? By cities, I mean only that, not metropolitan areas. The
> only example I know of is Sunnyvale, CA, which has 415 on the NW edge
> and 408 elsewhere.  Are there any others? And why would the Bell
> Companies do that (i.e., not cut at city boundries)?

Los Angeles comes immediately to mind: the San Fernando valley
neighborhoods (Van Nuys, Sepulveda, etc.) are served by the 818 area
code; Westchester (Los Angeles International Airport) and San Pedro
(Port of Los Angeles) are served by the new 310 area code; and
downtown is still 213.  (The aforementioned areas are in fact all part
of the city of Los Angeles, and are simply names for various
localities.)  In the south, Los Alamitos is split between 310 and 714,
as I recall.  To the north, Beverly Hills is, despite much
complaining, split between 310 and 213, as is the much less affluent
city of Inglewood, home of the Lakers.  The 213/310 split has gone
according to exchange, not geographical boundaries, so there have been
quite a few cities divided thusly.  I expect that there are more here
than these given here.

New York should also qualify, as Manhattan is 212; and Brooklyn is
718.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #945
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22182;
          21 Nov 91 1:11 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31162
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 23:01:50 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23585
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 23:01:37 -0600
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 23:01:37 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #946

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 Nov 91 23:01:33 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 946

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? (Doctor Math)
    Re: Cellular Antennas (Eric Florack)
    Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Method Needed To Test Extension Phone (David Nyarko)
    Disconnected vs. Not in Service (Josh Muskovitz)
    New Delaware Switch (was New Equipment in Athens, GA?) (Carl Moore)
    Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (David G. Lewis)
    Re: The Future of Printed Books (Bill Sohl)
    Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches (Mark Schuldenfrei)
    Re: Calling Card Wars (Andy Sherman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 23:31:38 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?


[e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun) writes:

> .. drug dealers carry beepers, we ought to try and find out their
> numbers (yes, I know that's incredibly unrealistic) and then plague
> them with these 212-540 numbers in hopes that it'll expend all their
> money.

How about this: Government agencies get the numbers to the beepers
being used by the drug dealers and set up a special "hotline", where,
instead of a charge on the phone bill, police come and arrest them,
having gotten the ANI cross referenced to location courtesy of the
RBOC. Of course, if anyone mis-dialed the number by accident ...

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 06:10:06 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas


> Wrong!!!  The original AMPS phones all had 2 antennas and several
> still on the market today do too.  The reason for 2 antennas wasn'r
> for "additional antenna in the air" but to reduce "picketing"
> effects due to Raleigh fade.  On phones that have setups like this
> there's a "voting" circuit to  determine which antenna has the best
> signal and thats what gets sent to the actual receiver.

True. But, I had to go on the most likely reason for someone running
such ... you must admit that such a system as you describe is a bit of
a rarity, with cost being a major factor. Also, while systems such as
you describe do their jobs rather well, I have extreme doubts about
anyone's replicating this in the field ... so between these two
factors, someone fooling with the thing after the fact is far more the
likely happening.

Preventing multipath, without a "voting" system is no arguemnt,
because a straight tie-in as was implied in the conversation thusfar
would only CAUSE and not SOLVE the multipath problem. Also, even the
'voting' systems, if not set up properly in the shop, or fouled by car
washes afterwards, fouls it's own performance with the second antenna.

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 14:38:56 GMT


[e-mail] (Ken J. Clark) writes:

> I'm not sure when AT&T introduced Touchtone(R) to the market place.

1963, according to EOBS.


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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 08:15:44 mst
From: David Nyarko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Method Needed to Test Extension Phone

>I would like to know if there is a way (short of asking a friend to
>call your number) of testing/phoning an extension phone from another
>phone on the same line.


[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: If you know the ring-back number you can use it. PAT]

Could you please explain what the "ring-back number" is.



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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 10:22:35 EST
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Disconnected vs. Not in Service


When I was living in Michigan, the phone company (MI Bell) explained
that they hold disconnected numbers for 90 days (business lines for 1
year) before they will reassign them, to avoid misdirected calls.  I
found this out because I requested a personalized number
(616-DOING-IT) which I knew was unused (after all, I called it and got
the intercept!) but they wouldn't give it to me unless I was willing
to wait a day for the timeout to occur.

So, if this practice is common (do you think Pac*Bell does it this
way?), I would say that if you wait long enough, one will become the
other.

An interesting side note is that I have had very little trouble
getting personalized numbers by finding out what the prefixes for my
new address will be, sitting down and coming up with a list of
potential numbers, calling them and noting which ones have intercepts,
and calling the business office with my order.  Since I'm interested
in a number which spells something, and not a xxx-0000 type number,
I've never been questioned.  I understand that if you say that some
unnamed developmentally disabled person lives at your house and you
want a "special" number that is easy to remember, TPC can be very
accomodating, but I haven't needed to try that.


Josh Muskovitz

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 10:44:09 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Delaware Switch (was New Equipment in Athens, GA?)


I don't know about Athens, Ga., but I did see a note about new switch
being installed at U of Delaware, and to prepare for the change, phone
assignments will be frozen from shortly before Christmas to about 3rd
week in January there.  The configuration has to be kept constant for
testing purposes, and people are being advised to schedule changes
before or after such freeze period.

The new Delaware switch is to introduce prefixes 831 and 837.  I don't
know what will become of the 451 exchange.

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 15:46:43 GMT


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

> John Higdon writes:

>> [e-mail] writes:

>>> [AT&T's Reach Out doesn't end automatically if you switch carriers.]

>> Why is this a problem? Some people may even want to continue AT&T
>> plans even with another PIC. Just because a customer has "switched
>> carriers" does not mean that they can never use AT&T again.

> I'd consider this to be a *major* bug!  As a consumer, I consider
> Reach Out and any other special billing plans as part of my AT&T
> service.  If I cancel my AT&T service (by switching to another
> carrier) I expect AT&T to stop billing me.

Ah, but you're *not* cancelling your AT&T service by switching to
another carrier.  You're changing a service with the LEC.
Presubscription is a service of the LEC, *not* the IXC.  You indicate
a presubscribed carrier to the LEC.  The LEC uses this information to
route inter-LATA calls.

I grant that the marketing approach used by IXCs, including AT&T, adds
to or causes some of the confusion.  It is made to appear as if
"presubscription" == "service" -- to be an IXC customer, you
presubscribe to that IXC.  ("We want you back".)  Not so.
Presubscription may indicate the carrier to which the vast majority of
your inter-LATA calls are routed, but it doesn't indicate who you're a
customer of.  (I guess "we want the vast majority of your inter-LATA
traffic back" just didn't make it as a catchphrase ...)

Note also that if this premise was carried to its logical conclusion,
"slamming" would not be a problem.  If IXC presubscription is a
service I get from the LEC, only I can change that service, not an
IXC.

Note, of course, that any policy statements regarding Reach Out
America (sm, or tm, or (R), or something) would perforce come from an
AT&T spokeperson or ROA product management; and that any policy
statements regarding AT&T's position on IXC presubscription, slamming,
and the like aren't my ballgame.  Hey, I just do ISDN.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (24411-sohl)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 15:26:45 GMT
Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books
Reply-To: [e-mail] (24411-sohl,william h)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> I will grant that in some cases the quaility of service has degraded,
> though I have to wonder how much of that is specifically related to
> the breakup of the Bell System and how much of it is due to the change
> in society as a whole.  America once made the best cars and television
> sets in the world, too.  It seems that pride in workmanship and an
> emphasis on doing things right the first time has fallen by the
> wayside in many industries, not just the telephone industry.

> On the other hand, when the Bell System broke up we did not have voice
> calls from across the continent that sounded as clear as if the person
> speaking were next door, and you thought twice about picking up the
> phone to make that cross-country call because the tolls were so much
> higher.

> And, yes, it was comforting to know that if something broke, Ma would
> fix it for free ... but was it really worth $5 per month (more if you
> wanted a color other than black) per extension phone, for a phone that
> Ma paid maybe $20 to produce (and no extra cost per color)?
> The one thing that few people will ever say about the old Bell System
> (just prior to divestiture) was that service was a real bargain,
> especially if you wanted something more than just one telephone, or
> made more than a few long distance calls!

Two points need to be refuted here:

1 - The Bells had long ceased charging for extension phones prior
to divestiture.

2 - There already was a competitive arena for long distance (MCI, Sprint,
et al) prior to divestiture.

I think the point made by our Moderator, Pat, was the breakup of the
"Bell System" has now created a telecommunications network with no
single entity having an end-to-end reponsibility for and, therefore,
the probability that major service effecting outages can occur will,
indeed, occur.


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]


[Moderator's Note: Thank you. You phrased it very well. I have no
complaints about competition. I fully favor the right of anyone and
everyone to offer telecommunications services, and let the public
decide who is the best. But to allow MCI, Sprint et al to compete with
AT&T is not the same thing as smashing AT&T into pieces. The *only*
legitimate thing Judge Greene could have done was to order AT&T and
the Bell Companies to interconnect in an even-handed and arm's length
way with the new competitors. He should have ruled the competitors
were permitted to string wires, set up exchanges, solicit customers
and compete in every way -- both at the local and long distance level
 -- with the Bell System, with the assurance their customers would be
able to connect with Bell System customers. PERIOD. END OF COURT
ORDER.  Let *them* put together a nationwide integrated network, even
if it took them over a century to do so. Let them start out like Bell
started out at the turn of the century. That would be fair. The rest
of the MFJ was simply theft of AT&T's property, based in large part on
Greene's own bigotry toward and dislike of AT&T.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 12:05 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mark)
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches
Organization: Interbase Software Corporation, Bedford MA 01730


Pat writes (in response to a TT payment dispute):

> It is instances like this which make me wish I was a telco service
> rep. I would have called your friend back; apologized for us
> 'accidentally getting cut off'; reminded him that he had no property
> rights in his telephone number and that his number could be changed at
> anytime the Company found it expedient to do so in the conduct of its
> business; and that he was being moved to an exchange where the Company
> found it expedient to place his service: one on which his use of touch
> tone *could* be controlled; ie, an ESS. Almost as an afterthought I
> would ask if he had reconsidered his earlier position and was willing
> to either (a) use it and pay for it, or (b) refrain from using it.  PAT]

I suspect that if Pat were a telco service rep, he might not have
lasted very long.  Especially if John Higdon were the customer ...

Doesn't it seem interesting that so many of us decry the larceny of
PUC and telco's and at the same time feel so vigorous about enforcing
tariffs?


    Mark Schuldenfrei    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I suspect I would have outlasted that incident at
the least when I explained that my intent was only in one thing: to
stop the theft of telco resources, and that since the subscriber would
not agree to curtail his theft of resources he would need to be placed
in an environment (ie on a prefix) where such theft could be
controlled by the company.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars
Date: 18 Nov 91 17:36:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, simona@panix (Simona Nass)
writes:

> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. Philip
> Miller) writes:

>> Is it war or not between AT&T and the Baby Bells for credit card>
>> accounts?  Are others using the same advertising strategy?

> At least here in New York it is. I just got a notice from NYTel that
> AT&T would no longer be able to use customers' home phone number as
> part of their calling card. NYTel offered to allow customers ("How
> many plastic cards would you like?") to keep the same number (home
> phone) and PIN from their AT&T card, but with it under NYTel's
> jurisdiction.

If it is a war, it is one that was started by a third party rather
than any of the participants.  According to the MFJ (for the acronym
impaired, that stands for Modified Final Judgement, the official name
for the future of telecommunications according to Judge Greene) 1/1/92
is yet another deadline for getting rid of shared network arrangements
between AT&T and the RBOCs.  I believe this may end the last all such
arrangements but I wouldn't bet the rent on it.

For sure, one arrangement that must end on 1/1/92 is the shared
calling card database.  So AT&T and the RBOCs have no choice -- they
must have independent databases.  In almost all states, AT&T has
agreements either signed or pending with the RBOC to allow
cross-verification of each others cards, so you can use an AT&T card
for LEC carried intraLATA toll calls and you can use a LEC issued
calling card for AT&T carried toll calls.  However the AT&T card
option of calling plans (like the Reach Out(SM) Card Option) will only
work with the new AT&T card numbers.

It is an easy thing to figure out why the LEC uses your phone number
and AT&T doesn't -- just think about who issues and owns your phone
number.

I've posted before about some consumer advantages of the new
arrangement: 1) the new AT&T Card is AOS-proof.  Only AT&T or a RBOC
with a cross-verification agreement can charge calls to your new AT&T
card.  If any other carrier accepts that number the call will be free,
since they will be unable to bill it.  2) the new AT&T Card number is
portable across changes of address and phone number.  An astonishingly
high percentage of the population moves in any given year.  They will
be able to arrange to keep using the same AT&T Card number before,
during and after the move.


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: Have you ever noticed how when Greene wrote the
MFJ, the welfare and convenience of the American public in their use
of the telephone network was the last thing he was going to worry
about? Just get that evil old AT&T smashed up no matter how confusing
and screwed-up the network gets for everyone else.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #946
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24436;
          21 Nov 91 2:42 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03954
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 21 Nov 1991 00:00:23 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12831
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 21 Nov 1991 00:00:08 -0600
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 00:00:08 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #947

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Nov 91 00:00:03 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 947

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Nmbr to 2 Households (W Carpenter)
    Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Nmbr to 2 Households (M Deignan)
    Re: 5ESS Audio Quality (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: How Do They >>Know<< ? (Marshal Perlman)
    Re: Cellular Antennas (Bradley J. Bittorf)
    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Simona Nass)
    Re: History of Teletypewriter Development (Jim Haynes)
    Re: What Does Internet Cost Per Person? (John Higdon)
    Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Michael Ho)
    Re: Call-Waiting Signal Sounds Different (Lauren Weinstein)
    Re: Shared Area Codes (Lauren Weinstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 19:50:59 EST
From: [e-mail] (William J Carpenter)
Subject: Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Housholds
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> My questions to the telecom group are: how easy is it to
> assign duplicate numbers on different lines, how are long
> distance charges assigned back to a household

The Moderator suggests that it is more likely that only the directory
is wrong.  I find that position particularly easy to support, since a
local department store has my phone number as one of its half dozen or
so listings in the Monmouth County white pages.  In case you are
wondering, I also assume that this is somewhat more inconvenient than
having another household with the same listing (since the latter is
somewhat self-correcting over time, while the former, I have
experimentally determined, is not).

Two questions have twirled around my brain since the situation first
came to our attention: (1) who to be mad at; and (2) how to get it
fixed.

(1)  Who to be mad at?

(a) Can't really be mad at the department store, since they're not
likely to be any amount at fault.  So, there go unused a bunch of
really humorous responses to "Are you open?" (by the way, apparently
the most popular times [empirically determined] to want to know that
are late Saturday night and early Sunday morning).

(b) Can't be mad at the people mistakenly calling us.  They're going
by the book, so to speak.

(c) Can't be mad at NJ Bell, since like most modern Americans I'm
already about as worn out as humans can be disliking the local phone
company (but not those LD folks; they're okay in my book :-).

(2)  How to fix it?

(a) Wait for new phone book.  Thanks ... we thought of that two years
ago when the mistake was in the Ocean County phone book instead.
After waiting for that to be fixed, we got a year of peace until the
new Monmouth book came out last summer.  Must be what them there phone
company folks call your compooter glitch.

(b) Get the phone company to change our number.  They offered, for
free even, but there's a subtle problem.  "Dee-da-doo ... the number
you have dialed, 5 5 5 1 2 3 4, has been changed.  New number, 5 5 5 4
3 2 1.  Please make a note of it!"  We already have two humans (us)
performing this service for the department store, and it doesn't seem
to affect call volumes.

(c) Like (b), but the phone company intercept doesn't give the new
number.  I personally favor this, but my wife is a sort of independent
consultant.  Although she doesn't normally work out of the house, it
would still be pretty inconvenient (loss of $$) if we went that way.
Ditto with an unlisted number or some variant of that.

Any other ideas on how to fix this in the short term?

If you feel like looking it up, check out the current Monmouth County
(NJ) Area phone book (the edition with the Freehold area yellow pages
included).  Look on page 550 for Sterns, Seaview Square Mall.  Don't
stop at the 922-0900 entry ... that's the right one (I just happen to
know that number off the top of my head).  Keep going until you get to
another Sterns, Seaview Square Mall, four lines below it.  Yup, that's
us!  You'll also find us buried in amongst the listings of people with
similar last names as ours on page 91 of that same book.

If you'd like to sympathize, please write; don't call!  :-)


Bill                      [e-mail]        or
[phone]            attmail!bill   or   att!pegasus!billc
AT&T Bell Labs / AT&T EasyLink Services               LZ 1E-207


[Moderator's Note: Some telcos also offer a form of intercept where a
live operator answers and asks 'what party are you trying to reach?'
and then makes the referral based on the caller's response.  However,
the original writer has sent a new article describing what happened
when he called telco on Monday and how it was fixed. Its a long
article so I have it scheduled for the next issue after this.  PAT]

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

From: Michael P. Deignan <anomaly![e-mail]>
Reply-To: anomaly![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Housholds
Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 22:56:32 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: ...  I think it is far more common to have two
> subscribers on the same pair by accident rather than two subscribers
> with two pairs but only one number.

NETEL has done this to the last two personal lines I had installed.
Both times I found out by picking up a ringing phone and hearing
someone else pick it up and say "Hello?" a few seconds later.

What are the odds of that happening?


Michael P. Deignan                   Since I *OWN* SBS.COM,
Domain: [e-mail]          These Opinions Generally
UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd   Represent The Opinions Of
Telebit: [phone]             My Company...

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality
Date: 18 Nov 91 22:42:09 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
writes ...

> I am sure glad to hear several people mentioning the problem of clock
> synchronization when talking about line noise.  We have an Ericssen
> MD110 PBX connected to trunks leading to a DMS100 Southwestern Bell
> switch via a digital interface of which I have no practical working
> knowledge.  We do, however have the strangest problem.  Sometimes,
> when calling in on any data line using 1200 or 2400 baud, we get a
> connection which sounds perfectly normal to the ear, but produces a
> rhythmic pattern of garbage characters which march across the
> screen....

Okay, go to your telephone services people and lay the law out to
them:

TIMING ON A PBX MUST BE SLAVE TO THE CENTRAL OFFICE!

A digital PBX has its own low-accuracy crystal oscillators.  The
public network, on the other hand, is synchronized to a Stratum 1
Cesium clock, which means that it won't slip more than once every 36
days if linked, free-running, to another Stratum 1 (10^-11 accuracy).

The MD-110 should derive all of its own timing from the digital CO
line!  Otherwise you WILL get clock slips, causing } on modems.  In
Europe, where telcos don't give customers so much freedom, it's
usually a requirement.  In America, it's simply the way things work;
telco can't force you to do it right, but it only works right if you
do it right!


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marshal Perlman)
Subject: Re: How Do They >>Know<< ?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 00:34:42 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: You said the answer yourself: They have real time
> ANI.  Your number is delivered to them along with your fax.  PAT]

Well ... we don't have CID in California ... how do they have it? What
makes them special ... (and no again ... I was sure that my fax number
was not on top of the fax. )


Marshal Perlman   [e-mail]   Huntington Beach, California


[Moderator's Note: It is not a question of them being 'special'. ANI
(auto number ID) is not the same thing as Caller-ID. The end results
do look the same, but the method of delivery is different and the
purpose of the information is different. ANI is delivered on calls to
800 numbers. Caller-ID is delivered to customers who pay for that
service on regular POTS lines.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bradley J. Bittorf)
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 01:08:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> This is not necessarily true. Some cellular transceivers (one being an
> EF Johnson which happened to be my first cellular phone) use
> "diversity reception". The receiver monitors the signal on TWO input
> ports and switches to the one that has the cleanest signal.

John is correct.  I once worked on a diversity system at EF Johnson.
(circa 1983-84).  At that time almost all the EF Johnson mobiles had
diversity.  We were building our first handheld, and we had designed
diversity into it as well, but the production version ended up using
only one antenna.  The original design included both the external
monopole and an internal ferrite antenna.

We found that the benefit from diversity was not worth the cost, at
least within the handheld, where we could only get a small distance
between the antennae, both of which could be blocked by the user's
head while the phone was in use.

The software retained the diversity option because we planned to
supply a second antenna interface as a part of the adapter we were
creating to be used to make the handheld unit competitive with mobile
units when used in vehicles.  It was entertaining to watch the
handheld test setup while it was bouncing between the good and the
null antennae, picking the stronger one.  Selection of the strongest
channels required multiple samples on each antenna on each sample, in
case one of the antennae happened to be located in a fade zone for one
of the transmitters, etc.


Bradley J. Bittorf    [phone]  Allen-Bradley Company
[e-mail] or  bjb!odin!uunet

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

From: [e-mail] (Simona Nass)
Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 03:37:20 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


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

> I know of several.  Here in GTE-Northwest, you dial 999, or 611.
> In US-West territory, it is 956-2742.

> Also, 1-200-555-1212 is supposed to work in the "little" offices.

958 works in New York's 212 area code.


([e-mail]    or    {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona)

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 22:09:57 -0800
Subject: Re: History of Teletypewriter Development


> From [e-mail] Mon Nov 18 08:30:01 1991
> To: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>

> Among the patents in the message about Teletype is this one:
> 15-Type page printer   1,9904,164 [sic]

> Is there a type of some sort in this patent number?

Yes, there is a typo.  The patent number should be 1,904,164.

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

Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 23:44 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: What Does Internet Cost Per Person?


[e-mail] (Doctor Math) writes:

> Has anyone calculated the exact cost per taxpayer to support the
> Government's share of Internet operating expenses? (I must admit, I
> wish all standards could be implemented as RFCs ...)

I doubt that anyone has, but IMHO whatever it is, it is worth it. The
Internet is one of those unusual gummit sponsored projects that
actually has benefit to education, business, and individuals. Maybe it
is because there is so little gummit control ...


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

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

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 03:27:23 EST
From: [e-mail] (Monty Solomon)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books


Pat,

There was a recent case which determined that the phone company does
not have a valid copyright on their white pages since no creativity
was used in producing the book.  Assembling the names in alphabetical
order doesn't require any creativity.

A company in Cambridge, Mass. offers a CD-ROM version of all of the
yellow pages published in the U.S.


Monty Solomon    roscom![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Was Phone Books Diskette)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 17:10:26 GMT


In a response to mkseast![e-mail] (Dale Gass), our
esteemed Moderator (PAT) writes:

> You might want to check out the rules on what is
> termed 'compilation copyright'. This is something publishers of
> reference books (which is what the phone directory is) use to protect
> their work from being ripped off. Cross reference directory publishers
> generally have to get permission from telco to compile their books
> unless they can show their work was done independently with their own
> research and not just by backwards key-punching the telco book.  PAT]

Alas, if you'll think back a year or (at the most) two, there was a
federal court case that effectively nullified ALL copyrights on White
Pages, saying that there is insufficient "creative effort" involved in
putting together alphabetical listings of subscribers to warrant the
granting of a compilation copyright.  I think the case specifically
involved a company that "backwards key-punched" an RBOC's phone book.

Nonetheless, phone companies are still asserting the copyright, just
in case the feds change their minds.  I believe it was a Supreme Court
decision, but I can't remember for sure.  Perhaps one of our resident
legal bash-- um, *scholars* will remember the case.

In the same breath, I think they also ruled that it is illegal to
refuse to sell the lists at a reasonable cost.  I'm less sure of this
part, though, than I am of the denial of copyright.

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 23:51:25 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Call-Waiting Signal Sounds Different


Greetings.  To the person asking why the "click" associated with their
call waiting had vanished ... your central office type was apparently
changed back at the time you noticed the click was gone.

You probably had a 1AESS office to start with (the click is an
attribute of the analog nature of the 1A).  You now would appear to be
in a digital office (perhaps a 5ESS), where the digital nature of the
office allows for "silent" cut-throughs on the voice path.


 --Lauren--

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 23:46:45 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes


As of this Nov. 2, the city of Los Angeles is split by no less than
three area codes (213/818/310).  There are various other cities and
unincorporated areas involved with these three codes as well, of
course.  The city of West Hollywood (by the way, there *is* no city of
Hollywood -- Hollywood is unincorporated) was cut down the middle by
the latest split (213/310), right down the center of a major
commercial street.  As you might imagine, they're not at all happy
about that.

Area code splits tend to follow prefix boundaries.  Since telephone
prefix areas have been related to telco outside plant layouts rather
than city boundaries, there is often a considerable divergence between
area code boundaries and city boundaries, particularly when existing
area codes are split.

One thing that would help in areas with many area codes (like L.A.)
would be if it were possible to optionally dial all 10 digits (or
rather, 1 + 10D) even for calls in your own area code.  It's becoming
something of a hassle to be dialing two different lengths of numbers
for random local calls.  From this location, there are local (non-ZUM,
non-toll) prefixes which can be dialed in all three L.A.  area codes!
The time has long since passed around here when dialing 1+10D meant
anything at all in terms of whether or not there would be a charge for
a call.


 --Lauren--

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #947
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06016;
          21 Nov 91 10:02 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28628
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 21 Nov 1991 07:54:18 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32302
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 21 Nov 1991 07:54:07 -0600
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 07:54:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #948

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Nov 91 07:54:04 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 948

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Issues 942-944 [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Nbr to 2 Households (Barry Ornitz)
    How Do Phone Lines Get Crossed and How Does This Get Fixed? (Simona Nass)
    Re: Shared Area Codes (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: Shared Area Codes (Jeff Mischkinsky)
    Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Was Phone Books Diskette) (Graham Toal)
    Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Tad Cook)
    Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed (Michael A. Covington)
    Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed (Roy M. Silvernail)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Issues 942-944
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 08:18:21 -0500


This note is typical of several I received today:

 From: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>

I'm confused, but I'd guess that the two issues I received this
morning marked # 942 were spurious copies of 943 and 944? (in case you
aren't aware that something got mixed up).  There seems to have been a
942 yesterday that is different from all the stuff I got today.


Regards / JBL


[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly issues 943, 944 and 945 had some
problems that got past me. In places they were named 942. I went
through and straightened out all the headers and sent them again. You
got several copies in this number range; look for three actual issues
of the Digest. I must quit working on the Digest at 2 AM when I am
nodding off as I do it. I fell asleep on line, got autologged out with
an issue sitting in my work queue. When I woke up and called back in
somehow I failed to reset all the software pointers.  :(   PAT]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Barry Ornitz)
Subject: Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Households
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company, Eastman Chemical Company Research Labs
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 05:19:43 GMT


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

> I learned late Friday afternoon (after business hours) that the local
> telephone company has assigned another household the same telephone
> number as ours.

    ----- Much deleted -----

> [Moderator's Note: First of all, *who told you* another party had
> the same phone number? You mention you 'found out', but don't say
> who told you or why they could not fix it.

To start with, my wife was told by a member of the other household
that their number was the same as ours.  She called me at work, and I
called local directory information since the other party was not
listed in the telephone book.  The directory information operator
verified that both the other household and ours were listed as the
same number.  They referred me to the repair service.  The repair
service told me that they would file a service request, but that this
problem had to be corrected by the business office as they had no
capability of assigning or changing numbers.  The repair service did
send a lineman by our house on Saturday to check our line.  He told my
wife it was IMPOSSIBLE for two pairs to be assigned the same number.

> I think it is far more common to have two subscribers on the same
> pair by accident rather than two subscribers with two pairs but
> only one number.

Quite true, especially when theft of service occurs.

> If you have never once heard anyone else talking on the line;
> never once called and found the line busy when you knew it should
> not be; never once come across charges on your bill that should
> not be there, then I suggest you do not have anyone sharing your
> number and/or your line. What probably happened was the other
> party got listed incorrectly in the data base with your number
> attached instead of theirs; no more, no less. The large number of
> calls you receive for the other party is due to the number of
> people trying to call the other party who check with directory
> assistance for the number. Is it also in the phone book?

I have never heard anyone else talking on the line, but I have called
and found the line busy when it should not have been.  I have never
found any unexplained long distance charges, but I should point out
that the other household used a different long distance carrier.  The
other household began their service about three months ago, after the
directory was published.

> Have you yet talked to the other party to see if they consider
> themselves to have the same phone number, or if they understand
> it to be just a typographical error yet to be corrected, or
> something else.

Only once when the other party spoke to my wife.  They claimed their
number was the same as ours.  I have tried several times recently but
always got a busy signal.

> If I were you, I'd approach the Business Office saying you
> believe someone else has been listed in the directory data base
> with your number, and let them handle it from there.

I spoke with the business office Monday morning.  They said it was
impossible to have identical numbers with two different pairs.  I told
them about the information from directory assistance, and they again
said this was impossible and that I was obviously mistaken.  The
business office then called directory assistance and checked on the
number of the other party.  It was the same as mine except two digits
had been transposed.  I asked if they had corrected the problem
between Friday when I reported it to the repair service and Monday
morning.  They said they had no way of checking on this, and that I
was still obviously mistaken and wasting their time.

Not liking to be called a liar, I then called the repair service.
They told me that the other party had not filed any repair orders but
they had my complaint from Friday evening.  I asked if the problem
could have been corrected between then and Monday.  The clerk ran
through their files and found where the lineman who had come to our
house had filed a change order for the other people's line.  They HAD
corrected the problem after all.

At this point I called the Tennessee Public Service Commission.  The
commissioner listened to my story and said that the telephone company
was certainly wrong to deny there was ever a problem and accuse me of
wasting their time.  He said he would call the telephone company to
insure that this kind of problem could not happen again and that the
other household was treated properly also.

On Tuesday after lunch, I had a message waiting on my answering
machine from the business office.  I tried to return the call, but
twice got a single ring tone followed by a dead line when I called the
business office.  I probably should have called the PSC back at this
point, but instead I called the business office in Bristol, TN, the
central business office in this area (long distance, by the way).
This time, I was finally able to speak with someone who at least
understood a little of what I was talking about.

I learned that the original service order for the other household was
entered correctly.  However when the number was entered into the
"processor" (basically their version of the ESS from her description,
she had never heard of an ESS), two digits were transposed.  The
second line pair was assigned the same number as ours.  I was told
that there are occasional legitimate reasons for having two pairs
assigned the same number, so the "processor" did not flag the problem.
The correction was indeed made after the change ordered by the
lineman.  They were not sure how the long distance charges were sorted
correctly.

The woman at the business office then apologized for the way I was
treated and said they certainly had made no attempt at a cover-up, and
that the error was entirely a human one.  Since I had never, ever,
mentioned anything about a "cover-up", I suspect the PSC commissioner
got a little carried away when he spoke to them.  I did tell the woman
that the business office certainly seemed inept, especially
considering the dead lines when I tried to call them.  She agreed that
they did have problems, especially with their attitude towards
customers.  I told her that the repair service, on the other hand,
seemed very helpful and competent.  I told her that I had also told
this to the PSC; she said she would ask the repair office manager to
commend his staff.

> And no, you have no compensation coming. Your service was not
> interrupted.   PAT]

I did not think so either, but I would still like to awaken the person
responsible a few times in the middle of the night!  ;-)

I would like to thank you for your comments, PAT.  I would also like
to mention that while speaking to the PSC commissioner, I strongly
endorsed the ISDN services being considered by the PSC.  The CATV
people in Tennessee have been fighting ISDN tooth and nail.

I would also like to add that until about four years ago, United
Intermountain Telephone System in Kingsport still used Strowger
step-by- step equipment for large portions of the town.  This was
sitting in a room next to the latest fiber equipment (my exchange was
one of the first to go fiber).  When the Guatemala telephone system
went to crosspoint, UTS bought much of their old Strowger equipment as
spare parts.  I believe crosspoint switching is still used in parts of
the system.


Barry L. Ornitz  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Simona Nass)
Subject: How Do Phone Lines Get Crossed and How Does This Get Fixed?
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 23:28:59 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


My phone is crossed with the line of another person a block away. She
has had people working on her apartment (I know - I spoke to them).
They say they couldn't have been responsible, and I'm tempted to
believe them, but wanted to double check. What are the ways lines get
crossed?

When people dial my number they get her, and vice versa.

If the phone company fixes it, can they do it remotely or do they need
to visit both apartments?


([e-mail]    or    {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona)


[Moderator's Note: I'm going to re-run a piece which was in the Digest
a couple years ago exlaining this in more detail.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 09:40:22 -0800
From: Rich Greenberg <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 17:38:35 GMT


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

> Simple trivia question:

> What cities (towns, etc) in the US and Canada are split by differing
> area codes? By cities, I mean only that, not metropolitan areas. The
> only example I know of is Sunnyvale, CA, which has 415 on the NW edge
> and 408 elsewhere.  Are there any others? And why would the Bell
> Companies do that (i.e., not cut at city boundries)?

A few trivial examples:

 1) Los Angeles (City of) is split between 213, 818, & 310.
 2) New York City split between 212, 718, and a third soon.


Disclaimer: The above writings are the ramblings of one human being
        and have nothing what-so-ever to do with Locus Computing Corp.
   ---> Rich Greenberg,  [e-mail]    TinsleTown, USA  310-337-5904
 Located in Inglewood, Ca, a small city completely contained within Los Angeles

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Mischkinsky)
Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 18:49:56 GMT


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

> Simple trivia question:

> What cities (towns, etc) in the US and Canada are split by differing
> area codes? By cities, I mean only that, not metropolitan areas. The
> only example I know of is Sunnyvale, CA, which has 415 on the NW edge
> and 408 elsewhere.  Are there any others? And why would the Bell
> Companies do that (i.e., not cut at city boundries)?

I would think the most obvious answer is New York City -- area codes 212
and 718.  And the reason is pretty clear, too many lines.


Jeff Mischkinsky    internet: [e-mail]
Unify Corporation              ...!{pyramid,csusac}!unify!jeff
3901 Lennane Drive    voice: [phone] fax: [phone]
Sacramento, CA 95834    ICBMS: 38 38 40 N / 120 28 10 W

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Was Phone Books Diskette)
Date: 19 Nov 91 21:39:56 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]> mkseast![e-mail]
(Dale Gass) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: You might want to check out the rules on what is
> termed 'compilation copyright'. This is something publishers of
> reference books (which is what the phone directory is) use to protect
> their work from being ripped off. Cross reference directory publishers
> generally have to get permission from telco to compile their books
> unless they can show their work was done independently with their own
> research and not just by backwards key-punching the telco book.  PAT]

I think this has changed in the US with a Supreme Court ruling in one
case where the compilation in question was in fact a telephone
directory.  Check with misc.legal. The ruling was within the last
year.


Graham

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

Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 19 Nov 91 23:54:24 GMT


mkseast![e-mail] (Dale Gass) writes:

> How far does this copyright extend?  Is it a violation to copy down a
> name and number onto a piece of paper?  How about ten names/numbers?
> How about one page?  How about the whole book?  Is it a copyright
> violation for a company to input information from the phone book into
> a computer database for their own use?  (If they type it?  If they
> scan and convert to ASCII?)

Of course this will be different in Canada where Dale lives, but
earlier this year the US Supreme Court ruled on this.  One of those
non-telco directory publisher tried to get the database from a small
independent telco on Kansas.  The telco wouldn't sell it to them, so
the publisher merely got a copy of the small town phone book and
copied it.  They got sued for copyright violation, and lost.  It went
all the way to the highest court in the land, where the Supreme Court
ruled (in a decision written by Sandra Day O'Conner) that lists of
information are no longer copyrightable, because copyrights only
extend to "creative" content.  At the time the Wall Street Journal ran
an article exploring the ramifications for publishers of directories
and almanacs.  The general opinion that I gleaned from that article
was that even creative arrangements of lists of information are no
longer copyrightable in the United States.


 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  [phone]             |   MCI Mail: 3288544
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   [e-mail]
              |  USENET: [e-mail]          or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 06:47:48 GMT


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

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

> 8) I will become the idol of millions, having cut the gordian knot.
> There ought to be some lucre coming my way too, as this idea is:

>    (C)1991 Robert J Woodhead   ;^)

Everybody knows you can't copyright ideas, only expressions.


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.

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

Subject: Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed
From: cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 22:39:50 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

>     My favorite opening line from a telemarketer is "You wanted us
> to give you a call when we had an especially good deal on ...".  This
> is typically used to sell stocks, bonds, rare metals, etc.  I NEVER
> told them I wanted a call

Well, I had an even better one when I still lived in Anchorage.  One
of the local papers, {The Anchorage Times}, had their sales droid
force calling my exchange.  (John, do _all_ newspapers do this stuff?)
The fellow, who called himself "George", said "I spoke with someone
there last week, and they said I should call you back today about
subscribing."  As I pointed out to "George", I lived alone, just me
and the answering machine.  After I confronted him with his opening
lie, he was most anxious to terminate our conversation.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #948
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17921;
          22 Nov 91 10:26 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01856
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 22 Nov 1991 07:56:45 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00275
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 22 Nov 1991 07:56:33 -0600
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 07:56:33 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #949

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 Nov 91 07:56:13 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 949

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Esoterica (Josh Quittner)
    Advice on Multiplexer (Alex Nguyen)
    Automatic Emergency Dialers in Chicago (Michael J. Graven)
    Discount International Calls (Heard on BBC Mediawatch Program) (E A Wilson)
    How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Stephen Wolfson)
    Cross Country Data Pipe (Malcolm Slaney)
    Busying Out a Phone Line (Chan Wilson)
    Re: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch (Tony Harminc)
    What Vendor of 800 Service is Best For Us? ([e-mail])
    FYI-What? (Laird Broadfield)
    Smart-1, a Neat SMDR (Horatio Cadiz)
    DID Specs? And What is ANI? (Ken Burgess)
    Caller-ID Capable Answering Machines (Keven Kadow)
    Caller-ID Tariffs (John Bertot)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 18:15:38 est
From: "josh quittner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Esoterica


On July 1, 1989, at AT&T's Network Operations Center, in Bedminster,
NJ., the company quietly celebrated the digitization of the long-
distance network, something that was completed, by AT&T's reckoning,
some 20 years ahead of schedule. I'm writing a newspaper story about
this and there's something that's driving me batty: The sheetcake. Ap-
parently, a big sheetcake was wheeled into an auditorium on that
summer day and SOMETHING was written on it. No one I've spoken to can
remember what it said ... Is there anyone out there who was in that
auditorium and recalls? Thanks.


josh quittner   [e-mail]
voice: 1.800.544.5410 (2806 at tone)

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

From: [e-mail] (Alex Nguyen)
Subject: Advice Wanted on Multiplexer
Date: 19 Nov 91 21:08:28 GMT
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA


   Our department is thinking about purchasing several multiplexers
for our new modems and terminals.  The terminals are either WYSE 60 or
X terminals.  The modems are USR Courier 9600 V32bis.  I was wondering
if anyone has any recommendations on types and model of multiplexer I
should consider.  The Multiplexer must:

1) able to handle 8 to 16 ports.
2) handles speeds of 12k for terminals and 9.6k for modems.
3) It must be configable in all aspects hardware and software.
    ie. what username, password, lockout, lock speed ...
4) It should be configable to reject call in from outside local IP
    or if not then some security measure is available to screen
    out certain incoming calls not within certain net addresses.

desirable :
    It is desirable that the multiplexer be bidirectional for the modem
    lines.  (in/out calls)
not needed :
    The multiplexer will only handle terminals and modems.  It does not
    need to be able to handle printers, etc ...

Please reply to:

[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael J Graven)
Subject: Automatic Emergency Dialers in Chicago
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 15:28:06 CST
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael J Graven)


 From the {Chicago Tribune}, 20 Nov 1991, Section 2, p. 2:

"Law requires you to personally dial 911"

The Chicago Police Department will no longer respond to calls
generated by automatic taped messages received over the police
emergency 911 system.

The new legislation, enacted by the General Assembly, was signed into
law August 20 by Gov. Jim Edgar.

The installation or connection to the telephone company's network of
any automatic alarm, automatic alerting device, or mechanical dialer
which accesses the 911 system with a prerecorded message is now
illegal.

In case of an emergency, anyone with these automatic devices should
call 911 personally and request assistance.

                                    ###

So, will this eliminate the LifeCall systems as well?  My only
knowledge of them stems from some rural New Jersey installations, in
which the devices call the local police department directly because
the exchange lacks 911 service.

Have injunctions like this been instituted in other urban areas
besides Chicago?  It seems to me that ill cordless phones would pose
more of a problem than off-kilter autodialers, and idle minds (the
devil's workshop) more so than that.


Michael    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The Chicago Fire Department has for several years
had the right to bill for unwarranted emergency calls due to dialers
which malfunctioned or went off at the wrong time. Their fee is $500
per hour, with a one hour minimum, since the equipment and firefighters
are engaged for most of that time in rushing to the location; making a
check of the premises; packing their equipment back up to return to
the fire station and writing a report. The CFD also is hired on an
as-needed basis by the village of Lincolnwood. I think their fee to
Lincolnwood is $500 per hour.   PAT]

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Discount International Calls (Heard on BBC Mediawatch Program)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 9:42:14 EST


Last night on the BBC World service program Mediawatch there was an
item on a company which is offering discounts of between 50% & 80% on
the cost of a call from various countries to the USA. The system works
as follows.  The subscriber (who pays a couple of hundred dollars a
month for the service) rings a number (I think in the USA), lets it
ring once and hangs up. About 20 seconds later his phone rings and
when he picks it up he has an American dial-tone provided by the
carrier of his choice. This can be used to make multiple calls (using
the # key [pronounced pound by the person describing the service] to
terminate a call and get a fresh dial tone).  I have no idea how this
could be made to work -- ANI would not be available internationally
would it?

The other items were on providing live radio coverage on airliners.
Cathy Pacific will have the BBC world service available to passengers
using a radio which chooses the best signal available from up to 96
different frequencies and an American airline will use a satellite
down-link to the plane to provide its service.


David Wilson                (042) 21 3802 voice, (042) 21 3262 fax
Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 09:29:50 MST
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Wolfson)
Subject: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708


This topic may have been covered many moons ago, but since I got it
straight from the source I'd thought I'd pass it along.

Recently I had the opportunity to sit next to a recently retired
Illinois Bell exec on a plane flight back to Chicago.  Aha I thought,
now for a chance to do some investigative reporting for TD. Well,
nothing earth shattering (I guess my fake Geraldo mustache didn't
work.) but he did relate a story that I sensed he felt went against
the grain of typical bureaucratic thought.

When it came time to decide on the AC split for 312, my companion had
setup a conference in some hotel, figuring that this committee (I
don't recall the exact count but it sounded like at least 15-20 people
were involved) was going to take days to decide which area code they
wanted and where to align the new boundaries.  Bellcore had given them
two choices, 901 and 708.  Well, within a short period of time they
decided 901 was too close to 911 (Actually in hindsight also way to
close to 900, "Grandma, you want to do what?!" :-) ) and how could
they really choose any boundary other than Chicago/Suburbs to make the
split without totally upsetting all the suburbs that didn't get 312.


Steve Wolfson, Motorola Inc. - Satellite Communications, Chandler AZ
[e-mail]

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

Subject: Cross Country Data Pipe
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 21:41:48 -0800
From: [e-mail]


I was at a workshop over the weekend where there was a discussion
about the NREN (National Research and Education Network) and mention
was made of about 100Gbits/second of cross country capacity.

Which made me wonder ... just how much capacity is there from coast to
coast?  If I wanted to make a data call and could get access to all of
AT&T network's capacity, just how many bits per second can I pass from
San Francisco to New York?  Seems to me that 100Gbits isn't so large
in those terms.


Malcolm Slaney

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

From: [e-mail] (Chan Wilson)
Subject: Busying Out a Phone Line
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Chan Wilson)
Organization: sgi
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 23:51:08 GMT


Given an "ordinary" phone line, how would one go about busying the
line out?  I don't think crossing the two wires is an appropriate way
of doing it, and it probably doesn't work ...

Replies / pointers via email, please, as this probably isn't of
general interest ...

Thanks.


Chan  ([e-mail])

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

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 15:35:01 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch


[e-mail] (Cliff Stoll) wrote:

> I'm rebuilding an IBM 026 Keypunch and need documentation.
> Schematics, service manuals, information on where to grease, and where
> to find replacement parts (like belts and printer ribbons).

Some manuals for the 026 are still listed in the IBM KWIC Index:

0024 0026 Parts Catalog.           S123-7091
0024 0026 Card Punch CEMI          S223-8319
0024 0026 RI/RO Punch OEMI         GA19-0012
0024 0026 Ref Man                  GA24-0520
0026 Inter Card Punch Bul.         GG24-1060
024/26 Card Punch PC.              S1B3-7091

Though the titles are written in IBMese and may not always be 100%
clear ( :-) ), all these manuals are cheap (all well under US$10).
Any IBM branch office should be able to order them for you.  They are
not marked obsolete, and so should be in stock in IBM's Mechanicsburg
(Penn.)  distribution centre.

S1B3-7091 is, by its order number, a microfiche version of S123-7091.

The IBM Publications KWIC Index (an 800 page treasure trove of IBM
publications ancient and modern) is itself orderable using number
G320-1621.  It is currently in its 50th edition, and costs under
US$10.


Tony Harminc

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 16:33:40 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What Vendor of 800 Service is Best For Us?


Dear Patrick,

  I'm working with the local YWCA in a program called Outyouth.  We
recently decided to open a hotline for teens.  What we want to do (and
have almost done) is get two phone lines, hunting (local number) and
then have an 800 number tie into those lines (for Texas calls only).

  Do you know or can you recommend a company that:

1) has the lowest rates;

2) has the capability of offering caller ID when the call comes in;

3) might offer it free since we are non profit and running this hotline
   as a service to the community (ha, unlikely, but...);

4) will only allow calls from within our state of TeXas.

I'd appreciate any help and information you can provide.  I know I've
read before that you have an 800 number that can be call forwarded, this
might work to our advantage as well.

 One other quick question: Caller-ID isn't available here yet, are we
still able to receive the signal from an 800 number even if the local
number doesn't provide it?

Thanks!


[Moderator's Note: Caller-ID and ANI are not the same thing, even
though the end-results look the same. All telcos capture the calling
number and send it through the network to the telco which will bill
for the call (some exceptions, not worth noting here.) So you will get
ANI regardless of whether or not Caller-ID is available.  I get my 800
number from Telecom*USA, it cannot be forwarded, and calls come from
all over the USA at about 25 cents per minute on average. Cable and
Wireless offers the forwardable version. AT&T offers 800 numbers which
can be restricted by location (ie Texas only). I don't know about the
other suppliers and thier ability to restrict callers by location.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 13:38 PST
From: [e-mail] (Laird Broadfield)
Subject: FYI-What?


> [Moderator's Note: I see they have linked ATT Mail to the FYI
> Information Service run by WU in Bridgeton, MO. I sent a note asking
> if the $25 minimum could be applied to FYI usage, in which case I
> might consider sticking around. They have not answered me yet.   PAT]

What's this?  For those of us who are not ATT subscribers (and not
likely to become at this rate, but that's another topic), can you
provide a quick blurb?


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


[Moderator's Note: <F>or <Y>our <I>formation is a news and feature
story service offered by Western Union to their EasyLink and Telex
subscribers. The newswire they use is from United Press I believe. Now
that AT&T owns EasyLink, the FYI service is available to AT&T Mail
customers as well. I think the rate is about 30 cents per minute for
most categories, but 60 cents per minute on others. They also offer
weather and sports news, and private BBS space if you want to run one
there for friends, etc. I've thought about putting TELECOM Digest
there in one of the private BBS areas.     PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Smart-1, a Neat SMDR
Date: 21 Nov 91 02:44:42 GMT
Organization: VPI&SU Computer Science Department, Blacksburg, VA


    A while back, I posted that I was looking for the functionality of
a Station Message Detail Recording without buying a PBX. It seems that
there is product called the Smart-1 which is manufactured by Mitel.
It is a complete store and forward dialer. It also has the capability
of determining which line made or received a call, time and date of
call, its length, and the number dialed on an outgoing call.

    I was informed that this product is available at major supply
houses like Graybar and North Supply. However, I don't have the
addresses nor the phone numbers of Graybar, North Supply, and Mitel.
If you know them, please email them to me. Thanks a lot.


Horacio Cadiz [e-mail]

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

From: Ken Burgess <[e-mail]>
Subject: DID Specs? And What is ANI?
Date: 20 Nov 91 23:37:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA


Anyone know where I can find specifications on decoding DID (Direct
Inward Dialing) information from a "trunk" line supplied by the telco?
Is there a standard?

Any pointers, or discussion of how DID works, would be greatly
appreciated.

Also can anyone tell me what ANI is? Seems to have somthing to do with
"the" caller's phone number ...


Thanks,

KB


[Moderator's Note: See the message on this earlier in this issue. ANI
is automatic number identification. It is the process of sending the
phone number of a caller to an 800 number to the subscriber of the 800
number for billing purposes.  PAT]

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

From: Kevin Kadow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Capable Answering Machines
Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 04:43:17 GMT


Illinois is scheduled to have Caller ID in mid-January 1992, and I
have been considering getting a CID box, but since my answering
machine takes my calls more often than I do it would make more sense
to get a machine that would have a DATE/TIME/CALLER ID stamp.

I looked through my vast assortment of esoteric catalogs and found
several DATE/TIME stamp machines for around $100 and Caller ID boxes
for $35-$60, so I'd expect a DATE/TIME/CID stamping machine to run
around $130, since most of the hardware needed for CID would already
be present in the machine.

Has anybody seen one of these available in states that already have
Caller ID?

What's the lowest rate for a simple serial output Caller ID box?


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

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 09:42:25 EST
From: John Bertot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID Tariffs


I am a doctoral student in Information Studies at Syracuse University
and am researching Caller*ID's implementation across the US.  I have
followed the Telecom usegroup for some time, and have found the
discussions concerning Caller*ID most interesting.  At this point, I
am looking for actual costs of Caller*ID to residents and businesses
in various states which have Caller*ID currently in operation.
Specifically, I am looking for initiation, monthly and other incurred
costs to users of the service.

I thank you in advance for your help.


John Bertot   JCBERTOT@SUVM

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #949
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10463;
          23 Nov 91 2:28 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30129
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 00:31:46 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05911
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 00:31:30 -0600
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 00:31:30 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #950

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Nov 91 00:31:20 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 950

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The March of Progress (John Higdon)
    Re: Job Descriptions in Telecom (Ted Timar)
    Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? (Brandon S. Allbery)
    Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Credit Card Number Wars (David Ofsevit)
    Re: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch (Larry Jones)
    Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different (David G. Lewis)
    Re: USWest Voice Mail Problems (Mickey Ferguson)
    Re: Moscow: Direct Dialing Overseas Now Available 11/15/91 (Geoff Steckel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 00:06 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: The March of Progress


From: [e-mail] (Marcus Adams) writes:

> It used to be that when I got a call on my call-waiting, there would
> be a click that was audible to whoever I was talking with at the time.

That was when you were served by (probably) a 1/1AESS switch. The
clicks were the relays switching you to a conference bridge that is
used for special things such as three-way and call waiting. But then
your CO switch was replaced with something digital.

> Sometime a couple years back, I noticed that this click disappeared on
> my phone.

That is the new way. Once the old ESSes are gone, the call waiting
clicks will be gone with them.

And in the next article, [e-mail] (Dill) writes:

>     Is it not the case that AT&T would not bill for a call until after
> the first second or two or five?  I remember hearing that somewhere.

This was a technical limitation in the old mechanical (including
crossbar) switches. It took up to several seconds for such equipment
to recognize supervision from the far end and as such would take that
long to start the billing record. This was not done as a courtesy or
to provide a "grace period". It was merely a technical limitation.

>     Recently, I noticed that I have had a large increase in one minute
> calls.  So, last month I tried making a few calls and hanging up the
> moment the other side picked up (say it was an answering machine or
> something to that effect).  Sure enough, these one minute calls showed
> up on my bill.  Is AT&T trying to dig out a few pennies or am I just
> wrong?

Modern electronic equipment can recognize supervision almost
instantly.  Added to this is the conversion from inband signaling.
Your observations are correct, but your assumptions regarding cause
and purpose are not warranted. Yes, the grace periods are over. But
remember, AT&T has no control over what the originating switch is.
That equipment belongs to the LEC and when call timing begins depends
on the local switch. Even when it does not, as in the case of some
OCCs, billing will generally begin immediately because most equipment
is now capable of it.

>     I guess I just cannot help being suspicious of telco's ...

By all means, be suspicious of telcos. But in this case, it is not a
plot.


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

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

From: Ted M A Timar <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 18:27:48 +0900
Subject: Re: Job Descriptions in Telecom
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Omron Corporation


I have a similar question, just to satisfy my curiosity ...

How many people who read this group/digest are working on research or
leading edge development in the industry?

You are welcome to define leading edge any way you want to.

I am wondering if this is in fact the single best way to keep up with
the industry.  (Pat, I'm sure your answer to this is "yes", but I'm
trying to gauge this myself. :-)

Anyone have a better idea about how to track leading edge R&D in this
industry?  Anyway to merge these?

Please respond by e-mail, I'll summarize.


Ted Timar
[e-mail]
Omron Corporation, Shimokaiinji, Nagaokakyo-city, Kyoto 617,  Japan

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

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 21:45:07 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by [e-mail]
(Glenn R. Stone):

> Well, so, if you can't stick'em with 976 charges, I'd say, throw'em
> for a loop by dialing the local freebie time/temperature service ... or
> the local NWS forecast recording or some such.  Can you imagine the

Here in northeast OBT-land, the time/temperature number is a 976
advertisement for the real NWS recording (grrr ... thank goodness I've
three radios and a scanner that can receive 162.55).  I must admit
it'd be rather ironic ...


Brandon S. Allbery, KF8NH [44.70.4.88]        [e-mail]
Senior Programmer, Telotech, Inc. (if I may call myself that...)

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 08:14:27 EST
Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


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

> With all due respect, Pat, I think your logic on this one may be a bit
> shaky.  Granted the phreak MAY be looking to steal something but on
> the other hand he may just be interested in exploring your system, in
> which case all that he is really "stealing" from you is the use of a
> phone line that could be used for more important calls, and perhaps
> processor time that could be allocated to other tasks.

OK, how about I walk in your front door (maybe using a plastic ID card
because you have cheap locks, making it your fault) because I'm just
interested in exploring your place.  Oh I won't do much.  I'll just
use your chair, stove, refrigerator, etc. which merely deprives you of
their use for a little while.  While I'm there, I'll explore your
address book to see who your friends are.  After all, I can probably
get into their houses by assuming that they have the same cheap locks
you do, or by using thier trust in you to get them to trust me.

While I'm at your desk, I may go through your personal records, just
because they are fascinating to me and I may learn something by
reading them.  After all, only the papers themselves are tangible.
All I'm doing is reading the information on them, and after all,
you're not gonna tell me you own the information -- everybody knows
you can't own information or ideas.  Your bank balance *is* my
business.  Your letters contain information that are public property,
buddy, and I'm here to collect.

Now why would anybody call this "stealing" or "invasion of privacy"?
I'm so misunderstood ...


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: Aren't all hackerphreaks poor, misunderstood
people? When I've used the term 'burglar' and 'burglary' to describe
computer break-ins in the past, I have been widely castigated, in
particular by some of our Socially Responsible readers who don't like
it that I phrase the activity in such stark, plain terms. They'd
rather play word games and talk about the dire consequences of
stifling the intellectual curiosity of the hackers. So the next time
you see a message like that, respond to the author and ask if it would
be okay for you to sneak into his file cabinets or bedroom closet
while he is gone. Of course then they squeal and squall like pigs on
their way to the pork chop factory. :)   PAT]

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

Subject: Credit Card Number Wars
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 08:40:52 -0500
From: [e-mail]


    I received a mailing yesterday from New England Telephone.  It
seems that, if I don't do anything, AT&T, with whom I currently have
my telephone credit card, will change my card number from the usual ten
digit phone number + PIN to 14 random digits.  NET is offering to
instead convert my credit card to an NET card without changing the
card number.  According to NET, this would not affect my costs or
ability to use the card.

    Is this correct?  Why would AT&T bother changing the number?
It seems clear that telephone credit card operations has become
independent of actual phone use accounts, so there is no logical
tie-in between card and phone numbers; but AT&T is going to lose
business over this because people like to have an easily-remembered
credit card number.


David Ofsevit


[Moderator's Note: One or the other (AT&T or local telco) has to
change the card number; otherwise how would a distant telco know who
to (intercompany) bill for the call you made on your trip?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Jones)
Subject: Re: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch
Date: 19 Nov 91 16:08:39 GMT
Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]>, our Moderator asks:

> [Moderator's Note: Have you seen any of those little red stick-um tape
> things we used to cover up a punch made in error recently?   PAT]

Seen any?  Somewhere in the deep, dark recesses of my closets I have a
good supply of all three varieties: the thin red ones that work great
in mechanical readers but don't work in optical readers because
they're translucent; the thin silver ones that work great in optical
readers but don't work in mechanical readers because they're
conductive; and the thick multilayer ones that should work in either
because they're both opaque and nonconductive, but don't really work
very well in either because they're too thick and have an annoying
tendency to get caught in the works!

If anyone want any for historical purposes, let me know and I'll dig
them out.


Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
Domain: [e-mail]  Path: uunet!sdrc!scjones  IBM: USSDR7DR at IBMMAIL


[Moderator's Note: When we were still using punch cards (but phasing
them out) at Amoco/Diners credit card processing back about 1968,
sometimes a card would have so many erroneous punches in it the entire
back side would be filled with those little red square tapes over the
wrong holes. When there were more than ten or so, the card was
difficult to work with, as often as not getting ripped up or crinkled
in the sorting machine. We had a rubber stamp for the face of the card
(really, it was the original invoice with the customer's signature on
it) which marked the card with the letters "NMU" (non-machine-usable),
and after stamping the card, it went manually to the end of the line
and a special box on the supervisor's desk. We then took a blank 80
column card entitled 'Substitute for Original Media' and punched it
up, hopefully correctly, including a 8 punched in column 41 which was
for the purpose of identifying the substitute card at the end of the
line. Once the processing was done and the punched cards were being
microfilmed before they were mailed to the customers in their bill,
the ones with 8 in column 41 got sorted out and the NMU original card
swapped back in so we could microfilm the customer's signature and
send him the invoice.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 16:43:23 GMT


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

> It used to be that when I got a call on my call-waiting, there would
> be a click that was audible to whoever I was talking with at the time...

> Sometime a couple years back, I noticed that this click disappeared on
> my phone ...

The audible click is a result of how an analog switch inserts the call
waiting tone.  Because an analog switch makes a physical connection
between your line and the other side of the connection (line or
trunk), it must break this connection temporarily to connect your line
to the service circuit that provides the call waiting tone.  This
break causes the click.

A digital switch doesn't make a physical circuit path between the two
sides of the call.  When it inserts the call waiting tone, there's no
physical switchpath to break, so no click.  The dropout is because the
voicepath is interrupted for the duration of the call waiting tone --
you hear and "talk to" the call waiting service circuit, and the far
end party hears and talks to dead air.

> I really hate not having that audible click because its a
> pain to stop someone mid-sentence to tell them I have another call,
> and some people don't believe me, saying "I didn't hear a click ..."

All together now: "That's not a bug, that's a feature!"  I can see it
now -- 5E10 will have a new feature in the 1AESS Transparency Features
category called "far-end call waiting notification", which will bridge
the far-end party to a service circuit which generates <click> on call
waiting ...


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


[Moderator's Note: Well believe it or not, some people considered the
old way, with the click to be invasive, since 'everyone' knew what the
click meant when they heard it, and some people did not like the other
person knowing they had a call-waiting (if they planned to ignore it
in favor of the present call.)  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 09:57:53 PST
From: [e-mail] (Mickey Ferguson)
Subject: re: USWest Voice Mail Problems
Organization: Rolm Systems


Bob Maccione writes:

> At last, a reason to post to telecom! I have USWEST (tm, no doubt)
> voice mail and am experiencing a problem with missing data (so to
> speak). It seems that whenever someone pauses the next couple of words
> are lost. This is most apparent when the person is leaving a phone
> number; I seem to lose at least one digit.  I did call the friendly
> USWEST rep and her reply was that it was supposed to happen whenever a
> person paused. I said (in my Monday voice) "But that's not acceptable,
> I shouldn't lose any of the message", her reply was "That's just the
> way it works" ...

Yeah, I can tell you what to do -- drop the service!  As an engineer
in the PhoneMail department here at Rolm, their response of, "That's
just the way it works," is weak.  Yes, it is supposed to compress the
blank air to save on message storage size, but the compression
algorithms are also supposed to resume immediately when it detects
voice (or whatever is being recorded :) again.  Either that, or their
system just doesn't have the processing horsepower to be able to
resume voice recording fast enough.


Mickey Ferguson      Rolm Systems      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Geoff Steckel)
Subject: Re: Moscow: Direct Dialing Overseas Now Available 11/15/91
Date: 19 Nov 91 18:44:43 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Geoff Steckel)
Organization: Omnivore Technology, Newton, Mass. [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J.
Philip Miller) writes:

> According to a news release from {NewsByte}, direct international
> dialing is now available from Moscow from 0000-0900 each day.

> Local analysts say the reason for the start of direct-dial service is
> that a second international phone exchange, originally scheduled to
> start six months ago, has finally been launched.

According to miscellaneous sources imperfectly remembered (== word of
mouth) international direct dial `broke' sometime in the `70s and was
never `repaired'.  All outgoing calls were filtered by human
operators, and if you were on a list, your calls never went through.
The Soviets remembered what happened in Iran, where the Islamic
radicals and anti-Shah forces used direct dial overseas calls to
coordinate activities.  Presumably since the fall of the central
government there is no reason to continue the restriction on
international flow of information, and financial incentives to improve
communications for foreign companies.

Just my two kopecks.


geoff steckel ([e-mail])   (...!husc6!wjh12!omnivore!gws)
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Sun Microsystems, despite the From: line.
This posting is entirely the author's responsibility.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #950
******************************