Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1992.volume.12/vol12.iss001-050

Text File | 1992-01-19 | 901KB | 21,795 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28056;
          1 Jan 92 22:44 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19513
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 1 Jan 1992 20:55:08 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31590
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 1 Jan 1992 20:54:51 -0600
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1992 20:54:51 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Telecom Archives Listing - January, 1992


Attached here is a listing of the files available in the Telecom Archives
as of January 1, 1992. The main directory is itemized below, along with
one of the sub-directories dealing with security issues. Other directories
in the listing below include tables of country codes for international
dialing; Canadian area code and prefix assignments, and other topics.

The archives is accessible using anonymous ftp, or an email/ftp server.
The archives are stored at lcs.mit.edu, and anonymous ftp works like
this:

     ftp lcs.mit.edu
     login anonymous  give [e-mail] as password
     cd telecom-archives

Instructions for using email/ftp servers vary. Consult the administrator
of each server for details.

Here is the main directory:

total 3719
drwxrwxr-x 15 telecom  telecom      5632 Jan  1 03:59 ./
drwxrwxr-x 24 root     wheel        1024 Jan  1 01:03 ../
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Mar  2  1991 1981-86.volumes.1-5/
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Mar  2  1991 1987.volumes.6-7/
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Mar  2  1991 1988.volume.8/
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Oct 27 02:43 1989.volume.9/
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Oct 27 10:26 1990.volume.10/
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Jan  1 03:34 1991.volume.11/
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Jan  1 03:30 1992.volume.12/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       663 Jan 27  1991 READ.ME.FIRST
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     25799 Sep 12  1990 abernathy.internet.story
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     68508 Mar 14  1991 aos-new.fcc.proposals
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     68224 Nov 20  1990 aos-rules.procedures
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     60505 Feb 24  1991 apple.data.pcs.petition
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     18238 Nov  9  1990 area.214-903.split
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     34767 Nov 23 02:35 areacode.guide
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9861 Nov 23 02:34 areacode.program.in.c
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21348 Nov 23 02:35 areacode.script
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8734 Dec 13 21:19 att-reach.out-calculator
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       474 Feb 11  1990 att.service.outage.1-90
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     18937 Aug  1  1989 auto.coin.collection
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      4788 Jun 10  1990 books.about.phones
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21206 Nov 18 20:37 breaux.bill.call.blocking
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     61504 Jul 30  1990 caller-id-legal-decision
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      4569 Apr 14  1991 caller-id-specs.bellcore
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      6807 Dec 13 21:20 caller.id.specs
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39449 Dec 14  1990 cellular.carrier.codes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16188 Mar 14  1991 cellular.fraud.abernathy
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2755 Mar 14  1991 cellular.fraud.prevention
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     17016 Aug  5  1990 cellular.phones-iridium
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24455 Feb  6  1991 cellular.program-motorola
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     15141 Aug  1  1989 cellular.sieve
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       298 May 31  1990 cellular.west.germany
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16292 Mar 18  1990 class.ss7.features
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15023 Sep 30  1990 cocot-in-violation-label
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     38981 Oct 12  1990 cocot.complaint.sticker
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     70477 Sep  5  1990 computer.bbs.and.the.law
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     23944 Aug  1  1989 computer.state
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Dec 27 02:32 country.codes/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11267 Feb 25  1990 cpid-ani.developments
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       436 Mar 16  1991 deaf.communicate.on.tdd
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15877 Sep  1  1990 dial.tone.monopoly
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     28296 Sep 29  1990 dialup.access.in.uk
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     29980 Oct 29 23:51 docket.87-215
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13622 Aug 18 21:42 e-mail.system.survey
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16367 Sep  1  1990 e-series.recommendations
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      3422 Jan 20  1990 early.digital.ESS
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     62602 Aug  1  1989 ecpa.1986
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     97987 Aug  4  1990 ecpa.1986.federal.laws
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39956 Jul 14  1990 elec.frontier.foundation
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      5922 Feb 22  1991 email.middle-east.troops
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20660 Sep  5  1990 email.privacy
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8504 Jan 27  1990 enterprise-funny-numbers
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8234 Sep 26 16:59 exploring.950-1288
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     19836 Nov 20  1990 fax.products.for.pc
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24706 Oct 29 23:42 fcc.modem.tax.action
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     33239 Aug  1  1989 fcc.policy
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     19378 Aug  1  1989 fcc.threat
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       484 Jan 14  1990 fcc.vrs.aos-ruling
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      9052 Aug  1  1989 find.pair
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     47203 Aug  1  1989 fire.in.chgo.5-88
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1998 Jan 27  1990 fire.in.st-louis.1-90
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       377 Jan 27  1990 fires.elsewhere.in.past
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1247 Feb 10  1990 first.issue.cover
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24825 Oct 13 16:39 frequently.asked.question
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14105 Nov 24  1990 genie.star-service
-rw-r--r--  1 map      telecom    117273 Dec 31 16:17 glossary.acronyms
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     43101 Jan 27  1991 glossary.isdn.terms-kluge
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     42188 Jan 14  1990 glossary.phrack.acronyms
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67113 Jan 14  1990 glossary.txt
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     68804 Feb  2  1990 hi.perf.computing.net
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      5443 Nov 15 00:16 history.of.area.splits
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2337 Jan 27  1990 history.of.digest
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     27984 Nov 23 04:30 history.of.teletype
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     53628 Dec  6 01:30 house.of.reps.bill.3515
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32625 Mar 29  1990 how.numbers.are.assigned
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     31520 Aug 11 01:49 how.phones.work
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15302 Jan 20  1991 how.to.post.msgs.here
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     54041 Dec 13 21:21 hr.3515.federal.law
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1616 Nov 20  1990 index-canada.npa.files
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       411 Nov 20  1990 index-minitel.files
-rw-rw-rw-  1 ptownson telecom         0 Jan  1 03:59 index-telecom.archives
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1861 Sep 20 23:15 index-telecom.security
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       343 Jan 20  1991 index-tymnet.info
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    568541 Jan  1 03:42 index-vol.9-10-11.subj.Z
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       936 Mar  3  1991 intro.to.archives
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12896 Nov 20  1990 isdn.pc.adapter-hayes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     10590 Aug 11 01:50 lata.names-numbers.table
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      4816 Aug  1  1989 lauren.song
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom       801 Aug  1  1989 ldisc.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      2271 Aug  1  1989 ldnotes.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     13675 Aug  1  1989 ldrates.txt
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12961 Aug 18 21:42 lightning.surge.protect
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12260 Jan 20  1990 london.ac.script
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12069 Mar  5  1990 london.codes.script
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15604 Aug  1  1989 mass.lines
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom       463 Aug  1  1989 measured-service
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Nov 20  1990 minitel.info/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     36641 Aug  1  1989 mnp.protocol
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2450 Jan 20  1990 modems.and.call-waiting
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     29973 Aug 11 01:58 monitor.soviet.xmissions
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      7597 Feb 10  1990 named.exchanges
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16590 Oct 21  1990 net.mail.guide
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      3014 Jan 27  1990 newuser.letter
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32815 Mar 25  1990 nine.hundred.service
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     34805 Jul 30 00:57 npa.301-410.split
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2795 Aug  3 16:09 npa.510.sed.script
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     45105 Mar  2  1991 npa.800-carriers.assigned
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     30091 Jul 23 19:27 npa.800.carrier.list
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13779 Sep 19  1990 npa.800.prefixes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     45109 Mar  2  1991 npa.800.revised
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     35934 Dec 13 21:23 npa.809.prefixes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15488 Nov 20  1990 npa.900-carriers.assigned
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15099 Mar  8  1991 npa.900.how.assigned
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Dec 27 02:39 npa.exchange.list-canada/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16534 Feb 11  1990 nsa.original.charter-1952
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9886 Jan 23  1990 occ.10xxx.access.codes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      6847 Mar  2  1991 occ.10xxx.list.updated
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      7714 Jul 23 19:26 occ.10xxx.new.revision
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8593 May  5  1990 occ.10xxx.notes.updates
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14354 Aug 12  1990 octothorpe.gets.its.name
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8504 Jan 27  1990 old.fashioned.coinphones
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      2756 Jan 27  1990 old.hello.msg
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     60707 Aug 18 21:44 pager.bin.uqx
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13079 Aug 22 01:34 pager.ixo.example
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     70153 Aug  1  1989 pc.pursuit
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      5492 Aug  1  1989 pearl.harbor.phones
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11489 Sep 29 20:07 phone.home-usa
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     28922 Aug 11 01:49 phone.patches
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     38772 Aug  1  1989 pizza.auto.nmbr.id
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14189 May  6  1991 radio-phone.interfere.1
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11696 May  6  1991 radio-phone.interfere.2
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8452 May  6  1991 radio-phone.interfere.3
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     17950 Jan 14  1990 rotenberg.privacy.speech
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      4184 Jul 27 23:58 sprint.long-dist.rates
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20526 Jun 11  1991 st.louis.phone.outage
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9764 Jan 20  1990 starline.features
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     46738 Jan 18  1990 starlink.vrs.pcp
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    103069 Apr 26  1990 sysops.libel.liability
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      3857 Aug  1  1989 tat-8.fiber.optic
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     27533 Feb  9  1990 telco.name.list.formatted
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     31487 Jan 28  1990 telco.name.listing
-rw-rw-r--  1 ptownson telecom         0 Jan  1 03:34 telecom-recent
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       610 Sep  5 01:00 telecom-recent.read.first
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Sep 20 23:17 telecom.security.issues/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21831 Jan 20  1991 telsat-canada-report
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     11752 Aug  1  1989 telstar.txt
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     18138 Sep 29 19:58 toll-free.tolled.list
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Dec 10  1990 tymnet.information/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     26614 May 29  1990 unitel-canada.ld.service
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       427 Sep 20 22:59 usa.direct.service
drwxrwxr-x  2 wais     wais          512 Dec  9 14:59 wais/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       116 Oct 22  1990 white.pages
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     37947 Aug  1  1989 wire-it-yourself
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      4101 Aug  1  1989 wiring.diagram
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24541 Aug  1  1989 zum.debate


Here is the directory for security-related files:

total 1025
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Sep 20 23:15 ./
drwxrwxr-x 12 telecom  telecom      5632 Sep 20 23:14 ../
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24515 Sep  3 02:06 atm-bank.fraud
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      6144 Mar 14  1991 cellular.fraud.abernathy
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2755 Mar 14  1991 cellular.fraud.prevention
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13343 Feb 25  1990 computer.fraud.abuse.act
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     27395 Jun 23  1990 craig.neidorf.indictment
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9354 Jul 30  1990 craig.not.guilty
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67190 Jun 23  1990 crime.and.puzzlement
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     62602 Aug 12  1990 ecpa.1986
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     97987 Aug 12  1990 ecpa.1986.federal.laws
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21918 Dec  2  1990 illinois.computer.laws
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom         0 Sep 20 23:15 index-telecom.security
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     28935 May 19  1990 jolnet-2600.magazine.art
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     30751 Mar  7  1990 jolnet-attctc.crackers
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     43365 Jan 28  1990 kevin.polsen
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     35612 Apr  1  1990 legion.of.doom
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20703 Aug 12  1990 len.rose-legion.of.doom
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2516 Jun 14 01:03 len.rose.in.prison
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    184494 Jun 22 22:04 len.rose.indictment-1
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    192078 Jun 22 22:05 len.rose.indictment-2
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67099 Nov  4  1990 telecom.usa.call.block-1
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     31995 Nov 20  1990 telecom.usa.call.block-2
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     10833 Nov 20  1990 telecom.usa.call.block-3
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14821 Sep 12  1990 war.on.computer.crime


Past issues of TELECOM Digest are located in the directories labled by
year and volume number, and packed in groups of fifty issues within those
directories. The most recent issues of the Digest are in the telecom-recent
file where they are automatically uploaded each time an issue comes out.
Every fiftieth issue, the telecom-recent file is moved into permanent
storage in the directories mentioned above.

The huge file in the main directory entitled 'index-vol.9-10-11.subj.Z'
is a 24,939 line file containing the name of each article and its author
which appeared in the Digest from April, 1989 through December, 1991. You
should take this file back to your site and uncompress it (make sure you
have *lots* of space and your sysadmin's okay). Then you use grep -i to
search the file for authors, subjects and file group numbers. With this
information at hand, you would then go back to the archives to pull the
desired block of issues (groups of fifty).

I am hoping -- but have no specific date yet -- to have the Telecom
Archives available via a wais server within a month or two. More details
when available.

Enjoy brousing through the archives, and happy new year!


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator













Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29413;
          1 Jan 92 23:36 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23372
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 1 Jan 1992 21:43:29 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20290
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 1 Jan 1992 21:43:10 -0600
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1992 21:43:10 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #1

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 1 Jan 92 21:43:05 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 1

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Digest Accelerated Index - Subjects and Authors (TELECOM Moderator)
    A Very Courteous SW Bell Rep (Stephanie da Silva)
    IBT and Caller-ID (Mark E. Anderson)
    Re: Modem Prices (Allyn Lai)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (John G. Dobnick)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Roy M. Silvernail)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: How Do I Connect Two Lines Together at Home? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: "Minimum Charge" for Unsuccessful LD Calls from Bell Canada? (M Brader)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1992 03:45:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Digest Accelerated Index - Subjects and Authors


The accelerated index for TELECOM Digest subjects and authors, volumes
9,10,11 is now ready. This index covers all issues of the Digest from
about April, 1989 through the present time. All of Volume 11 has been
updated into the index as of January 1.

This index -- it is called an 'accelerated index' simply because it
points to other index files in the telecom archives, is 24,939 lines
long, and is stored in compressed format at the archives where you
can obtain a copy. You will need to take a copy back to your site
before you uncompress it ... don't uncompress it at the archives,
heh! heh!  It is huge. Over 24,000 subject headers and author names
from the past three years of the Digest. Maybe someday I will get
it finished up and it will include volumes 1 through 8 as well,
but for now three year's worth ought to be adequate for most of
you.

You can search the index using 'grep -i' for subject strings, author
names and volume/issue numbers (to see what all was within a block
of fifty issues). For further help with the index itself, once you
have it back at your site and uncompressed -- be sure you have
LOTS of space on your disk for it! -- then read the helpful hints
at the start of the file usings grep -i "Intro". Read the man pages
for 'grep' to learn some sophisticated ways to search the index.

Have fun with it, and enjoy!


Patrick Townson

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephanie da Silva)
Subject: A Very Courteous SW Bell Rep
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1992 20:44:32 GMT


And now for something completely different: a new topic.

Actually, it was the thread on wrong numbers that made me decide to
subscribe to a few CLASS features -- Call Return and Call Block.  I
called up my local Southwestern Bell representative and told her I
wanted Call Return installed on our voice line.  She was surprised
that I requested it since it's only been available in this area for
about a month now and asked me how I had heard about it.

I told her I'd known about these features for a quite a while and then
told her that what I really wanted was Caller*ID.  That didn't faze
her and she said that while SW Bell wasn't currently offering it, she
could still see both sides of the controversy.

We then got into a discussion of the various CLASS features and she
told me about one I'd never heard of -- ComCall which turns all the
phones and extensions in your house into an intercom system of sorts.
I asked her to mail me some brochures which I've received -- they call
the features "Star Power."  (Woo!)  The representative was also
concerned if I was having problems with an abusive caller and I told
her that I wasn't having any trouble currently, but I have had
problems with such matters in the past which is why I wanted the
features (and no, I'm not talking about the Allstate bozos).

As we were about to end the conversation, she asked if I wanted the
features turned on that afternoon.  That took me aback, since I was
expecting "a week from next Tuesday" sort of thing.  I said "Fine",
and sure enough, they were working as of 4 the next morning when I
remembered to try them out (don't ask me what I was doing up so
early!!)

Just now, as I was typing in this letter, I received a long distance
phone call from my father-in-law in Honolulu.  While we were talking,
I got Call Waited by a wrong number.  This brings a couple of
questions to mind.  If I had used Call Return, what would have
happened?  Would I have gotten Honolulu (does it only work in my local
calling area?) or would I have gotten the wrong number person, or none
of the above?


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

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

Date: Wed,  1 Jan 92 15:58:18 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mark E Anderson)
Subject: IBT and Caller-ID
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


As of Monday December 30, I noticed that Illinois Bell has turned on
caller ID.  We have ISDN at work and I noticed that the outside
numbers are now being displayed on my phone.  It is a lot of fun
suprising callers with "Hello <caller's name>" when I recognize their
number.  I haven't done any real testing but I know that we aren't
receiving the numbers from everyone in our LATA as of now.

A curious thing is happening at my home though.  As of December 27, I
have been receiving an abnormal amount of blank calls on my home
answering machine.  I received 3 on Friday December 27, 3 on Monday
December 30, 3 on New Year's Eve, and so far one today.  My machine
time stamps these calls and they all occur about one hour apart within
a three hour period during the day while I am at work.  I was sick
Monday and answered one of these calls. I heard nothing for about ten
seconds and then dial tone.

What I was wondering is it possible that IBT is generating these calls
to get people to subscribe to Caller-ID?  There is no way I would ever
pay $6.50 a month for this service.  I wonder if these blank calls
will stop once I subscribe.  Has anyone else experienced this?


Mark Anderson


[Moderator's Note: I don't think IBT needs to stoop to the 'marketing
practices' you describe in order to sell Caller-ID. The latest word on
this from IBT earlier this week was they had already signed up several
thousand subscribers to Caller-ID within the first month of taking
orders for the service.  *67 has been working here since 12-1-91.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Modem Prices
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 91 22:00:38 PST


> Would anyone happen to have a list of standard prices for all
> varieties of modems?  I'd like to buy a 9600 Baud modem, if the price
> is right, else I'll live with an MNP and v.42 bis 2400.  Also, what
                                                    ^^^^
> have 1200 baud modems dropped to?  And 300?

> And what are the fastest modems going for?  Thanks in advance..

I'm not sure where you live but out here in the San Francisco Bay Area
you can get 2400 baud modems for as cheap as $38.95 (Fry's Electronics).

I suppose it's still true that you get what you pay for but I am still
amazed at the wide range of prices for modems.  You can pay anywhere
from $38.95 to $200 for a 2400 baud modem.  I guess you get a few more
features (e.g. MNP compression) and maybe better noise immunity (e.g.
Mom picks up the extension, realizes you're online, quickly hangs up,
you don't loose connection (-;).  Any comments?


Allyn Lai   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I don't think 300/1200 baud modems have any value
at all any longer. I've given away a couple of each in the past few
months. They're great, of course, for beginning/novice netters.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jan 92 00:14:10 -0600
From: John G Dobnick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor


After reading Andrew Green's article on Phone Company Humor, I scanned
our white pages for such entries.  Apparently Wisconsin Bell is much
to serious to engage in such tomfoolery -- no entries, no cross
references, no nothing, in the "red pages", the "white pages", or the
"blue pages".  (White listings are residential, red are commercial,
and blue are government.  A veritable rainbow of listings.)

However, I did stumble upon an unusual listing.  The following entry
was in the red (commercial) section of our Milwaukee Metroplan
directory (AC 414):

    Primal Center of Denver
      323 S Pearl  Denver Colo ........... 303 778-8105

Denver?  Colorado?

Are such out-of-area listings common in the "white pages"?


John G Dobnick
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
INTERNET: [e-mail]  ATTnet: [phone]   UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd


[Moderator's Note: "Foreign directory listings" are very common. Any
business can purchase a white (or yellow) pages listing in the directory
of any city they want. We have a lot of those in the Chicago book.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor
Reply-To: peter@ficc (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1992 22:40:01 GMT


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

> rumor had it at the time that no one at the
> printers' had noticed any of it until the books hit the street.

Since the Houston Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages had covers like that
for several years running, I kind of doubt it. I wish now I'd kept
those covers ... it never occurred to me they'd stop publishing them.
Sigh.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 91 21:40:06 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor


Here's my message for the "telecom humor" thread.  While not intended
to be jokes, these tidbits are amusing as they fall into the "just how
stupid can telco be" catagory.  (I've mentioned some of these before,
so please ignore if it's old news).

1.  While trying to select PINs for unresricted and one-number calling
cards, my US West rep suggested: "Why not make the PINs the same -
that way they will be easier to remember!"

2.  I was testing my calling card from home, dialing 0+ some number,
and wasn't getting the ka-bong.  When repair service found out that I
was trying to use my own calling card from home, she said that "Well,
that's the problem.  Why would you want to bill to the calling card
that's for the same line you're calling from?"  I countered that I was
just testing, and in any event it could not possibly know it was me,
since I hadn't yet entered the card number.  She said "It knows!"  I
again countered, and she agreed, that it would be perfectly valid for
her to be at my house, and want to dial 0+ and enter her number, and
she said "Well, that would work, since it wouldn't be billed to your
line."  Again, I said "But how can it know who's dialing the 0+, even
before the ka-bong and calling card number is entered?"  "It KNOWS
sir!"

3.  And the best one is from Cellular One of Sacramento, when asked
why 10XXX dialing wasn't available for long distance carrier selection
when calling from a cellular phone: "We use microwaves between the
cell sites, and they are incompatible with 10XXX dialing."  I
challenge anyone to beat this one!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits
From: cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 92 10:08:05 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin) writes:

> In country music, from the late 50's, Don Gibson had a hit with
> "Call me at Lonesome Number One".  The lyric, which I can't quote
> exactly, talked about:

That's one of my dad's favorites ...

"Had my number changed today, although I hated to
But every time the phone would ring, they'd want to speak to you..."

The hook line was "Just call LOnesome 7 7 203".


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 92 23:15:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


"These are the days of miracle and wonder
    this is a Long Distance Call
The way the camera follows us in slo-mo
    the way we look to us all"

            -Paul Simon

Ed Greenberg         | Home: [phone] | [e-mail]
P. O. Box 28618        | Work: [phone] | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95159    | Fax:  [phone] | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 91 20:55:31 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do I Connect Two Lines Together at Home?
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> Does anyone know how to connect two phone lines together so that I can
> make a three way conversation using the two lines I have? Is there a
> circuit I could build that would allow me to do this?

What I used to do in high school was take my handy Radio Shack
two-line switchbox and jam both buttons down at the same time until
they locked.  This was on the first model they came out with, before
it had a "conference" feature built in.  (I had actually discovered my
first "undocumented feature!")  The sound quality was not excellent --
I could hear both parties just fine, but the two remote parties
sounded distant to each other.

Since I had conference calling on both lines, I could amaze my friends
by getting five of us on the line all at once.  To release one of the
calls, I first had to isolate that line by pressing the red HOLD
button in the middle.  That would place both lines on hold.  Then, I
would select the line I wanted by pressing its button, then flash to
release one leg of that conference call, then jam the other line
button down while holding the first one down.  This was necessary
since the first one would try to pop up when you selected the second,
as the box was not designed to have both selected at once.  You had to
be quite careful at this, as if you did not do it right, both buttons
would release when you let up on the pressure, and all legs of the
call would be dropped!

So, the trick was to hold the two line buttons down with approximately
equal pressure using two fingers from one hand, and hold the HOLD
button down with a finger from the other hand, then release the two
line buttons.  If they stayed down, then you were set.  If you had
done it wrong (unequal pressure), the line buttons would pop up, but
both lines would be on hold since you had the hold button down as
well.  Then you were free to try it again.

Real problems erupted when my friend jammed both lines down while both
lines were idle.  We were just on our way out, so my folks were left
to fend for themselves.  The workings (and existence) of the box in my
room were unknown to them.  Someone called my number, and my line rang
normally, but theirs also rang, but with a slighly "sick" ring, as the
full voltage was not getting through the box.  When they answered, it
would answer my line, but also cause their line to go off-hook, so
they would hear dialtone, with my caller being connected as well, but
through the "weak" link, so their voice could not be heard over the
dialtone.  Also, my caller would hear just a weak dialtone once the
ringing stopped.  So, my parents would get dialtone whenever they
answered their ringing phone.  They quite reasonably considered this
an "out of order" condition, but of course knew just who to ask as to
the cause.  It didn't take me long to find the root of the problem,
and of course I was instructed to do "experiments" only on my own
line!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1992 15:11:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: "Minimum Charge" for Unsuccessful LD Calls from Bell Canada?
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


> Several of the one minute tolls are marked
> "minimum charge" which suggests that Bell knows they didn't complete.

No; Bell Canada simply has a minimum charge for long-distance calls.
I remember when I lived in Waterloo some years ago and worked out that
a one-minute call to Guelph, with the discounts for the cheapest time
of day, would cost only six cents, or two cents less than it cost to
mail a letter.  But when I tried it, it showed up on the bill as a
15-cent minimum charge.  Phooey.

According to the directory issued in April 1991, the minimum charge is
now at 34 cents.  To see if it had gone up since then, I just phoned
the Bell operator and asked what it is now; the operator didn't
believe there was such a thing!  So I named an exchange not far
outside our local calling area, and she said the rate was 34 cents for
the first two minutes and then nine cents a minute.  Bell charges by
the minute, so there is clearly a 34-cent minimum even if the operator
doesn't know it!  (And as I say, the directory confirms it.)

Incidentally, this means that Bell Canada can now beat Canada Post on
price, as domestic postage is just now going up to 42 cents.  Even
with 15% sales tax on the phone call and only 7% on the postage stamp,
the minimum-charge phone call can win.


Mark Brader    SoftQuad Inc., Toronto    utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #1
****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20054;
          3 Jan 92 3:38 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14811
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 3 Jan 1992 01:27:37 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10224
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 3 Jan 1992 01:27:12 -0600
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 01:27:12 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #2

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 3 Jan 92 01:26:53 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 2

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phone Company Humor (Barry Mishkind)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (James Hartman)
    Re: Phone Company Humor ([e-mail])
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Mark Walsh)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Colin Tuttle)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (David E. A. Wilson)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Edward Floden)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Rob Slade)
    Re: Massachusetts DPU Ponders ISDN Request (David G. Lewis)
    Re: A Very Courteous SW Bell Rep (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Life on Hold: Unhappy Inbound Campers (Jon Krueger)
    Re: Telecaroling (Carl Moore)
    Re: BWI Airport Payphones (Carl Moore)
    Re: Weird AT&T Rates (Scott Hinckley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Barry Mishkind)
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 03:34:04 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> Well, as I type this, it's only New Year's Eve, but I'm submitting
> this as a new topic for 1992. "Phone Company Humor" is NOT an
> oxymoron; the (previously) monolithic phone company does have human
> beings working for it, after all, and it looks like we could all use a

One of my friends in England received a call from the ILR (Independent
Local Radio) station asking what she had done to get the very first
listing in the telephone directory. Janet didn't know what they were
talking about, so they explained how everyone thought up these strange
names to be first or last in the directory ( Mr. Z. ZZZZZZZyck, for
example, or AAAAAAA-AAA-A Auto rentals).

Well, my friend was still unable to understand the situation, but she
did as asked, and opened the telephone book to find that she was,
indeed, the _very_ first entry, "0'Neill, T.J." ...etc. And that was
the way it stayed all year!


Barry Mishkind     [e-mail]


[Modertor's Note: Your message arrived here with a zero (0) instead of
the letter /O/ in O'Neill's name, and I assume the zero is the reason
it sorted to the head of the list, even before the business known as
'A' or 'AAA', etc.   PAT]

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

Subject: Phone Company Humor
From: unkaphaed![e-mail] (James Hartman, Sysop)
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 92 00:11:22 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy


[e-mail] writes:

[story about the humorous things added into the cover of the phone book]

I recall the phone books from the late 70's (mostly the yellow pages)
where the cover art had LOTS of little silly things drawn in --
including a rocket taking off, a guy on horseback, and aliens landing.
These were on the Houston directories, and since Houston went to two
books (A-L/M-Z), when the old books were about to be thrown away, you
could have TWO copies of the art, one to keep and one to send to your
favorite relative.  They did this for a few years, as I recall, but
the last one wasn't very well done, and it sort of ended.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor
Date: 2 Jan 92 10:58:07 GMT
Organization: General DataComm, Middlebury CT


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

> Well, that's all I can come up with at the moment. Gee, I wonder if
> there might be any other stories out there!  :-)

Back around 1984 or so when I lived in Tampa, FL, I came across what
may've been the result of some telephone-book preparer's humor ... a
page heading towards the back of the yellow pages read "WINE - WOMEN".
Cute.  :-)


dw!d


[Moderator's Note: Now and then people in a position to do so slip
rude things into print, either for revenge or other reasons of their
own. About fifteen years ago, a very disgruntled employee in the
classified ads department of the {Chicago Tribune} saw a help-wanted
ad come through from a former employer of his, and he used his
computer access to append a little line at the bottom of the ad, where
many employers put the little remark 'equal opportunity, m/f' or
similar. He changed it to read 'equal opportunity, m/f and the m/f
stands for mother fu---rs'. A teeny, tiny little ad in small print in
the classifieds of the Sunday paper, buried among a couple thousand
other ads. But the Tribune got a few hundred calls because of it, and
of course they went back and audited every work station in the place,
hunting down the errant ad-taker until they found him and fired him. I
guess the company which ran the help wanted ad was a little shocked
also. Naturally, since their ad had an 'error' in it, the paper ran it
free the next day. :)   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 13:44:58 PST
From: optilink![e-mail] (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor


A friend of mine went to Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo, CA, and lived in
a room which was in a big house in which many students lived.  The
house was owned and lived in by a nice lady who got tired of all of
the racket on her phone, so she got a second phone line for the
students.  After a few hassles about who's name it was listed under,
she had the listing changed to "OTHERS, THE."  I could never forget
it!


Cheers -- Mark -- KC6RKZ

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

Date: Thu, 02 Jan 92 19:50:28 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humour


My favourite funny thing in the Toronto Yellow Pages is in the index:
under "Nuts and Bolts" it says "see Bolts and Nuts".


Tony H.

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

Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor
Date: 2 Jan 92 18:29:10 CST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (Colin Tuttle)


This is in response to Andrew Green's posting about phone company
humor.  I remember quite well the humorous yellow pages covers in
Houston during the early '70s.  It was a drawing of Houston and as Mr.
Green mentioned it had all sorts of strange things on it such as a cat
and kittens crossing the freeway with all the cars stopping, a Spanish
Galleon in the ship channel.  There were tons of items in there.  A
popular topic of conversation was the yellow pages and all the strange
things in the drawing.

The humor was so subtle that most people didn't notice anything
strange until it was pointed out to them.

It wasn't well publicized until one of the television stations picked
up on it and had the artist on TV talking about it.  I remember the
station made a big deal of the new phone books coming out, and how
there would be more strange items.  There was also a bit of an uproar
when SW Bell stopped using the drawing and went with a large Bell logo
on the cover.  I don't recall the explanation or the reason, but then
SW Bell never needed a reason for much of anything.  I do remember
after the humorous pictures ended we started receiving more phone book
covers to put over the new ugly cover.

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

From: [e-mail] (David E A Wilson)
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1992 06:10:52 GMT


Two more songs from the last decade (give or take a few years):

Ring Ring by De La Soul          (I cannot recall the number they use)
The Picture Phone by Rupert Hine  (the problems a video phone can cause)


David Wilson                (042) 21 3802 voice, (042) 21 3262 fax
Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jan 92 15:34:04 CST
From: [e-mail] (Edward Floden)
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits
Organization: The Get-a-Life Foundation for Chronic Trekism


I know that you decreed an ending to this nonsense, but no one
mentioned _my_ favorite telephone lyric:

        If the phone doesn't ring
        You'll know that it's me
        I'll be out in the eye of the storm
        If the phone doesn't ring
        You know that I'll be
        Where someone can make me feel warm

 -- Jimmy Buffett, "If the Phone Doesn't Ring, It's Me", _Last Mango in
Paris_, MCA Records, 1985.


Internet: [e-mail] | TechRen User Group
UUCP: crash!pro-ren!edward       | ProLine: edward@pro-ren

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

From: [e-mail] (Rob Slade)
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits
Organization: Computer Using Educators of B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 05:31:32 GMT


A few years ago, I was working for the Government Telecommunications
Agency, which advises all (Canadian) Federal government offices on
telephone and telecom matters, as well as coordinating the long
distance net.  Most federal offices in the greater Vancouver area are
on the "666" exchange; no one else is.  You can imagine the jokes we
have to contend with.

While I was there, the number "666-6666" was assigned.  (I forget
which office got it.)  The number was immediately swamped with calls:
so many that "nearby" numbers no longer functioned properly.  (No, it
was not an old electromagnetic switch: out of deference to the
manufacturer I will not name it, but it was one of the most advanced
at the time, and is now widely and happily used all over the world.)

666-6666 was immediately taken out of service.  It is now listed in
the "numbers" data base with a note saying that it is never to be
assigned again.


Vancouver      [e-mail]
Institute for  [e-mail]
Research into  CyberStore
User            (Datapac 3020 8530 1030)
Security       Canada V7K 2G6


[Moderator's Note: A couple years ago we had a thread here in the
Digest discussing the ignorance surrounding '666' and the various
places the prefix was in use throughout the USA and Canada. We had an
article about a man who was hounded to death by fanatics because his
number ended in -0666. And here in Chicago, there are some people who
flatly refuse to accept service on the MONroe exchange.  Someone
pointed out that in some major city, the Great Satan, the Internal
Revenue Service had their centrex on the 666 exchange in that town. PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Massachusetts DPU Ponders ISDN Request
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1992 14:23:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(peter da silva) writes:

>> New England Telephone has proposed a $35 installation fee and a
>> monthly fee of $8 a month for the basic 960-character-per-second
>> residential service. Users would also have to pay a fee each time they
>> accessed the network, and there would be far higher charges to use a
>> faster data system and other features of the network.

> In other words, you'd have to pay a premium to actually use *less*
> bandwidth on the phone system (that is, a 2400 baud POTS call uses a
> 64 KB channel or a dedicated line (in the local area), where a 9600
> baud ISDN connection only uses a 9.6 KB channel. Sounds like Touch
> Tone fees all over again.

Not exactly.  I believe the article is referring to 9.6kbps packet
switched on the D channel in addition to the 64kbps B channel.  In
other words, you're getting the regular POTS equivalent service (B
channel) plus the D channel packet for the $8/month plus connection
charges.  The second B channel would cost more.

The 2400 baud POTS call (POTS w/modem) uses an analog line card.  The
9.6kbps ISDN connection uses part of a protocol handler and leaves the
ISDN line card available for other use.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 09:45:57 EST
Subject: Re: A Very Courteous SW Bell Rep
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephanie
da Silva) writes:

> Just now, as I was typing in this letter, I received a long distance
> phone call from my father-in-law in Honolulu.  While we were talking,
> I got Call Waited by a wrong number.  This brings a couple of
> questions to mind.  If I had used Call Return, what would have
> happened?  Would I have gotten Honolulu (does it only work in my local
> calling area?) or would I have gotten the wrong number person, or none
> of the above?

CLASS features only work for intra-LATA calls from exchanges equipped
with SS7.  As for the call waiting call, I'm pretty sure it would be
the last call received for purposes of Call Return, Call Block, or
Call Trace.  As for Caller ID, there is at this time no definitive
standard as to how to get information to the CID modem when a
call-waiting call comes in.  An announcement of Northern Telecom's
prototype appeared in the Digest last year, but Bellcore is still
working out a standard from among the competing kludges.  (I've been
told it's an ugly problem with ugly solutions.)


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: Tue, 31 Dec 1991 21:22:49 -0800
Subject: Re: Life on Hold: Unhappy Inbound Campers
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
From: [e-mail] (Jon Krueger)


Doctor Math writes:

> Since "they" generally get ANI delivered in real-time,
> perhaps they should allow you to flag your account to only allow
> certain transactions (if any at all) with the auto-attendant IF the
> ANI information matches their database ... granted, it could be very
> inconvenient, but it would be hard to beat for "privacy enhancement".

And who would be responsible for my loss of privacy due to ANI
spoofing?  And what would my recourse be in such a case?

It's simply bad design to trust a public network to authenticate
private parties who connect to it via their own equipment.

If you want to enhance privacy, there are plenty of ways around.
Start with having "them" call you back at the trusted number.
Claiming I'm calling from the number is one thing, answering the phone
that rings when you call it is another.


Jon Krueger   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 10:29:00 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecaroling


Unless you have a speaker setup, the caroling can only be heard by the
person receiving the call, and little or none by others near the
receiving end.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 10:35:24 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BWI Airport Payphones


Several years ago, I saw pay phones at BWI on:

850 and/or 859 for Baltimore metro service (that's the local exchange
in the area which includes BWI, and is going into 410 area).

621 for Washington metro service (stays in area 301).

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Hinckley)
Subject: Re: Weird AT&T Rates
Date: 2 Jan 92 19:19:21 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]> grout![e-mail] (Mark
Oberg) writes:

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

>> I also found out that the rate to call Massachusetts is more expensive
>> for the first minute than for each additional minute.  I asked the rep

> I assume that you meant to say "less expensive" from the
> context of the paragraph.  If so, the reason might be marketing rather
> than any corporate sympathy for the plight of fax users.  MCI has had
> the very interesting habit of quoting first minute rates that are
> lower than the additional minute rate for quite some time now.

Mark,

   When have you been quoted lower first minute charges by MCI?. I
have been using MCI for five years now and have never had a case where
that was true. All my minutes cost the same (there was a time when the
first minute was HIGHER, but that stopped a couple of years a go).

   I just called MCI customer service and was unable to find a case
where the first minute was less expensive, so I asked for a
supervisor.  The supervisor was unaware of any such case.

   If there is such a case would you be so kind as to provide me with
the area and prefix of the calling and called numbers so that I can
pursue this with said supervisor?


Thank you,

[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #2
****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21256;
          3 Jan 92 4:03 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05295
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 3 Jan 1992 02:08:43 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22280
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 3 Jan 1992 02:08:15 -0600
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 02:08:15 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #3

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 3 Jan 92 02:08:09 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 3

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telephone Number Format (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Telephone Number Format (Bob Denny)
    Re: Telephone Number Format (Carl Moore)
    Re: Telephone Company Employees (Mickey Ferguson)
    Re: Telephone Museums (Mickey Ferguson)
    Re: Rail Phone (William Moss)
    Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? (Scott Hinckley)
    Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? (Winston L. Sorfleet)
    Re: "Minimum Charge" for Unsuccessful LD Calls from Bell Canada? (P Sleggs)
    Re: Adjacent Area Codes (Carl Moore)
    Contel Service Isn't Bad Compared to Others (Rick Rodman)
    The Best and the Worst (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Number Format
Date: 2 Jan 92 11:37:08 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, lotus!rlaferla!robertl@
uunet.uu.net (Robert La Ferla) writes:

> Can someone please explain what the new format for telephones is all
> about?  What implications does it have for foreign telephone numbers?

> For example:

> [phone]

> is now

> [phone]

First of all, you should never see an 800 number in this format,
because 800 numbers are not generally dialable from overseas!!

The "+" is the international standard syntax to indicate that what
follows is the "country code".  "1" is the country code for North
America.  See my phone numbers below.  When specifying an
international number, the standard (CCITT Recommendation E.123) says
to start with the "+", append the country code, a space, the city code
if any, a space, and then the local number, inserting spaces if
necessary (hyphens may be used by national option).  When specifying a
national number (what people within the same country would call), you
leave off the country code, and you may enclose the city code in
parentheses (e.g., "[phone]") to indicate that that portion of
the number is optional (if you're already within that area).


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] (Bob Denny)
Subject: Re: Telephone Number Format
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1992 22:44:41 GMT
Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc.


In <[e-mail]> lotus!rlaferla![e-mail]
(Robert La Ferla) writes:

> Can someone please explain what the new format for telephones is all
> about?  What implications does it have for foreign telephone numbers?

> For example:

> [phone]

> is now

> [phone]

Is it? I have seen variations of this international number description
format, depending on where the dashes are or are not. Where are dashes
supposed to be? And what is the definitive reference for this format?


Robert B. Denny         voice: [phone]
Alisa Systems, Inc.     fax: [phone]
Pasadena, CA     ([e-mail], ..uunet!alisa.com!denny)

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 9:40:49 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Number Format


I don't know what is "new" about the format "+1 xxx xxx-xxxx".  That
leading 1 is the country code for the U.S. and Canada and many points
in the Caribbean Sea area, and the +1 should be included when giving a
number to people from outside country code 1.  It is just coincidence
that the leading 1 is also used (within country code 1) to indicate
either "toll call" or "what follows is an area code".

Whether toll-free numbers can be reached from abroad is another
matter; a business would normally give a local non-toll-free number
for people to use when calling from abroad.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 14:47:39 PST
From: [e-mail] (Mickey Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Telephone Company Employees
Organization: Rolm Systems


Dave Levenson writes:

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

>> However, on those occasions when I must deal with the residence
>> department (for my home) or the standard business office, a trick is
>> used which has proven quite effective. Just select "0" at every
>> prompt.  Two or three "0"s later, you will either be speaking to a
>> live person or will be comfortably waiting in an ACD queue.

> What also works is to remain silent when prompted to enter touch tone
> digits.  These systems generally don't know whether the caller is
> touch-tone-equipped or not.  If the first prompt is met with silence,
> it should be designed to assume that tone-dial equipment is not
> available, and should attempt to connect you with a human.

An interesting feature of J.C. Penney National Bank's credit card info
number is that if you don't have tone-dial, it can still work for you.
What it does is voice recognition.  You speak the digit of your choice
and it figures out which digit you said.  I had tried exactly your
suggestion of not entering anything, hoping to get connected to a real
operator, and instead got this.  (Though I was annoyed at the time, I
thought it was a pretty good idea.)


Mickey Ferguson      Rolm Systems      [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 14:55:34 PST
From: [e-mail] (Mickey Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Telephone Museums
Organization: Rolm Systems


Nigel Allen writes:

> If you are going to be in a different city around Christmas, you may
> want to find out from the local telephone company, tourism bureau or
> chapter of the Telephone Pioneers of America whether there is a
> telephone museum in the community that you are visiting.

I will put in my plug for one of the finest museums in the world --
the Deutsches (spelling?) Museum in Munich, Germany.  It has a very
large display of the history of telecommunications.  For that matter,
it has excellent displays for LOTS of other technical topics.  Truly
one of the great museums!


Mickey Ferguson      Rolm Systems      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (William Moss)
Subject: Re: Rail Phone
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1992 18:31:26 -0500
Organization: Bell-Northern Research


I took a VIA train from Montreal to Ottawa a few years back, and every
coach car had one cellular pay phone in it. I don't remember the rates
(if they were even posted), but I do know that I used my Mastercard,
and it never showed up on my bill. The carrier was CANTEL. The
reception was fairly good (much better than an Airphone(tm)), but it
did pass through some noisy pockets.

The rail line from Ottawa to Montreal is never more than about ten
miles from the expressway, which is fully covered, I believe, by both
cellular carriers.

That expressway (417), by the way, has solar powered emergency
cellular phones every few miles along the road. I believe that Bell
Cellular is the carrier for those.


William G. Moss                      disclaimer: not the views of BNR or NT
Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa  [phone] [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Hinckley)
Subject: Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival?
Date: 2 Jan 92 17:21:42 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: I try not to


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Alan Boritz) writes:

> You won't see ISDN in the consumer market in your lifetime.
> Unfortunately, though, you may not see wireless cable become a similar
> contender in your lifetime, either.  MMDS is not doing well these days
> as conventional cable penetrates more markets.  The MMDS industry may

Wow, talk about pessimistic!

ISDN is going into business use here in Huntsville, AL next month
(actually, it is already in use, but that is when a big ISDN
conference will let everyone know what they can use it for). According
to the SCB employee I talked to (been there since mechanical
switches), ISDN for home use should be available (though not
advertised) within a few years at most.

Wireless cable is doing quite well here. We have three(!) cable
companies (Wireless, Cable Alabama, and Comcast). Due to the rate of
new construction the wire-cable companies are quite a bit behind in
their installations. I live up on Green 'Mountain' and neither of the
wire based cable-companies have plans to run their cable there.
(Currently about 100 homes up there, almost all of which are VERY nice
homes) Everyone I know up there would subscribe if wire-cable were
available, they are mostly new homes with built-in cable wireing.

(I miss my CNN. The wireless cable company is in the process of
raising their tower, and we will not be LOS until they have done so.
We are on the back side of the crest of the mountain, the front side
recieves just fine.)


[e-mail]

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

From: Winston (W.L.) Sorfleet <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Thu 2 Jan 1992  00:00:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
fidonet.org (A lan Boritz) writes:

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

>> I'm presently investigating investment in a wireless cable company.
>> One of the drawbacks is I won't see any return on that investment for
>> five or six years (FCC takes onee year to process application, takes a
>> year to get a station on-line, and three or four to recoup costs).  By
>> that time I wonder if ISDN will be a long way off, and of course
>> provide a superior conduit for video into the home.  Anyone know, or
>> have an idea as to find out?

> You won't see ISDN in the consumer market in your lifetime.

I don't agree with this statement.  National ISDN-1, which is supposed
to be deployed in February, establishes standards for BRI ISDN which
the switch vendors (Northern Telecom, AT&T, etc.) and terminal
equipment vendors all meet.  For their part, the telcos have committed
to making ISDN services available to customers.  It is true that
residential users probably cannot afford the $600 for the ISDN
terminal + $150 for the Network Termination + $40 / month for the ISDN
services, but these prices will hopefully decrease once the
third-party manufacturers start to compete (ISDN line cards cost about
$200 as opposed to $10 for POTS).  Certainly, business customers can
and do afford to pay the costs for ISDN in return for the high data
bandwidth.

Video into the home is probably a long way away for ISDN.  BRI and PRI
both provide only 64 Kbps channels, not nearly enough for anything but
sampled video stills.  ISDN cannot compete with cable video until they
get broadband ISDN working, who knows when that will be.


Winston Sorfleet
Bell-Northern Research, Dept. 7D34
[e-mail]

Opinions expressed are purely personal and do not represent Northern Telecom
or Bell-Northern Research in any way.

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

Subject: Re: "Minimum Charge" for Unsuccessful LD Calls from Bell Canada?
From: [e-mail] (Peter Sleggs)
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1992 20:22:20 -0500
Organization: Bellatrix Systems Corp., Mississauga, ONT Canada


[e-mail] (Charlie Mingo) writes:

> My sister who lives in Toronto believes that Bell Canada has begun
> charging tolls for incomplete call attempts (busy or no answer), as
> numerous one minute charges have been appearing on her bill after no
> call was completed.  Several of the one minute tolls are marked
> "minimum charge" which suggests that Bell knows they didn't complete.
> (The calls are from Toronto to Ottawa, Kingston and Halifax.)

> I had thought that any "legitimate" LD company would look for
> answer supervision before starting the clock, and that such practices
> were confined to sleazy AOS's.

> Does anyone know if Bell Canada has started doing things like this?

I dont believe so, as I have not seen this for my calls.

The minimum charge is shown where there is a short call at a discount
rate that falls BELOW the minimum charge Bell has set for that
destination.

I have many of these charges on the Fax line as most calls are < 1
minute.

If Bell tried to do this I would expect the complaints to cause all
hell to break loose when the CRTC hears of this. (not even considering
the fuss that would be made by those who want alternative LD
services!)


peter    [e-mail] or torag!beltrix!peters

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 11:09:16 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Adjacent Area Codes


When 410 is fully cut over in Maryland, 301 will no longer touch 302,
but 301 will still touch 304 (W.Va.). It touches one exchange in 412
at the northwestern corner of the state.  But that part of Maryland
stays in 301 instead of going into 410.

In the archive file history.of.area.splits, I included the following
because I noticed an N0X area code in a state or province having more
than one area code; let me add some comments in parentheses:

704/919 North Carolina (notice that 704 does not now touch Virginia,
which split from 703 to 703/804 in 1973).

402/308 Nebraska (I received messages suggesting that there was never
such a split, and now you have called to my attention that 308 touches
307).

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

From: virtech![e-mail] (Rick Rodman)
Subject: Contel Service Isn't Bad, Compared to Others
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 92 21:43:19 EST


Well, Bob Woodruff called me from Contel/GTE and did understand 950,
10xxx and ISDN.  It appears that the DC/Md access was fixed some time
ago.  Sure enough, you can dial 10xxx-1-301 ... or 10xxx-1-202 ... and
it goes on the selected carrier.

Also, 10333-0-301 + no longer connects me to AT&T as it did in 1988,
but to Sprint as it should.

I should have known that in this wonderful new telecom world of ours
the only thing that doesn't change is the fact that everything is
changing all the time.

What's more, Contel/GTE is offering ISDN in the Dulles area, but
demand for it in the Manassas area is weak.  ("Weak"?  "Demand" is too
strong a term to use around ISDN.  How about "request"?  "Wondering"?)

So, in sum, Contel/GTE isn't all that bad and does have some good
people working for them.  I shall count my blessings as John suggests
that I don't have Pac*Bell.  After all, we have direct dial and
touch-tone out here.  Contel installed a SuperNode last year, whereas
Pac*Bell purchases retired equipment from Burkina Faso.

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jan 92 19:16 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: The Best and the Worst


I have come up with examples of what I believe to be the least
responsive and the most responsive in the telecommunications field.

Least Responsive:

US Sprint and its billing department. Earlier last year, I had many
hundreds of dollars in bogus calls on my bill. Since the amount was so
high, I received threatening letters from Sprint telling me to pay
immediately or else. After discussing the matter with Sprint's
business office, I received subsequent bills with even more bogus
charges and demands to pay the back charges. It took months to
straighten this all out, including hours of my time on the phone with
Sprint.

Recently, out of the blue (but probably related to that Sprint T1
fiasco) I started being billed for an 800 number that did not exist.
At first someone at the Sprint billing office tried to tell me that
the fifty dollars was a "cancellation charge" and was due and payable.
When I told her that hell would freeze first, she agreed to cancel the
charge (how gracious!). The next month, I received another bill
wanting both the previous charge AND another charge. This whole matter
is still up in the air.

Most Responsive:

GTE Mobilnet. The other day, I replaced my truck phone with a newer
model. I bought the phone, programmed it myself to my existing
Mobilnet number and then faxed a request to have my ESN changed. The
fax went out at 4:20 PM. Just for laughs, I tried my new phone at 4:38
PM. It worked (and the old one no longer did). Eighteen minutes (or
possibly less) to register a brand new cellular phone is not too
shabby.


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


[Moderator's Note: The temperature in Hell, Michigan was in the middle
to upper twenties yesterday. Pay your bills, John! :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #3
****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23260;
          3 Jan 92 4:53 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08352
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 3 Jan 1992 02:38:50 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24684
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 3 Jan 1992 02:38:29 -0600
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 02:38:29 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #4

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 3 Jan 92 02:38:17 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 4

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Mail - Canadian Rates to Include Monthly Minimum Gouge (D. Leibold)
    Telemarketing (Suspicions Confirmed Dept.) (WSJ via Norm deCarteret)
    ITT3100 1.3 Problem (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
    Playing Digitized Sound Over T1 == Distorted Sound? (Michael K. Minakami)
    Dialing Changes (was Area Code 206 Changes) (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 02 Jan 92 21:55:00 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T Mail - Canadian Rates to Include Monthly Minimum Gouge


I got this notice in the AT&T Mail tonight ... looks like monthly
minimum mania has hit the north now, among other price "adjustments".
Please note that the following refers to AT&T Mail based in Canada,
and not elsewhere.

                     -------

 Date: Fri Jan  3 00:00:10 GMT 1992
 From: CUSTOMER  ASSISTANCE <!cndahelp>
 Phone: [phone]
 Fax-Phone: [phone]
 Subject: AT&T Mail Price Change Announcement
 To: David  Leibold <!dleibold1>
 Content-Length: 8606


Dear Valued Customer,

Several important changes to the rate structure for AT&T Mail will
take effect on February 1, 1992.  These changes will provide you with
consistent global messaging pricing, clearly defined and
value-oriented.

This new structure will be especially effective in significantly
reducing the cost of sending larger files while maintaining attractive
rates for shorter messages.  Furthermore, surcharges such as
Gateway400 and COD will be eliminated.  The information below details
these price changes.  If you have any questions, please contact your
Account Representative or a Customer Assistance Representative at
1-800-567-4671.

We value your business and are committed to serving your global
messaging needs with quality service at the most economical rates
possible.


PRICE SCHEDULE - CANADA


*       Prices are effective February 1, 1992, exclusive of any taxes
and subject to change without prior notification.

*       All prices are listed in Canadian Dollars.

*       All prices shown are per addressee.  Addressing information is
not counted as part of the message length.


DELIVERY OPTIONS

Electronic Delivery

 MESSAGE LENGTH:                                          Price

        Up to 1000 character                                 $  .58
        Up to 2000 character                                 $  .95
        Up to 3000 character                                 $ 1.10
        Each additional 1000 characters (over 3000)          $  .06


 PAPER DELIVERY:

        STANDARD DELIVERY is first class mail delivery.  Delivery is
available to Canada, all 50 United States, Guam, Mexico, Puerto Rico
and U.S. Virgin Islands.

        Message Length 1 - 2500 characters                 $ 2.60
        each additional 2500 characters (over 2500)        $  .58

        PRIORITY DELIVERY is overnight delivery via courier.

        Message Length 1 - 2500 characters                   $ 8.60
        each additional 2500 characters (over 2500)          $  .58

        URGENT DELIVERY is same day delivery via courier.

        Message Length 1 - 2500 characters                   $29.00
        each additional 2500 characters (over 2500)          $  .58

 TELEX DELIVERY
 (No additional electronic delivery charges apply.)
        Canada                                               $ 1.45
        Canada (TWX)                                         $ 1.54
        International (Price varies by destination country) VARIABLE
        (No change from Jan. 1, 1991 prices)

 Collect on Delivery (Electronic)                       NO SURCHARGE

 MAIlFAX DELIVERY (No additional delivery charges apply.)
        Domestic                                              Price
        First half page*                                     $  .60
        Additional half pages*                               $  .44

        International (Price varies by destination country) VARIABLE
        (No change from Jan. 1, 1991 prices)

        Nonurgent
10% Discount
        (Nonurgent MailFAX messages will be delivered within 24hours.)

OTHER DELIVERY OPTIONS
 Delivery Confirmation and Return Receipt Requests        $  .30

MESSAGE CREATION
 Off-Line                                               NO CHARGE
 (Users of AT&T Mail Access PLUS,
  PMX Software, UNIX, or X.400 Premises Systems.)

 On-Line**
        Up to 1000 characters                              $  .23
        Up to 2000 characters                              $  .46
        Up to 3000 characters                              $  .69
        each additional 1000 characters (over 3000)        $  .12

MESSAGE RETRIEVAL
 Electronic Message                                     NO CHARGE
 MailTALK (Voice Retrieval)
 Outside the U.S. dial 303-368-2577                    $ .58/minute
                       (plus International Long Distance charges)
 In the U.S. dial 1-800-MAIL222                        $ .58/minute

SERVICE ACCESS
 Domestic Access                                        NO CHARGE
 International Dial Access Charges and
 Packet Access Charges.                                 VARIABLE

INTERNATIONAL SURCHARGES***
 Surcharges waived until further notice
        Up to 3000 characters                         To be determined
        Over 3000 characters                          To be determined


*       1,500 characters to a half page.
**      These fees are charged each time a message is created or edited
on-line, or uploaded from a PC using a terminal emulation package, then sent
from the on-line mode, regardless of the number of addresses.  These charges
are in addition to delivery charges.
***     These charges will be in addition to the electronic delivery charges
and will be assessed per addressee.


GATEWAY400 SERVICE
        Gateway400 Service has no surcharges.

        Note that messages sent through Gateway400 are expanded based
on X.400 Standards.  The length of the message billed may be greater
than what is indicated on the content-length line of the message.

FORMS/FILES USER OPTION                                     Price

 Forms/Files User Fee (Includes permanent                  $11.00
 storage of 30 storage units****

 Storage (Permanent storage is available
 only to Forms/Files Users)
 Additional Storage Units*                           $  .35/month
 (applies when average storage used is
  greater than the allowance provided
  with Forms/Files User Fee.)

SHARED FOLDERS

        Users sending messages to Shared Folders are charged for
electronic delivery.  The owner may upload items to a Shared Folder at
no charge.

        Access is the reading or handling of message text.  Each user
pays for items accessed unless the folder owner sponsors the shared
folder and pays for all access.

 Message Length
 1 - 401 characters                                        $  .35
 401 - 7500 characters                                     $  .50
 each additional 7500 characters (over 7500)               $  .50

 Shared Storage Units****                                  $ 1.75
 (Applies to messages in a shared folder
  and shared address lists.)

**** A Storage Unit is 7500 characters or less for each message saved
in a folder and address list, based on the average number of units
during the month.   The folder itself counts as one storage unit.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Logos and Signatures (For paper and MailFAX deliveries.
Fee charged per logo or signature scanned or modified.
Limit of 3 per mailbox.)
                                                            Price
Logo Scanning Fee                                         $230.00
Signature Scanning Fee                                    $115.00

SUBSCRIBER FEES

 Service Fee, monthly (per mailbox)                       $  3.45

 Minimum Usage Billing, monthly (per invoice)             $ 29.00

 Directory Entry Fee, yearly                              $ 14.00
 (Provides off-net user an entry in the on-line
  directory.  Service fee does not apply.)

SPECIAL BILLING

 Subaccount Attachment                                  NO CHARGE
 (Summarizes UNIX Systems subaccount
  activity for the current billing period.)

 Project Code Attachment                                NO CHARGE
 (Charges are sorted and subtotalled by project
  codes which are supplied by customers.)

Note: Any undeliverable messages, except TELEX messages, will be
charged to users who set their accounts to auto-forward or set their
incoming messages to MailFAX, Gateway400, or other surcharged delivery
destinations.  Auto-forwarding to a Mailbox or a UNIX system does not
result in additional charges.


DOCUMENTATION
                                                            Price
Service User's Guide                                       $25.00
Additional Registration Form*****                            FREE
MailTALK User's Kit*****                                   $ 2.50
Command Card*****                                          $ 2.50
3780/3770 Interface Guide                                  $ 9.00
UNIX Administrator's                                       $ 2.50
UNIX Reference Card******                                  $ 2.50
UNIX User's Guide******                                    $ 3.00

*****  These items are included in the Welcome Kit.
****** These items are included in the UNIX Kit.


AT&T MAIL SOFTWARE

AT&T Mail Access PLUS Ver. 2.04                           $140.00
AT&T Mail Access PLUS Ver. 2.2                            $225.00
AT&T Mail Access III Ver. 1.3.3                           $140.00
AT&T Mail Access PLUS for Windows Ver. 2.2                $275.00
AT&T Mail Access PLUS Upgrade Ver. 2.04 - 2.2             $125.00

                           ---------

[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 08:11:46 EST
From: Norm deCarteret <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketing (Suspicions Confirmed Dept.)


Source:  WSJ, 1/2/92, pg 1, Michael Miller
Title:   "That Sales Pitch Interrupting Dinner is by a Real Con Man"

"Prisoners man the phones for telemarketing firms, and use their old
skills"

"Kim Britt, prisoner 38112 at the Omaha Correctional Center, has
permission to make a phone call ... to ask Mark Parrish, a farm
contractor in Ohio ... 'Mark, how you doing?  How's the weather out
there in Ohio?  Mark, I was wondering, do you need any LaGrange 70
welding rods?  Mark, this rod will make you a professional!  Normally
it would run about $156, but we have it on special tonight'.  Mr.
Britt was given 8 to 12 years for pushing drugs but his sales skills
aren't getting rusty.  For the past four years he has been selling
hardware over the phone for a Nebraska telemarketing company.

"Unbeknown to most consumers, a growing number of the disembodied
voices who call during dinner with a sales spiel or survey are
prisoners.  Besides Nebraska, 15 other states have set up
telemarketing centers where inmates dial or receive business calls"
 ... for organizations like:

 - Consumer Research Surveys & Super Value Stores (Shakopee MN womens prison)
 - Midwest Medical  (medium security prison in Lino Lakes MN)
 - Trans World Airlines (CA reform school, take overload reservation calls)
 - Best Western & Super 8 Motels  (in AZ and SD, also reservation overload?)
 - TGS Marketing Inc (SD; they've hired 2 dozen inmates after their release)

The article mentions the flap about a former inmate who ran up
thousands in charges on other peoples credit cards while working for
TWA.  TGS' Jim Braun said TGS screens inmates to eliminate those
convicted of fraud but otherwise doesn't care what they were in prison
for.  TGS pays inmates the same 17.5% commission other telemarketers
get.  The prison gets $1.25/hour from the inmates, plus 5% of their
wages for a state fund for crime victims.

"It doesn't really make any difference to me", says Mr. Parrish. He
was surprised to learn that TGS employs prisoners but not particularly
upset.  "Telemarketers are aggravating", he says. "It's no worse if
they're in prison."

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

From: [e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
Subject: ITT3100 1.3 Problem
Date: 2 Jan 92 14:09:39 GMT
Organization: University of Western Ontario


I have a very strange problem with an ITT3100 1.3 that has escaped all
attempts to rectify it.  A person on a call on B2 (DIB EXT257 INTR
PRIM) that was transferred from a SUB20 with DSS used as an attendant
position.  The call itself is from the outside, coming in as a ground
start equiv, on a dual port trunk i/f card.  While on the call, the
lamp on B2 will extinguish, and the lamp on B1 (FEAT HOLD) will come
on, but the call will still be intact.

However, the attendant, seeing her X257 appearance on the DSS
extinguish, now sends another call to the set, which rings, even
though the user has no way of holding the first call to get to the
second, without hanging up completely, and re-answering. (This of
course drops the initial call.)  This is happening to two sets, both
SUB10s, on different shelves.  I have never seen it happen, but have
no reason to doubt the users.  The power supplies both check out as do
all levels in the control shelf as well as in all three station/trunk
modules.  The common services csard was replaced on spec., but with no
success.  A cold start didn't help either, and the diagnostics show no
anomolies in the system.  If you have experience on an ITT3100,
helpful suggestions would be very welcome.  Thanks.


[e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
The Western Business School BBS  --  London, Ontario

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael K. Minakami)
Subject: Playing Digitized Sound Over T1 == Distorted Sound?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 04:57:52 GMT


I have some 8khz mulaw sound samples that I got off of a Sun
SparcStation and have been trying to play them over a T1 line through
a voice response unit. When I listen to it over a phone, voice sounds
nasal and music sounds equally distorted. The most interesting
phenomenon I've come across so far is that a sample of Yaz's "I before
E except after C", which should say "You can see the difference,"
comes out as "You can sue the difference." (There's one for the legal
dept. :) Whether or not /i/ turn into /u/ seems to depend on context,
as it happens quite often but not all the time (though for a given
sample it will consistently happen in the same place.)

I've tried playing the samples when both connected to an Ameritech
Central Office Simulator and when connected to a live T1 line, and
both yied the same strange results. I also had a brief chance to play
with a telephony card hooked up to an analog line, and it worked fine.
This leads me to suspect some digital filtering, or maybe a difference
in D/A conversion, but so far I haven't been able to isolate the
problem.

Any suggestions as to what's going on would be greatly appreciated!


Michael Minakami

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 10:12:15 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dialing Changes (was Area Code 206 Changes)


The elimination of 1-xxx-xxxx in some areas and the addition (in some
other areas) of leading 1 (just before area code) has been done where
the distinction between area code and prefix is being lost.  (0+ calls
within such areas are now permitted or required to use 0 + area code +
seven digits.)

So far, this has been done in areas which were running out of
prefixes, so that the prefixes in such areas could generalize from NNX
to NXX; the alternative is to split such areas immediately.  Such new
dialing instructions can also accommodate area codes of form NXX (not
just N0X/N1X).

When such dialing instructions start appearing solely for the coming
of NXX area codes, I'd appreciate hearing about it; when that starts
happening, what happens to the policy of "no N0X/N1X prefixes unless
NNX runs out"?  (Notice that the first batch of NNX area codes will be
of form NN0, raising the possibility that some areas could keep
1-xxx-xxxx by disallowing prefixes of form NN0; but this would not be
possible if the Mexican numbers became reachable as 52x-xxx-xxxx.)

> In the past, all area codes were of the form N0X or N1X, and all
> prefixes were of the form NXX.

The comment about area codes is still current (for the next 3 1/2
years at most?), but the comment about prefixes should have used NNX
instead of NXX.  If you notice the "history.of.area.splits" file in
the archives, the first programming for N0X/N1X prefixes was in area
213 in 1973.  That file also has the direct-dialing instructions for
those areas which have programmed for N0X/N1X prefixes: either use 7D
for all intra-NPA calls or use 1+NPA+7D for all toll calls.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #4
****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13974;
          5 Jan 92 0:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10695
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 4 Jan 1992 22:41:04 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05925
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 4 Jan 1992 22:40:49 -0600
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1992 22:40:49 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #5

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 Jan 92 22:40:46 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 5

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Western Union Camp Car Outfits (Jim Haynes)
    Something Nice From GTE! (Rob Hansen)
    5ESS Question - (Dr. Art St. George)
    Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc. (Douglas W. Martin)
    Searching For Cordless Telephone II (ctII) Information (Harn-Jier Lin)
    Answering Machines With Video Cameras (David Niebuhr)
    0 + NPA + 7D Did Not Work (Carl Moore)
    Tariffs For 900 Service (Jim Leone)
    One Plus Dialing on 800 Calls (David Niebuhr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Western Union Camp Car Outfits
Date: 3 Jan 92 06:11:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


The following article appeared in {Western Union Technical Review} for
October, 1961, Volume 15, Number 4, Copyright 1961 by the Western
Union Telegraph Company, which was formerly in the telegraph business.

           The End of an Era

    by W. E. Crippen, Division Supervisor of Lines, Oakland Area

    "Editorial Note" - While there are no Western Union Camp Car
    complete outfits remaining in the United States there are some
    material cars still in service.  There is, however, one camp
    car complete outfit north of the Border in the Canadian Maritime
    provinces where Western union maintains pole lines along the
    Canadian National R.R.  Here the country is sparsely settled
    and suitable boarding accommodations difficult to find.

  In 1960 the last of the Western Union owned railway camp car outfits
in the United States was sold by the Pacific Division to a junk dealer
in Portland, Oregon.  Thus an era covering almost half a century came
to an end, the era of the Western union owned railway camp car
outfits.  The very important part these outfits played in the growth
of The Western Union Telegraph Company is little known today.  Only
the "graybeards" who regarded them as a way of life during the era
just passed are familiar with the contribution camp car outfits have
made, and whenever they get together they recall the interesting
events and incidents that had their origin in and around these
outfits.

  Prior to 1914, "line gangs," as they were called, were housed either
in hotels or in railroad owned boxcar outfits that were equipped with
such bare necessities as double-deck bunks, pot-bellied stoves, wash
bowls, oil lamps, and other appointments in keeping with the time.

  By 1914, many of the original pole lines were in need of repair
because of deterioration or because the ever increasing wire load had
become too great for the old pole lines to carry.  Thus was undertaken
the beginning of a heavy reconstruction program that was to last until
the latter part of the 1920's and the start of the depression.  The
program reached its peak between 1925 and 1930.

  At the start of this program, The Western Union Telegraph Company
foresaw the benefits that could be derived from having the line gangs
housed in outfits that could be set out at any location at any time or
that could be moved to emergency areas quickly, at a much lower cost
than if they were housed in hotels, some of which might be long
distances from the jobsites.

  It was decided to place many of these outfits in operation and, by
purchasing the necessary cars where available and equipping them in
railroad shops, to place them in operation as fast as they could be
made available.  This arrangement proved to be neither practical nor
economical.  In order to correct this situation, a camp car shop was
established at Chattanooga, Tennessee as a headquarters for all outfit
remodeling, maintenance, and supplies.  This shop flourished and was
busy continually until about 1930, when it entered upon a decline in
activity that continued until a few years ago when the servicing of
outfits was no longer required. (The camp car shop was then converted
into a shop for manufacturing and assembling equipment to meet other
and present day requirements.)

  By the end of 1914, twelve such outfits had been placed in service.
These represented a great improvement over the earlier railroad bunk
cars.  They were lighted with individual Coleman gasoline lamps and
were equipped with hot water and shower bath facilities.  A hand-
operated pressure pump, located behind the kitchen stove, supplied the
water pressure for the wash basins, shower baths, and kitchen.  (The
first rule of the water system in those days was that anyone desiring
a shower must first pump the water pressure up to sixty pounds.  As
the cooks were required to pump their own water for kitchen use, they
were the ones who saw to it that everyone pumped his own water.)  As
the processing of these outfit units progressed, many improvements
were made in equipment.  For example, the individual Coleman gasoline
lamps were replaced with a series of lights that had their fuel
supplied from a centralized pressure tank.

     [Photograph, titled "Pullman Coach", shows exterior of a car
     sitting on railroad tracks.  Lettering above the windows
     reads "Western Union Telegraph Co."  Lettering below the windows
     reads "Camp Car" and something else I can't make out.]

  At the peak of the heavy reconstruction period, between 1925 and
1930, there were about 120 of these outfits scattered throughout the
United States.  By that time, the type of railroad cars used and the
arrangement of the associated equipment had been fairly well
standardized.  These later models consisted of two Pullman cars about
seventy feet in length (one sleeping car and one dining car), two
boxcars (one tool car and one material car), and a steel tank car
(water car).  In fact, No. 10 recently sold at Portland consisted of
two Pullman coaches, two boxcars, one tank car, and associated
equipment.

     [Photograph, titled "Sleeping Quarters", taken down the center
     aisle of a sleeping car, shows upper and lower bunks on both sides.]

  The sleeping car was partitioned into three sections or rooms.  The
foreman had small private quarters at the end of the car, equipped
with bed, lockers, chairs, desk, and wash basin.  Adjacent to this
room was the men's dormitory, which was equipped with two rows of
double-deck bunks that would accommodate sixteen men.  These two
sections covered a little more than half the coach.  The remaining
section was used as the men's recreation room and for locker space.

     [Photograph, titled "Dining Room", shows a long table with six
     chairs on each side (and probably more too close to the camera
     to show).  Handwritten on the photo is
       "The Western Union Telegraph Co.
      Chattanooga Works

    Dining Room of 18 Man Camp Car Outfit"

     There are steam radiators under the windows on both sides.]

  The second coach or dining car had living quarters to accommodate
the man and his wife who were the cooks, a shower room and wash room
for the men, and the dining room and kitchen.

       [Photograph, titled "Tool Car" shows a box car, lettered
       "Western Union Telegraph Co.  W.U.T.X. 3550; and "Tool
       Car" near the door.]

  The tool car housed the tools, Delco light plant and battery bank,
coal bin, icebox, and storage space for vegetables.  The Delco plant
furnished power for the operation of all lights.  The electrical
system was 32 volts d-c.  The automatic water pressure pump supplied
water pressure for the dining car only.  The tank car (water car)
which carried the water supply was adjacent to the tool car.  Water
was carried from the tank to two auxiliary "possum belly" tanks
located under the dining car; from these it was pumped out by the
automatic pump as required.

     [Photograph, titled "Tank Car" shows a tank car with lettering
     "Western Union
     W.U.T.X. 4416     Water Car"]

  In the early days, the outfit cooks consisted of two men, a "Bull
Cook" and a "Flunky."  This arrangement was not a reliable one,
especially if the outfit happened to be located near a bootlegger or a
saloon and the cooks happened to be fond of drink.  By 1918 a more
dependable arrangement had been found; and man and his wife were being
hired as cooks for each outfit.

  By 1943, Republic Pictures rented one of these outfits at Cedar
City, Utah for use in portraying an early-day passenger train.  It
"starred" in the film "in Old Oklahoma" and "co-starred" John Wayne
and Martha Scott.  The studio repainted the exterior of the coaches
with water colors for the filming and paid the expenses of the Western
Union crew at a local hotel while the cars were in use.  The is one of
the favorite reminiscences of the men who used to work in the gangs,
along with other such highly personal remembrances as the time a gang
foreman tried to make homemade elderberry wine secretly and it foamed
out of his locker because he did not allow for expansion in the
container during fermentation.

  There were several contributing factors that forced the discon-
tinuance of the use of this last representative outfit of the camp car
era.  The reduction in the size of line crews from the original
sixteen men to an average of about eight made the operation of an
outfit more expensive than hotel accommodations would have been.
Because western railroads had discontinued the use of their own camp
car outfits wherever possible and had removed storage tracks in a
majority of the small towns, it became necessary for Western Union to
construct temporary spur tracks for the outfit at a cost of about
$700.00 per location.  Also, the repair parts for the Delco lighting,
the water pressure system, the Arcola heating system, and the
coal-burning cook stove were no longer available from any source.  At
the end, the outfit was kept in operation for several years for the
sole purpose of handling projects located in the mountain and desert
regions of the Pacific Division where hotel accommodations are few.

  With the sale of outfit No. 10, the graybeards mourn the passing of
an era that began in the days when the line gangs were paid their
earnings in gold coins sent to the foreman by way of American Railway
Express and has ended in these days when line crews are paid by
machine-punched checks.

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

[e-mail]   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Bravo! ... and thank you for sending along this
wonderful bit of nostalgia. And from an old magazine which is a piece
of nostalgia in itself.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rob Hansen)
Subject: Something Nice From GTE!
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 23:09:20 PDT


I never expected to think a positive thought about GTE in my life!

I lived under their tyrannical rule for six years, escaping three
years ago into the not-much-better-but-hey-at-least-it's-not-GTE world
of Pacific Bell.

Well, about two months ago, I got a piece of what looked like junk
mail from GTE California.  It was not a customized/tailored letter;
rather it appeared to be a mass mailing to pseudo random addresses.
The letter said, effectively, "If you were ever a lifeline customer,
you may be eligible for a refund of $8 or more.  Call us if you want."

So I called.  They took my old GTE number, my new address, and said
they'd research it and mail me a check if warranted.  In today's mail
was a check from GTE for $115.27 !!!  No letter, just the check and
the stub.

Since I haven't been a customer of theirs for three + years, you can
imagine my surprise.  Merry Christmas from GTE of all the unlikely
colourless bureaucracies ...


Rob   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1992 14:46 MST
From: "DOV - DR. ART ST. GEORGE" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 5ESS Question


Has anyone upgraded from a 5ESS switch release #5 to #7? If so,
what costs (other than the obvious bucks) and tradeoffs are there
in doing so? What advice do you have? Thanks.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 12:17:07 PST
From: [e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin)
Subject: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc.


     To avoid stupid flames, let me first say that although discussing
obscenity, I find the concept of telephone pornography disgusting.
When you don't know who will be calling, arguments regarding "freedom
of speech" are, in my opinion, out the window.  Anyway, now to my
questions:

    It seems that in most area codes, numbers which spell seven-letter
obsceneties are routed to intercept recordings.

Examples of such numbers are: 382-5968 or 277-4653.  I wonder, has
somebody at the phone company figured out a list of numbers that will
not be assigned, or were such numbers originally given out and then
disconnected due to prank calls.  How large is the list of numbers
which are unassigned because of what they spell?

     On a related topic, most of the (900) numbers that deal with
phone sex etc, seem to be in the 303 or 844 exchanges.  Are these
exchanges assigned to a particular carrier, do they cover a particular
geographic area, or what?  Also, does anyone know what is the most
expensive minimum charge for a (900) call?  The most expensive call
I've heard about is: "Talk to two (description omitted) girls at the
same time! It's only $5.00 per minute with a little ten-minute
minimum!".  Are there any numbers costing more than $50?


Doug Martin       [e-mail]

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

From: Harn-Jier Lin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Searching For Cordless Telephone II (ctII) Information
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology / Academic Computing Center
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 22:18:50 GMT


I was thinking to buy a cordless telephone II which apply digital
transmission technology.  But my problem is I have no idea who
manufacture this kind of product in the U.S. and what's the function
in the product. I appreciate any information and if I somebody also
insterested in this and I have sufficient information. I would to send
the information to whoever also insterested. Thanks in advance.


Harn-Jier Lin    Please reply me by e-mail at [e-mail].

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 08:17:33 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Answering Machines With Video Cameras


There was an article on the radio this morning that said that AT&T is
coming out with an answering machine with a color screen and minature
video camera and will sell for just under $2,000.

Does anyone know anything about this?


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

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 10:17:18 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 0 + NPA + 7D Did Not Work


I am just back from Ohio, where I made some calls from pay phones to
the time of day service back in Philadelphia at 215-846-1212.  >From
some UTS phones (United Telephone System?), I could not get
0-215-846-1212 to work, and I had to use 10288 in front of this (to
call via AT&T).

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 14:24:02 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jim Leone)
Subject: Tariffs For 900 Service


Patrick,

Besides the local library (here in Buffalo), is there any on-line
source which gives the FCC 900 tariffs?  I have never seen it and my
local NY Telephone representative says it's a large 25 volume set.  Is
this information available with anonymous ftp?  Thanks.


Jim Leone

Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet: leone@canisius

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 08:23:21 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: One Plus Dialing


I've noticed in my telephone book that whenever an 800 number is given
the directions are to "Dial 1+" then 800-XXX-XXXX.  My area code (516)
doesn't require 1+800 for anything and shouldn't for quite some time
so I'm curious as to why these instructions are given in the first
place.

Could it be that it's to get subscribers conditioned for that far-off
day when 1+ will be necessary?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #5
****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17901;
          5 Jan 92 2:18 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05734
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 00:31:36 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08863
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 00:31:19 -0600
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 00:31:19 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #6

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Jan 92 00:31:12 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 6

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Email Between AT&T Easylink and the Internet (Alan Toscano)
    Compression Bridges Ethernet-Ethernet (John Stigall)
    Who Picked Exchange Names? (Douglas W. Martin)
    Questions About Calling Remote Areas (Douglas W. Martin)
    I Want to Locate a Magazine: "Telecom Gear" (Gary Sarff)
    American Express and ANI (John Higdon)
    AT&T Mail "Monthly Usage Minimum" Suspended (Fred Linton)
    USADirect and Poland Update: Now There IS a Number) (Fred Linton)
    Is the NYC Phonebook Online Somewhere? (Florian Gutzwiller)
    AT&T VoiceMark Service (Steve M. Kile)
    Problem With PAC*TEL Cordless Phone ([e-mail])
    Help With Novatel PTR800a Handheld Programming (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Jolson on the Phone (was Telecom's Greatest Hits) (Bill Higgins)
    Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as Second Digit? (Gary Deol)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: wu/O=ALAN_TOSCANO/DD.ELN=[e-mail]
Date: Fri Jan  3 15:51:56 GMT 1992
Subject: Email Between AT&T Easylink and the Internet


AT&T EasyLink Services operates two public electronic mail services.
The larger of the two, EasyLink Instant Mail Service (IMS), was
acquired about a year ago from Western Union Corporation. The other is
the AT&T Mail Service.  While these systems will likely be merged
together sometime in the future, they remain distinct for now,
connected via an X.400 link. Through this link, and some rather
bizarre syntax, I believe it is generally possible for Internet users
to address mail to EasyLink IMS mailboxes, and for IMS users to
address Internet users. (Undoubtedly, there will be some mailers which
choke on the necessary syntax.)

EasyLink mailboxes are assigned an eight-digit EasyLink Number (ELN)
which always begins with the digits "62." For example, my IMS
mailbox's ELN is 62-306-750.

     To address an EasyLink IMS mailbox:

     To: wu/O=RECIPIENT_NAME/DD.ELN=[e-mail]

In this example, RECIPIENT_NAME would be replaced with an appropriate
name.  Use underscore ("_") characters in place of spaces. The value
of the "/O=" (organization) entry will be used by IMS for an attention
line. It is required, but is not significant in message routing.
Rather, the required /DD.ELN specification will determine the routing
on the IMS system. In a real-life example, my mailbox may be
addressed as:

     To: wu/O=ALAN_TOSCANO/DD.ELN=[e-mail]

Note: All IMS mailboxes have an associated ELN, but *not all* ELNs
have associated IMS mailboxes. Sometimes they represent mailboxes on
other systems linked to IMS via X.400. In this special case, you will
probably be unable to successfully address the ELN from the Internet.

Addressing the Internet from EasyLink IMS is somewhat more
complicated. Owing to its Telex heritage, EasyLink converts all
alphabetic characters in addresses to uppercase -- unless they're
preceded by a bang ("!"). To include an actual bang in an address, you
must type it twice. Here's the address format which I used to submit
this article from EasyLink IMS to <[e-mail]>:

     PTS
     IPM
     SUBJECT EMAIL BETWEEN AT&T EASYLINK AND THE INTERNET
     PRIMARY
     COUNTRY US
     ADMD ATTMAIL
     ORG UUCP
     DDA ID-INTERNET!!EECS.NWU.EDU!!!T!E!L!E!C!O!M
     END+

(Modify the SUBJECT and DDA lines as appropriate for each message.)

While IMS has on-line documentation for X.400 addressing in general,
there is NO ON-LINE DOCUMENTATION for sending mail specifically to the
Internet.  Therefore, I would suggest that Internet users provide an
appropriate return address, formatted as above, within the body of
their letter, whenever they first write to an IMS user. If an IMS user
will be writing to a particular Internet address frequently, the
recipient's X.400 address may be stored on-line as a Redilist.


A Alan Toscano Voice: [phone] AT&T Mail: atoscano
<[e-mail]> CIS: 73300,217 ELN: 62306750

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

From: [e-mail] (john stigall)
Subject: Compression Bridges Ethernet-Ethernet
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 21:11:37 GMT


Hello,

I need help finding info on compression bridges for a link to a far
remote site via four-wire modems. What I have found so far is the
Cryptall 3000 series compression bridge for $7900 list each. Has
anyone had experience with these bridges? I am looking for other
alternatives as well ... we want to run multiple protocols over the
link and hopefully compression will give us greater throughput than
routers.

Ideas? Thanks in advance.


The opinions expressed are entirely my own, not my employers.
John Stigall - Indiana University Computing Services Network
[e-mail]  > Ham Radio: [e-mail] <

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 14:02:53 PST
From: [e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin)
Subject: Who Picked Exchange Names?


     When telephone exchanges had names, who was given the
responsibility or honor of picking the names?  I grew up in Cleveland,
Oh, where a few names made sense, but most did not.  In the downtown
area we had: Tower (originally assigned to offices in the Terminal
Tower, Cleveland's tallest building), Prospect, Superior, and Main:
named after streets, etc.  However, most exchange names meant nothing;
e.g. Evergreen, Cherry, Redwood, Henderson, etc.  If your number was
in the 382 exchange, why not use Evergreen?  But who assigned the
names to the various prefixes?  And who was "Henderson" named after?
In Cleveland, we also had Utah and Tuxedo (both 88x) I am using
Cleveland exchanges only because they are familiar to me, but my
question is general: who had the authority to assign the names?


Doug Martin       [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Since in those days AT&T was the parent of all the
Bell Companies and coordinated everything else they did, I assume some
person or department at AT&T thought them up ... whoever it was, they
had a vivid imagination! :) Consider these from Chicago's past:
INTerocean, PALisaides, OPEra, AVEnue, FINancial, HAymarket-1, UPTown,
EDGewater, LOngbeach-1, MIDway, NORmal and MUseum-4, to name a few I
liked. Then there was also INDependence, HYDe Park and ROGers Park;
DANube, VICtory, CANal, and CALumet. And maybe a couple dozen more. In
the thirty-two years I've had phone service, I went from my first
number which was EAStgate to GRAceland to ESTebrook to WHItehall to
RAVenswood to HYDe Park to DElaware-7 to SUPerior to LAKeview, to the
number I've had for fifteen years on the SHEldrake exchange. (When I
was young, and in my prime I used to change telephone numbers all the
time -- and apartments.)  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 16:45:03 PST
From: [e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin)
Subject: Questions About Calling Remote Areas


     I am looking for information about calling remote areas of the US
and Canada.  Several months ago, there was some discussion in this
digest about new area codes such as (820) which would be used for
places that are now undialable.  Where are the undialable points in
the US and Canada?  Are these operated as toll stations or something
else?

I would be interested in compiling a list of toll stations and
undialable points that are still around.

     On a related topic, there must be large, remote areas served by a
single CO, or even a single exchange.  Does anyone know what COs serve
the largest geographic area, e.g. central Nevada, Eastern Alaska, etc?
When I was last in Alaska, I remember a forty-fifty-page phone book
that covered almost the whole length of the Richardson Highway, from
neer Greeley or Delta, all the way south to Valdez.  As I recall,
there weren't many exchanges for this whole region.  Any information
about similar large areas served by a single CO or a single exchange
would be appreciated.


Thanks,

Doug Martin      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: There are still hundreds of toll stations around.
About two years ago, John Covert favored us with an article here
listing several of the more unusually-named ones. Perhaps he will
write us again soon. The manual exchanges are all gone -- I guess! --
but the last time a newspaper reported 'the final one cut over' (I
think it was Bryant Pond), it was only a few months and another one
was found which was being converted.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary Sarff)
Subject: I Want to Locate a Magazine: "Telecom Gear"
Organization: Spies in the wire, [phone]
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 15:42:46 -0800


I had a question regarding equipment and was referred to a publication
called "Telecom Gear".  I am not familiar with this publication and
would like to know any information regarding contacting them, address
or phone number, just city and state, whatever anyone has.  Thanks.


[Moderator's Note: I believe Telecom Gear is part of Harry Newton's
organization in New York City. Try 1-800-LIBRARY.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 92 10:47 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: American Express and ANI


I have finally unravelled a minor mystery. After a recent extended
trip, American Express was apparently having recession jitters and
became concerned that my payment was a week late. Never mind that I
have been a good account for years and years.

Anyway, the "collector" called my mother (!?!) and asked to speak to
me. For various reasons, I have requested that my mother not act as a
directory service and to simply tell people that are looking for me
that they have reached the wrong number. It is not as if I am hiding;
my number is listed. But I do not feel that idiots going down the
phone listings need to be given any special help.

The collector became very annoyed and said that this was the number
that I had given to them and demanded to know how I could be reached.
She told him that my number was listed and he could look it up. He
responded that he was calling from (some out-of-state city; I forget
which) and he would appreciate being given my number. Mom's answer:
"I'm not directory assistance", and hung up.

Apparently, Amex sprung for the fifty cents because a message was left
on my machine. When I finally talked to someone, I was told that my
mother's number was the one they had on their records. We corrected
that and I gave them a piece of my mind over their collection tactics.

Yesterday, I got a call from Amex over another matter (charge
dispute).  The call came in on my private line. Then it hit me: Amex
apparently enters the number you are calling from as your official
phone of record when the rep sees fit. Yes, I had called Amex from my
mother's phone some months before to complain about some bogus
Compu$erve charges. And when I returned "Mr. Collector's" call last
month, I used my private line.

So here is a word to the wise: if you call American Express, be sure
to make it clear that the phone you are using is NOT your personal
telephone if such is the case. Otherwise your girl/boy friend,
employer, barber, or modem may receive calls meant for you.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat Jan  4 14:34:10 EST 1992
Subject: AT&T Mail "Monthly Usage Minimum" Suspended


 From my latest AT&T Mail bill:

     PLEASE NOTE, IN RESPONSE TO FEEDBACK FROM OUR CUSTOMERS WE
     HAVE DECIDED TO SUSPEND THE RECENTLY ANNOUNCED NEW MONTHLY
     MINIMUM CHARGES ON AT&T MAIL.  LOOK FOR AN UPCOMING
     ANNOUNCEMENT ON NEW BILLING CHOICES NEXT MONTH.


Fred  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat Jan  4 14:43:44 EST 1992
Subject: USADirect and Poland Update: Now There IS a Number


The USADirect situation from Poland has changed since my report of
December.  According to a USADirect ad in the inflight magazine my
recent trip to New Mexico showed me, one can now reach USADirect by
dialing 010 480 0111 from selected phones in Warsaw, and 0 [new dial
tone] 010 480 0111 outside Warsaw.


Fred  <[e-mail]> <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com>

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 92 20:51:38 GMT+0100
From: [e-mail] (Florian Gutzwiller)
Subject: Is the NYC Phonebook Online Somewhere?


I am seeking a way to find out a postal address of somebody in NYC
that has a secret phone number only. The Swiss operator no longer gets
address information from the NYC operator.

Is there a way accessing an electronic edition of the NYC phone book,
or could anybody look someone up for me in the printed one ;-).


Thanks,

Florian

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T VoiceMark Service
Date: Sat,  4 Jan 92 07:49:16 PST


Several weeks ago I was able to use the AT&T VoiceMark service from my
home (612-888-XXXX) however today I was not able to do so.  Has the
number changed (800-576-MARK) or has the service been discontinued?
Do any other carriers offer a similar service?  Thanks.


Steve Kile
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1992 16:24:48 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Problem With PAC*TEL Cordless Phone


Dear TD readers!

On my last visit to the United States, I bought a GREAT Technologies
(Model CS8001) cordless phone (Manufactured for PAC*TEL Products by
GREAT Technologies). I used it once in a motel and it worked. It uses
an AC 120V/60Hz/4W --> DC 9V 200mA power converter.

Back in Switzerland, I had to buy a new power converter, because we
operate on 220V/50Hz. Although the phone works well, it produces an
annoying buzzer-like sound which is more or less loud depending on the
location. I tried it out with three different power converters, yes, I
even tried it with a 9V E-Block-type battery and on different
locations, but it always sounds like an amplified power-converter-
sound, even without the phone-line connected to it.

Does anybody know where this sound comes from, as there should really
be no noise when operated with a battery (at least this sounds
logical) or has anybody else had problems with this particular
cordless phone? The noise is really that loud that normal operation is
impossible.  There is a help-line (1-800-426-2372), but 800 numbers
can not be dialed from outside the US of course.

Thanks for any help and suggestions.

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

Date: 4-JAN-1992 06:32:43.40
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help With Novatel PTR800a Handheld Programming


Just got myself a Novatel PTR800A handheld ... NICE phone (and a great
price of only $98!), but it doesn't seem to conform to the standard
Novatel programming methods which the bag phones use, ie, FUNC + LOCK
+ 1, then #259 to enter program mode.

Anyhow, anyone know how to enter the programming mode in this one?

Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks in advance,


Doug

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1992 8:31:29 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Jolson on the Phone (was Telecom's Greatest Hits)


Patrick, I can't *believe* the vast and erudite readership of TELECOM
Digest failed to mention "Hello, My Baby," a big hit for Al Jolson in
the Twenties.  It's purely about telephony.  I can only recall the
chorus.

Hello, my baby, hello, my honey
Hello, my ragtime gal
Send me a kiss by wire
Honey, my heart's on fire

If you refuse me, honey, you'll lose me
Then you'll be left alone
So, honey, telephone
And tell me I'm your own ...

It's a good song for practicing your Jolson imitation in the shower ...
take it from me ... though nothing can really beat "Toot-Toot-Tootsie,
Goodbye."


Bill Higgins (have ukulele, will travel) Internet: [e-mail]
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory    Bitnet:   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit?
From: [e-mail] (Gary Deol)
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 92 17:05:34 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems, Edmonton, AB, Canada


Does anybody know why the middle number in a area-code is always a
zero or one? Things that make you say Hmmmmmmmm :^)


Gary Deol              [e-mail]
Edmonton Remote Systems:  Serving Northern Alberta since 1982

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #6
****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20669;
          5 Jan 92 3:12 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31615
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 01:28:23 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22278
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 01:28:08 -0600
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 01:28:08 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #7

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Jan 92 01:28:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 7

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Son of Telesphere Pays 21.4 Million to Chairman (WSJ via John Nagle)
    Caller-ID Rejected in Indiana (John R. Levine)
    GTE Sells Their Share in Sprint to United Telecom (John R. Levine)
    Motorola Transportable Information Wanted (TELECOM Moderator)
    Question Not Answered by 800/900 Thread (Thomas Lapp)
    USA Today's 800 Turned 900 Number (Jack Decker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Son of Telesphere Pays $21.4 Million to Chairman
Date: 4 Jan 92 19:31:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[Moderator's Note: This was posted in comp.org.eff.talk and I thought
you might be interested.  PAT]

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

     Remember Telesphere, the defunct AOS from hell?  Well, they're
back, in a new incarnation.  And it doesn't look good.

     {Wall Street Journal} article, Jan 3, p. A8, starts off with "New
Credit Line is used for Payment to Chairman".  "International
Telecharge Inc. of Dallas said it lined up a new, $21.4 million credit
line, backed by accounts receivable, and drew down all of it partly to
make a payment to its chairman."

     "The provider of long-distance services said the financing is
backed by its accounts and former accounts of Telesphere Communications,
Inc., whose assets it bought last year."

     International Telecharge is headed by Ronald J. Haan of Haan
Ventures, Inc.  He gets a royalty of 10% of the net operating revenue
from Telesphere's customer base, says the WSJ, with a minimum of
$500,000 a month.  The credit line was used to make a $17.4 million
prepayment on these royalties.

     If you're a creditor of Telesphere, having your lawyers take a
very close look at these transactions might be worthwhile.


John Nagle

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

Subject: Caller-ID Rejected in Indiana
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 0:29:15 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


On Dec 31, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission unanimously
rejected an Indiana Bell Proposal for Caller-ID, citing privacy
concerns.  Bell proposed an unblockable offering at $7.50/month.  They
suggested Bell offer Call Trace and implied that they would approve
C-ID so long as it was provided with free per-line blocking.  Bell
said they were disappointed, claimed that C-ID would not be valuable
if blockable, and wasn't sure whether they'd submit a modified
proposal.

On Friday, state Rep. Phyllis Pond, R-New Haven, submitted a bill to
override the IURC decision, making the familiar referencs to obscene
phone calls, and saying: "Just because I own a phone does not mean
that I should be a target for unsolicited sales pitches.  Those who
would pay to install the Caller ID feature on their phone lines are
probably the ones who are receiving these nuisance phone calls."  Her
bill would forbid per-line and maybe per-call C-ID.


Regards,

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

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

Subject: GTE Sells Their Share in Sprint to United Telecom
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 0:37:36 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


United Telecom will finally buy the last 19.9% of Sprint from GTE for
$530M on January 31, barring unexpected regulatory snags.  United will
pay $250M then, the rest on July 1, and will borrow money to finance
the sale.  Once the sale is complete, United will change their name to
Sprint.

The sale was planned for quite a while but the price and terms hadn't
been set.  United already operates Sprint, so no day-to-day changes
are expected.

GTE is also selling their Sylvania unit to concentrate on cellular and
local exchange service.  GTE is now the largest local exchange carrier
in the country, bigger than any of the baby bells.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1992 23:34:29 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Motorola Transportable Information Wanted


I now have an older (1987) Motorola transportable cellular phone to
replace the bag phone I had which expired on me the day before New
Year's Eve.  I got this phone second hand from someone who replaced it
with a new phone in his car. He had very scanty information about it
-- no user manual, etc -- but he was able to get a couple pages of
basic programming details; how to put in your number, your carrier
identification code, etc.

I got the phone working and assigned to my account on Cellular One to
replace the bag phone, but I sure would like some additional details.

For example:

What values should be in the 'station class mark', the access overload
class', and the 'group ID'? The 'group ID' should not be confused with
the Carrier ID, which for Cellular One/Chicago is 00001. The person
who aided me in getting the phone programmed said for the time being
to use '6 or 14 for portable/personal, and 12 for standalone mobile'.
I am not sure of the difference. He said 'use zero and the last digit
of the phone number for the access overload class', so I put in 04,
but I am not sure what it means or why I put it there. For the group
ID he had me put in 10, yet on my Radio Shack handheld and on the old
bag phone this had a value of 15. What is the difference, and which
should I use now?  Does this have to do with using all 832 channels?
In fact, *does* this unit get all 832 channels?

For the 'initial paging channel' I put in 333 because it is my
understanding the 'B' carriers start at 334 and work up while the 'A'
carriers start at 333 and work down. Right or wrong?

Then there was one with no documentation whatsoever: Program item 10
gets set for 'options' (unexplained) and the binary amount 011100 was
there by factory default, so I left it. But what does it mean? What
are the options available?

The little documentation I got also had program item 11 which called
for 'factory setting of 000', and someone had written on the docs to
make this 110 instead ... but I don't even get item 11 on this phone;
it cycles from 10 back around to 1.  Any ideas on items 10-11 and the
'options' allowed in each would be appreciated, particularly why I
cannot get 11.

Next, I'd like to know about the pin out which connects the battery
and the radio. It is a 25 pin connector, just like on a modem or
terminal, but I am sure the pins are not for the same purpose. Is
there any way to read what's in the radio via my terminal/modem?

Finally, and this is perhaps the most important of all, this radio is
the type that after X programming attempts, it locks up until it gets
completely reset. Since you can't (as far as I know) do that from the
keyboard in the head, I assume you have to do something to the pins
which connect the battery and the radio. For example, in the Radio
Shack CT-301 handheld, shorting one of the pins to ground allows a
keyboard entry called 'Local / Test Mode' not available when the
battery is installed normally (without the pin shorted to ground).
This local, or test mode allows all sorts of changes including zeroing
out the counters, etc. Is this possible on the Motorola so I don't
have to send it away for help?

The handset says this model is TLN-2777-A and the user-programmable
features are done by <control>, 0, security code twice, *. 'Control'
is the black button on the side which also regulates the volume. The
phone was originally a promotional item from GTE Mobilenet apparently
since it says that on the handset, although the main unit says it is a
Motorola.  Any help appreciated. A spare technical manual and user
manual sent to me would be very nice.


Patrick Townson
PO Box 1570
Chicago, IL 60690-1570

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 91 17:29:21 EST
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question Not Answered by 800/900 Thread


I've read all the postings with interest on the 800/900 free/not free
thread, but could not find anything related to the one question which
came to mind while reading.

In earlier Digests, I have learned that 900 service can be purchased
by anyone wanting to pay the fees for setup, minimum use, etc.  The
900 folks charge me $xxx/minute, and I advertise $xxx+profit/minute
rate so I make some money.

The question that I would have is that since a switch error was made
for the {USA Today} number, does that mean that the newspaper was
still charged the same rate for those calls that came in via 800, or
is that just billable profit to the newspaper?  Since 800 service is a
lot cheaper to get than 900 service (as an IP, not a user), it would
seem that if that was the case, then the idea of direct billing for
use of IP would result in much lower costs than the rates advertised
even if AT&T billed the newspaper at daytime inward WATS rates.  The
actual story of how the billing was done and who was charged what
would certainly make an interesting story to read.

In answer to a possible question, yes, I did call the number with the
expectation that it MIGHT not be billed to me, but probably would be.
I used the services, and expect to pay for it.


tom    internet : [e-mail]    Location : Newark, DE, USA

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jan 92 22:36:29 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: USA Today's 800 Turned 900 Number


Pat, it's apparent to me that you are not swayed by public opinion,
and indeed there may be some justification for the thought that those
who kept repeatedly dialing the {USA Today} number should be charged for
it, except that this nagging thought keeps hitting me.  If one has
phone service and takes all possible precautions to prevent dialing of
extra-charge numbers, why should a charge be allowed simply because a
technical mistake is made?  You're looking at just one side of the
picture, which is that those who kept taking advantage of a technical
flaw to get something that they knew full well they should have been
paying for should have in fact been required to pay.  I suggest that
perhaps you should consider the other side of this.

Forget for a moment the person who knows full well that he made the
calls from his home phone, in the hope that he would not get charged.
Let's consider the owner of a phone (be it residential, business,
COCOT or whatever) who has taken the reasonable and prudent steps to
make sure that "900" number charges are not billed to his phone ... in
particular, he has had 900 number blocking placed on his phone line.

Now a charge for a 900 call shows up on his bill.  I get the feeling
that under such circumstances you'd have no sympathy, you'd say he
should pay it and go after whoever made the call.  I don't buy it.  If
the phone company undertakes to offer a 900 blocking service, and a
900 call gets through anyway, and it cannot be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that the OWNER of the phone knowingly took some
action to circumvent the call blocking, then he or she should be off
the hook.

In other words ... let's say that I am having a party and I don't
quite trust some of my friends.  So, I put my valuables in a safe
deposit box, lock up the good silverware, and call the phone company
to have 900/976 blocking put on my phone.  I may even pay a "service
order" charge to have this done in some areas.  Now, the point is that
by accepting my order, the phone company has undertaken to provide a
certain service ... namely, to prevent certain types of extraordinarily
expensive calls from being made from my phone.  Now a TELECOM Digest
reader happens to attend my party and, unknown to me, amuses himself
by calling {USA Today's} 800 number, after which I get a bill for 900
number calls.  Since I have (in this hypothetical situation) 900
blocking, I really cannot by any stretch of the imagination see where
I should be responsible for such a call.

What strikes me as really screwy about this is that you have the
telephone companies and AT&T, who have millions of dollars worth of
computerized equipment that SHOULD be able to correctly route and bill
calls, and you're telling the guy who may have nothing more than a
$9.95 cheapie phone that HE has to keep track of every single number
dialed because the phone company might be charging for calls to an 800
number.  I don't buy it.  Personally, I don't think any phone company
should EVER be allowed to charge for calls to an 800 number for ANY
reason, because just about everybody in North America associates "800"
with "free call."  And the fact that it took someone a month to find
and fix the problem is absurd.

Pat, suppose you left home for a month's vacation, and after a day or
two you got a call from a neighbor saying "You must have left your
front door unlocked.  I see people going in and walking off with your
property from time to time."  And you basically said "well, I'm gone
for a month, I'll take care of it when I get back."  And in the
meantime, someone spread the word that someone at your home was giving
things away to the poor, all they needed to do was come and take
whatever they needed ... so that some who took from you were aware
that they were taking something they shouldn't, but others were not
(remember that some were saying the {USA Today} number was a demo
line).

Now if I were the police captain called (after you got back) to sort
out the mess, I'd first of all want to know why on earth you didn't
take some action to protect your property before the month was up!
And I certainly wouldn't bring charges against those who took your
property thinking that it was being given away, especially if they
brought it back.

The problem in this scenario is that there's no police captian to
demand to know why AT&T (or whoever was responsible for this fiasco)
didn't do something about it before a month went by ... in effect, the
phone companies get to play judge and jury here, and that's wrong.
And in the second place, those folks who are getting billed have
nothing to give back.

And besides all of that, I have to agree with the person who said that
you were abusing your authority as Moderator by saying you'd send
letters to AT&T and {USA Today}.  I don't know ... either you've never
been victimized by having calls appear on your bill with no idea where
they came from, or you have but for some reason you don't empathize
with others who might be suffering through that.

The bottom line: I agree that those who called the {USA Today} number
knowing full well that they were taking something they should be
paying for did something they shouldn't have.  But as the old saying
goes, two wrongs do not make a right.  It is also wrong, and dangerous
precedent in my opinion, to allow a telephone company to take a call
that was dialed as a "free" call, using an access code known
throughout North America and firmly planted in many minds, computers,
PBX's, COCOT's, toll restrictors and other equipment as being the code
for a "free" call, and then convert it to toll after the fact ... and
then to allow the situation to continue unabated for a month or more.

By the way, I'm not arguing this because I got stuck for a call ... I
sort of figured something like this might happen and since fighting
with the phone company over a billing dispute is NOT one of my
favorite things to do, I didn't try the number.

But you know, I have to wonder ... if the phone companies are so
incompetent that they can't fix something like this in less than a
month, why do those readers who favor local measured service seem to
think that the phone companies are capable of always producing an
accurate bill for local calls, particularly when they're not required
to itemize them, and the customer therefore has no way of checking
them?

Well, Pat, I don't know if I've convinced you of anything (I doubt it)
but please at least add my voice to those who feel that these calls
should be written off.  I won't lose a penny if they aren't, but I
think we may all lose if whoever allowed this to happen gets away with
collecting for it and profiting from their mistake.


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


[Moderator's Note: There you go, Jack. As you requested, I've added
your voice to the discussion. The thread *really does* have to be
closed now. Thanks.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #7
****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22945;
          5 Jan 92 4:06 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22071
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 02:21:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06338
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 02:21:16 -0600
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 02:21:16 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #8

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Jan 92 02:21:10 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 8

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Lawsuit Claims SW Bell Operated Unauthorized Repair Center (Colin Tuttle)
    Open Systems Forum Announcement (Wayne McDilda)
    CLASS Features on Inter-LATA Calls (was Very Courteous Rep) (Dell Ellison)
    Re: Call 1-900-SOMEONE (Carl Moore)
    Re: Telephone Company Employees (Andy Brager)
    Re: Massachusetts DPU Ponders ISDN Request (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Massachusetts DPU Ponders ISDN Request (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: The Best and The Worst (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: ANI in NJ (Chuck H. Chapman)
    Re: Area Code Splits and our Phone System (Ron Newman)
    Re: Playing Digitized Sound Over T1 == Distorted Sound? (Gil Kloepfer Jr.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Lawsuit Claims SW Bell Operated Unauthorized Repair Center
Date: 3 Jan 92 21:28:02 CST (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (Colin Tuttle)


There was an article in the Friday January 3, 1992 {Daily Oklahoman},
page 11 entitled "Texas Firm Sues Bell" written by staff writer Bob
Vandewater.  The story is about a firm who is suing Southwestern Bell
for $60 million.

Here is a transcription of part of the article:
(Dodds is Chuck Dodds, president Circuit Repair Technology Inc. of
Brownwood, TX)

Dodds said the suit stems from his firm's 1989 purchase from the phone
company of telecommunications circuit repair equipment that was among
the assets of Integrated Circuit Technologies, Inc., an alleged former
Bell affiliate in Oklahoma City during the mid 1980's.

"As an inducement to purchase the equipment, Circuit Repair Technology
alleges it was promised substantial repair business from Southwestern
Bell by high-ranking Southwestern Bell officials in Oklahoma," he
said.  "We purchased equipment from Southwestern Bell in good faith
and were promised that we would have the business that the internal
group planned to handle, and we didn't get it."  Dodds said.

"It appears we may have been the unwitting participant in a possible
Southwestern Bell coverup."  he said.

Dodds said Bell in late 1986 asked the federal judge who presided over
the 1984 breakup of the AT&T/Bell System to lift a restriction against
the company becoming involved in the electronic repair business.

But he said, "This waiver request was made nearly a full year after
the Oklahoma City Southwestern Bell repair facility was in operation."
"The waiver request was never approved," he said.  However, "in early
1987 the Oklahoma City repair organization was secretly disbanded and
all of its assets stored," including those later sold to Circuit
Repair, Dodds said.

"I'm not saying Southwestern Bell violated provisions" and restrictions
of the AT&T/Bell System breakup order, he said.  But he said, "there
is no doubt in my mind that Southwestern Bell had some very strong
incentives to dispose of that Oklahoma City operation."

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1992 23:49 CST
From: "Wayne McDilda <[e-mail]>
Subject: Open Systems Forum Announcement


Announcing....

                         ==  OPEN SYSTEMS FORUM  ==
                             January 14-16, 1992
                    Stouffer Arboretum Hotel, Austin Texas

Exhibits $10 (Complimentary Tickets Available)
1-Day Conference $75  3-Day Conference $150 (includes lunch, special events)

Some topics to be addressed:

   POSIX                 Electronic Benefits Transfer          X.400
   GNMP                  Client Server Computer                X.500
   IGOSS                 Security                              ISDN
   OSI                   Transition Planning                   SONET
   LANs & WANs           Email & Directory Services            ASN.1
   FIPS                  OSE Components                        X/Open


For registration information call Debi Christenbury @ [phone]
Department of Information Resources               FAX [phone]

The purpose of the forum is to present and examine Open Systems topics
of interest to managers and technical staff, and to present the Texas
phased plan for migration to Open Systems.

Topics to be covered include: open system technologies, strategic
planning, the business case for open systems and benefits, application
and data migration strategies, training issues, distributed
architectures, local and wide area networking, ISDN, SONET, messaging
handling systems, directory services, open system environment
standards to include: Applications Portability Profile, Industry
Government Open Systems Specification, Government Network Management
Profile and Federal Information Processing Standards; X/Open
Portability Guide and Common Applications Environment; Open Management
Interoperability Point, multimedia systems.

Each morning there will be a joint session for all attendees, in the
afternoons separate seminar sessions (Management / Computing
Environment / Database and Transaction Processing / Local & Wide Area
Networking) will be available, and on Tuesday and Wednesday nights
special events are scheduled.

The three day registration fee is $150.00.  One day is $75.00.
Several payments methods are available. Please call Debi Christenbury
@ [phone] to register or ask for a registration form to be
FAXed to your location.

The forum is from Tuesday January 14 through Thursday January 16, at
the Stouffer's Hotel in Austin, Texas. Stouffer's phone is (512)
343-2626 and it is located at the intersection of US Hwy 183 and the
Capitol of Texas Hwy (Loop 360).

As an added bonus the OMNICOM Training Week has been moved to Austin
to coincide with the DIR forum.  Please call 1-800-OMNICOM for
information or registration. Special prices have been prearranged for
state employees.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dell H. Ellison)
Subject: CLASS Features on Inter-LATA Calls (was Very Courteous Rep)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 16:37:08 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> CLASS features only work for intra-LATA calls from exchanges equipped
> with SS7.  As for the call waiting call, I'm pretty sure it would be
> ...

Are you sure?  I think the CLASS features will work for inter-LATA
calls as long as they have SS7 all the way along the path.

Besides, I would think that all the switch would need, so that it
could do the Call Return, would be the phone number.  And it
definitely should have that.


Dell H. Ellison   ...!uunet!mcdchg!motcid!ellisond    Motorola, Inc.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 10:41:03 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call 1-900-SOMEONE


The AT&T Voicemark system (800-562-MARK --> 800-562-6275) only makes
it optional to provide your name when sending messages.  You get
billed for the calls (on bank statement if Visa or Master Card is
used) or on your phone bill.  Please don't use this information to
make unwelcome calls.

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 08:34:14 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Andy Brager)
Subject: Re: Telephone Company Employees
Organization: Wonder Server - Public Access for SoCal


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

> [ regarding automated-attendants at telco customer-service numbers]

> What also works is to remain silent when prompted to enter touch tone
> digits.  These systems generally don't know whether the caller is
> touch-tone-equipped or not.  If the first prompt is met with silence,
> it should be designed to assume that tone-dial equipment is not
> available, and should attempt to connect you with a human.

That no longer works with my bank's 24 hour service.  If you stay
silent, they connect you to another system which will accept voice
input.  You find yourself yelling ZERO ZERO ZERO at the phone ...


Andy
cerritos.edu!wndrsvr!andyb        <=========>        [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Massachusetts DPU Ponders ISDN Request
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 15:00:49 GMT


[e-mail] (david.g.lewis) writes:

> Not exactly.  I believe the article is referring to 9.6kbps packet
> switched on the D channel in addition to the 64kbps B channel.

Why can't you use the B channel for data?

> In other words, you're getting the regular POTS equivalent service (B
> channel) plus the D channel packet for the $8/month plus connection
> charges.

Yeah, but you're still paying more for using less hardware and
bandwidth when you pay those connection charges.

> The second B channel would cost more.

So you're getting 50% (approx) of an ISDN as well.


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Massachusetts DPU Ponders ISDN Request
Date: 3 Jan 92 22:03:21 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(peter da silva) writes ...

> In other words, you'd have to pay a premium to actually use *less*
> bandwidth on the phone system (that is, a 2400 baud POTS call uses a
> 64 KB channel or a dedicated line (in the local area), where a 9600
> baud ISDN connection only uses a 9.6 KB channel. Sounds like Touch
> Tone fees all over again.

Here's what they asked for: You pay $5/month to make your line digital
(ISDN) instead of analog.  Then if you want D-channel packet (9.6
nominal throughput), it's another monthly charge (around $8.50) plus
per-packet usage (about $.60/kilosegment).  That's not unreasonable,
since it is an additional service (access to X.25), and X.25 without
ISDN is pathetically expensive in the US.

BUT what goes wrong is the circuit-mode charge.  They want to charge
8c/minute for calls WITHIN the same switch, 16c/minute outside the
switch, for the 64 kbps data service.  That's because you specified a
data bearer service for the call.  And you pay over $20/month for the
right to make/receive such calls.

The trick -- which I advise everyone to use -- is to make the call
while your TE or TA says "bearer service = 3.1 kHz audio" but then
actually send data.  Since the network is all 64 kbps digital anyway,
it'll work!  But you lose the low-order bit (due to bit-robbed
signaling and no B8ZS on voice T1) so you get only 56 kbps throughput,
using 7/8 coding.  (That's also called V.110/56kbps rate adaptation.)

Some of us have spoken to NET in quite clear terms about our opinion
of their tariff, and we're going to keep talking.  Their proposed
rates are preposterous, aimed only at Centrex users (who don't pay any
usage charges for intra-Centrex calls).

>> The phone company also notes that ISDN data converters
>> cost $700 or more and are incompatible with existing answering
>> machines and other phones.

> The network has to be in place for the economy of scale to exist for
> cheap convertors. There is no reason an ISDN convertor should cost any
> more than a 2400 baud modem (currently, about $70 external) given the
> existing chip sets and reasonable FAB run sizes.

The telco has no say here; ISDN terminal equipment and adapters are
competitively-provided.  They're quite costly today as low-volume
items.  That'll limit ISDN to people who really can use it.  But if
you have a workstation (or high-powered PC) at home and want to do
serious remote computing (say, using X Window System), ISDN is a good
bet even now. (So long as you don't pay the 16c/minute!)

PS -- "ISDN In Perspective" is just now in print, so the Moderator's
review copy should be showing up one of these weeks.


Fred R. Goldstein   voice:  [phone]
[e-mail]   or  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: The Best and The Worst
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 12:05:22 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon wrote about least
and most responsive telcom organizations.

John, for all the bad experiences that I have personally had with the
BOC PacBell and all of the tales of horror that you have told about
Pac*Tel management policy, from your view of someone who has to deal
with PacBell on a regular basis, I thought I'd submit MY entry for
Most Responsive.  It's really a paradox.  I can't figure it out.

Most Responsive:

PacTel Cellular in Atlanta.  There hasn't been a single occasion where
I have called either the business office or my major accounts rep and
NOT hung up the phone satisfied and happy.  Every dealing I have had
with these folks has been of the highest quality.  They have even bent
the rules for me a few times, but in all fairness to PacTel here, I
won't say how or why they bent the rules.  I don't want them to get
swamped with calls from TC Digest readers wanting the same thing. :-)

They have removed roaming charges on my bill when those roaming
charges were simply the result of me activating the Transparent Call
Forwarding in a roamer city -- no calls, just the *31-SEND (I think
it's *31, I may be wrong off-hand).  My impression is that PacTel just
swallowed the charges on these.

Good staff and good management, IMHO.  Maybe it's a left-coast, right-
coast thing?

BTW, four months and counting until the 404/706 split on May 3.  There
will be a four-month permissive dialing period, which ends on August
3.  A telecom-oriented friend and I were speculating not that long ago
about how many new 706'ers will get wrong numbers intended for Mexico.
Which brings to mind the question: when was 706 last used as an area
code for part of Mexico?


Hasta la vista,

Bill

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

From: [e-mail] (Chuck H. Chapman)
Subject: Re: ANI in NJ
Date: 3 Jan 92 17:53:58 GMT


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

> Dialing 958 in the 619 area produces nothing but silence.

In the 404 area code it gives the "We're sorry. You're number can't be
completed as dialed" message.


Charles H. Chapman  (GTRI/MATD)             [phone]
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:     ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!matd!cchapman
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits and our Phone System
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 92 18:00:24 EST
From: Ron Newman <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>, spencer@phoenix.
Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) writes:

> The phone system here at P.U. is a Centrex (at least I suppose so,
> that's what everybody calls our phone book, "The Centrex" so it sounds
> plausible.  I'm ignorant when it comes to phone systems) ... from what
> I've been able to figure out from reading the learned opinions
> expressed here, whether an area code can be dialed or not depends on
> whether the people responsible for maintaining our phone system have
> programmed the system to accept it.

I've never understood this ... why is it necessary for a PBX or
Centrex to know anything at all about valid and invalid area codes and
office codes?  Why can't they just pass everything on to the phone
company and let them screen out invalid numbers?


Ron Newman        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The reason is because what telco considers valid
might still be unwanted by the system proprietor, ie 900 calls; the
use of certain long distance carriers, etc.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 19:14:54 -0600
From: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Playing Digitized Sound Over T1 == Distorted Sound?
Organization: Southwest Systems Development Labs, Houston, TX


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Michael K. Minakami) writes:

> I have some 8khz mulaw sound samples that I got off of a Sun
> SparcStation and have been trying to play them over a T1 line through
> a voice response unit. When I listen to it over a phone, voice sounds
> nasal and music sounds equally distorted.

If you look at the data sheet for the Am79C30A (it's a ISDN Digital
Subscriber Controller chip by AMD, and is used in the SPARCstation to
do the sound), there is a programmable filter register which is
probably set to some non-standard values in the SUN driver.  Since I
haven't gotten the chip yet to play with, I don't know too much about
the effects of setting the filter to different values, but this
register's setting sounds like it could be the problem.


Gil Kloepfer, Jr.  [e-mail] ...!ames!limbic!gil
Southwest Systems Development Labs (Div of ICUS) Houston, Texas

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #8
****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25049;
          5 Jan 92 5:04 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25610
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 03:10:28 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32161
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 03:10:12 -0600
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 03:10:12 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #9

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Jan 92 03:09:16 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 9

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phone Company Humor (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Joel Lessenberry)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (David W. Barts)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Barry Mishkind)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Doug Faunt)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Jack Decker)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Charlie Lear)
    National Lampoon Subscription Ad (was Phone Company Humor) (Rich Greenberg)
    Phone Book Trivia (was Phone Company Humor) (Bill Berbenich)
    Intercept Recordings (was Phone Company Humor) (Jon Cereghino)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Bob Miller)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Steve Dillinger)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 8:31:14 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor


In the Jan 3 issue, [e-mail] (Colin Tuttle) writes:

> There was also a bit of an uproar when SW Bell stopped using the
> drawing and went with a large Bell logo on the cover.  I don't recall
> the explanation or the reason, ...

I remember when New England Telephone used to have very scenic or
creative covers as well -- not as clever as the ones described, but
one that stands out in my mind was Norman Rockwell's (I think!)
telephone "chain", which shows one pair of people talking, then to the
right of them, a member of the first pair and a new person, and so one
for about forty pictures, until eventually the last person is talking
to the "other half" of the first pair.  The paintings showed people in
a wide variety of dress and using many different types of phones.

The reason New England Telephone dropped these covers was divestiture.
They felt that their subscribers were confused about the breakup, and
saw the phone book as one way to clearly associate themselves with
NYNEX and as a Bell Company.  Until this year, each book has had the
NYNEX logo and some very boring graphics.  This year, they're using
the cover to advertise the yellow pages, using category headings that
look like they've been torn out of the book, and on top of all these
scraps of paper are three torn pieces of yellow cardboard containing
the logos of NYNEX, New England Telephone, and the area covered by the
book.

The independent phone companies don't seem to have the same identity
problems.  The GTE and TDS books I've seen still have local scenery on
the covers.


Kath Mullholand   UNH, Durham, NH

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel Lessenberry)
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 13:55:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> unkaphaed!phaedrus@moe.
rice.edu (James Hartman, Sysop) writes:

> [e-mail] writes:

[story about the humorous things added into the cover of the phone book]

The phone book here in Macomb Co. (Yellow Pages) has a listing of

               "LOVE"

Yes you find everything else in the yellow pages, why not LOVE?"


The next entry, interestingly enough, is for lubricants ...


Joel Lessenberry, Distributed Systems | [phone]
[e-mail]                     | Chrysler Financial Corp.
[e-mail] | MIS, Technical Services
{sharkey|mailrus}!cfctech!joel        | 2777 Franklin, Sfld, MI


[Moderator's Note: Now watch it ... this is not the alt.telecom.sex
forum, you know.  :)   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 10:20:41 -0800
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor


In Telecom Digest Volume 12, Issue 2, Message 5 of 15, TONY@MCGILL1.
BITNET (Tony Harminc) writes:

> My favourite funny thing in the Toronto Yellow Pages is in the index:
> under "Nuts and Bolts" it says "see Bolts and Nuts".

It says the same thing in the Seattle Yellow Pages Index.  Either this
is an unintentional result of software (or phone company policy), or
perhaps the same wiseguy is somehow involved in producing the Yellow
Pages in many North American cities.

In the category of "most stupid cross reference," we have the following:
    XANTH COMPUTER CORP ----------- See Xanth Corporation

And the very next line is -- you guessed it:
    XANTH CORPORATION  14100 NE 20th Bellevue -- 643-9697


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

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

Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor
From: [e-mail] (Barry Mishkind)
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 92 15:44:55 MST
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ


At one radio station, I installed a transmitter phone, a not uncommon
action. However, I found out that the telco would charge us not to
list "XXXX Transmitter" in the phone book. And, the last thing I
needed when dealing with an outage was a bunch of kids calling and
asking when their favorite rock song would be on the air.

Eventually, I had it listed under "STATION, R." ... and very few calls
ever came in !

> [Moderator's Note: Your message arrived here with a zero (0) instead of
> the letter /O/ in O'Neill's name, and I assume the zero is the reason
> it sorted to the head of the list, even before the business known as
> 'A' or 'AAA', etc.   PAT]

Yes, that is exactly correct. Sorry I didn't point it out more clearly.


Barry

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 15:38:34 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor


There was an Hewlett Packard corporate telephone book a few years back
that got pulled the day after it was released because there was a
bogus obscene entry.  I don't know if I still have my copy, but they
sure tried to get them back from everyone.

Also, I was working at KPFA the other afternoon, and got a call from
someone who didn't know that he'd called the studio line, or what the
station was or where it was.  He'd called from Massachusetts because
he'd gotten a record for Christmas by "Negativeland" and it had the
'phone number on it somewhere.


doug

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 92 11:46:16 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor


In a message dated 1 Jan 92 06:14:10 GMT, [e-mail] (John G
Dobnick) writes:

> However, I did stumble upon an unusual listing.  The following entry
> was in the red (commercial) section of our Milwaukee Metroplan
> directory (AC 414):

>     Primal Center of Denver
>       323 S Pearl  Denver Colo ........... 303 778-8105

> Denver?  Colorado?

> Are such out-of-area listings common in the "white pages"?

As the Moderator notes, this may be a legitimate listing.  However, as
I've mentioned before in the Digest, I know the guy who owns what may
be the nation's smallest telephone company, the Northern Telephone
Company of Wawina, Minnesota.  Their white pages (actually, I should
say PAGE, since the listing for the entire exchange only occupies
about half a page) are included in the US West phone book for Grand
Rapids, Minnesota.  Anyway, when the July, 1991 directory came out,
the following listing was found right in the middle of the Wawina
listings:

DDPL EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION ------------ 303 337-8493

Since my friend had no knowledge of where this listing came from or
why it was in the middle of the listings for his phone exchange, he
contacted U.S.  West and was informed that they routinely include
bogus listings in the directory so that anyone who copies the listings
from the directory can be prosecuted for copyright violation.  The
header of the Wawina section does bear a small print notice that
states "(C) U S West Direct 1991" (There is really a small c in a
circle but I can't show that here so I used (C) instead).  All of this
had my friend a bit miffed, since I don't think he had ever assigned a
copyright on his listings to U S West, and in any case he wasn't real
excited about seeing an area code 303 listing (and a bogus one at
that) in the middle of his local exchange lists.

In case anyone is wondering, there are only 38 separate numbers that
begin with the Wawina 488- prefix listed in the white pages (I did not
check for duplicates listed under more than one name, so there may be
fewer unique numbers) and three of those are for the Northern
Telephone Company.  Also, one is the post office which has since been
shut down.  I'm also aware that there's one pay phone on the exchange,
located inside the Township Hall.

I realize there are smaller EXCHANGES around (we have a couple here in
Northern Michigan that only have around 20 customers) but all of them
are owned by phone companies that have more than one exchange.
Northern Telephone Company operates ONLY the Wawina exchange, and
apparently the rates are lower than those of the surrounding U S West
communities, but the exchange is still step-by-step (no long distance
access to anyone other than AT&T unless you dial using 1+950 or 0+950
to reach a carrier's 950 access number, or use a 1-800 access number).

If the owner is ever required to modernize the exchange, I'm not sure
if he could do it, although knowing him he'd probably find a small
used ESS somewhere and put it in.  He also collects old phone
equipment and has a veritable museum of old phones in the basement of
his home, many of which are connected to a working step-by-step
exchange in his basement (that one is his "toy", it's not connected to
the one that serves Wawina).  It's a very interesting system up there
in the North Woods of Minnesota!


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

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

Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor
Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 17:02:21 +1300
From: [e-mail] (Charlie Lear)


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

> students.  After a few hassles about who's name it was listed under,
> she had the listing changed to "OTHERS, THE."

Pat Cain, who posts here frequently, had a major hassle when getting a
dedicated line for his bulletin board.  They wouldn't accept Sideways
BBS as a valid residential listing.  So now he gets billed as Mr.
B.B.S. Sideways.

Oh, and the directory listing?  "Sideways B.B.S.", of course...


Charlie "The Bear" Lear | [e-mail] | Kawasaki Z750GT  DoD#0221
Fax [phone]
The Cave MegaBBS [phone] V22b | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand

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

Date: Fri, 03 Jan 92 10:11:20 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: National Lampoon Subscription Ad (was Phone Company Humor)


Here is a subscription ad from National Lampoon Magazine's 2/92 issue
that I thought the Digest readers would get a chuckle out of.  (Typos
probably mine.)

Headline (large type):
Subscribe to the National Lampoon and call anywhere in the U.S. for FREE.
                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                   ~~~~

Picture of a college phone-booth stuffing stunt on left,
                                            Block of text on right,

Text:

Reach out and touch someone.  It's not just a slick ad slogan, its the
foundation for a healthy emotional life.  And we at the National
Lampoon realize that life in America in what's almost the twenty-first
century can get a mite lonely sometimes.  That's why we are making
this unprecedented subscription offer.

It works like this.  Subscribe to the National Lampoon, America's
favorite humor magazine for one, two, or three years.  After you
subscribe and we verify your order, you'll be able to make a free call
anywhere in the U.S.  Just clip the mailing label off the magazine and
have your account number at hand.  Lift up your phone receiver and
dial 1-800 followed by seven numbers of your choice.  If you get a
recording telling you that number is not in service at this time,
don't dispair.  Just dial 1-800 again and try another seven digits.
Odds are in a few short seconds you'll be enjoying your free call.

Footing in large type:

National Lampoon.  We'll help you reach out -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        How you touch is your own business.


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]   Tinseltown, USA   310-337-5904
Located in Inglewood, CA which is a small city completely contained
within Los Angeles.

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

Subject: Phone Book Trivia (was Phone Company Humor)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 17:40:47 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


It's Friday, it's after 5:00, and traffic is snarled up pretty bad
where I am headed on this misty, rainy evening.  So I figured I'd look
into the new Atlanta phone books, released last month, and see what
kind of inane trivia I could come up with.

 From the business book -

First: A ------------------------------------------------ 872-xxxx

Last:  ZYOTIC ZOOM A FINESSE EXECUTIVE
          REFERRAL SERVICE 200 26th St NW ----------- 876-xxxx

[Trivia note:  Both companies served by same central office!]

Residential book -

First: A Craig Senft DC 12 Executive Park Dr NE --------- 633-xxxx
also - A Herbert Rivers atty - (at three locations)

[Apparently these men both have the first initial of 'A', but their
listings are made as though 'A' is the last name.]

Last:  Zzapp L C 2733 Woodland Ter SE Smyr -------------- 434-xxxx

Total pages of listings:  Residential - 2121; Business (including
government listings) - 663 (632 business, 31 government).

The books are dated December 1991, are correct through August 13, 1991
and are copyrighted by BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Corporation,
1992.  They come out in two volumes, one business and the other the
residential listings.  There are two Yellow Pages volumes published
concurrently by BAPCO, divided alphabetically there is the A-L book
and the M-Z book.  The yellow pages are officially known as _The_Real_
Yellow_Pages_ (tm).


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

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 92 00:05:29 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jon Cereghino)
Subject: Intercept Recordings (was Phone Company Humor)


Several years ago, I misdialed a call through a local Number 5
Crossbar (5XB) and got an intercept recording that qualifies for telco
humor:

        "We're sorry, but we have a problem."
        "We're sorry, but we have a problem."
        "We're sorry, but we have a problem..."

A few weeks later the recording added the phrase "completing your call as
dialed ..." (etc.)


Jon Cereghino           [e-mail]

"The trouble on your circuit is leaving our central office just fine."
C-Message Weighting BBS [phone] 2400 8N1

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

Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 12:25:18 PST
From: Bob Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits


I expected someone else to post the following, but have not noticed
it.

Echo Valley Two Six Eight Oh Nine
I used to call that number all the time
 ...

Maybe someone can put a title and artist to the song.


Bob Miller - Digital Equipment of Canada - Toronto

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

From: [e-mail] (Slave Driver)
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1992 04:41:27 GMT


     Back several years ago a friend of mine put the telephone call
section of 'The Wall' through a decoder and found the tones were MF.
I remember them being KP, the country code for England and then START
(there should be something else in there, no? like an inward #?)  You
can also hear the 2600 wink.  We recorded these tones and played them
over a line we stumbled on to and they worked.

     My nomination for 'best' has to be Frank and the Phunny Phone
Call, by far.  If you haven't heard it, it is some guy named Frank
Blue Boxing around the US to various operators and others with some
very funny results ... (yeah, yeah, I know it's illegal, loosen up...)


Steve Dillinger :: ramoth.cso.uiuc.edu
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign

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

From: The Unknown User <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits
Date: 5 Jan 92 07:48:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


    I must have missed part of this discussion. Surely someone
has mentioned 867-5309?


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #9
****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07060;
          5 Jan 92 14:19 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19980
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 12:32:53 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06145
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 12:32:38 -0600
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 12:32:38 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #10

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Jan 92 12:32:07 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 10

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc. (John Higdon)
    Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc. (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: IBT and Caller-ID (Jim Castleberry)
    Re: IBT and Caller-ID (Earl R. Hall)
    Re: Call Trace on Usage Basis in Florida (Andy Brager)
    Re: "Minimum Charge" for Unsuccessful LD Calls from Bell Canada? (J Decker)
    Re: Weird AT&T Rates (Mark Oberg)
    Re: Massachusetts DPU Ponders ISDN Request (Peter da Silva)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 92 23:48 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc.


[e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin) writes:

> On a related topic, most of the (900) numbers that deal with
> phone sex etc, seem to be in the 303 or 844 exchanges.

Yes and no. The three Pac*Bell 900 exchanges are 303 ("harmful
matter"), 844 (recorded general audience), and 505 (live talk, general
audience). If you are hearing "porn" on 844, it is a violation of
Pac*Bell policies and eventually the operator of the service will get
busted. Pac*Bell regularly polices the services by calling them (and
actually paying for the call!) and checking out the program.

> Are these exchanges assigned to a particular carrier, do they cover
> a particular geographic area, or what?

900 prefixes are assigned to carriers and are 'area non-specific'. In
other words, for carriers other than Pac*Bell, you have no way of
knowing where the machine is that is handling your call. There are
service centers in major cities all over the country. Pac*Bell 900
numbers terminate in certain wire centers in each California LATA. For
instance, in the San Francisco LATA, all Pac*Bell 900 services are
located in the general area of the financial district (served out of
the Bush/Pine CO).

> Also, does anyone know what is the most
> expensive minimum charge for a (900) call?  The most expensive call
> I've heard about is: "Talk to two (description omitted) girls at the
> same time! It's only $5.00 per minute with a little ten-minute
> minimum!".  Are there any numbers costing more than $50?

With other carriers, the sky is the limit. With Pac*Bell, there is a
MAXIMUM charge of $20 per call. This means that if the caller is on
past the time where he has run up a $20 cost, it is to the IPs benefit
to cut him off; Pac*Bell will not remit more than $20 for the call.

Bash 900 while you can. Many of the avant garde are looking to escape
the tyranny of 900 regulations and enter the brave new world of
"direct billing". While many of you believe that the only sleaze is on
the part of the providers themselves, the truth is that carriers,
including Pac*Bell, have not hesitated to rip off providers. The
Telesphere case is legendary and there are others, including the
almighty AT&T who are playing games aplenty with providers.

AT&T has actually claimed to one provider that his calls for one month
were 100% uncollectable! When this service was placed on an
alternative billing system, uncollectables ran less than 15%. Most
carriers pull this nonsense and then offer the provider nothing in
terms of accounting or detail. Many legitimate providers have had it
up to here with the ultra-sleazy tactics of the most-holy telephone
carriers and will soon take their business elsewhere.

The end of 900 service may not be far off. But its disappearance will
not be the result of government edicts, IEC righteousness, or even
public pressure. It will go away because the information industry is
tired of being taken to the cleaners by the nation's telephone
companies. If those companies want to get into the information
business, then they can have the 900 numbers all to themselves. The
REAL information industry will have moved on.


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


[Moderator's Note: John, I believe that 900-999 is used for the really
raunchy sex stuff from Telesphere. Is that correct?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc.
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 06:52:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas
W. Martin) writes:

> To avoid stupid flames, let me first say that although discussing
> obscenity, I find the concept of telephone pornography disgusting.
> When you don't know who will be calling, arguments regarding "freedom
> of speech" are, in my opinion, out the window.  Anyway, now to my
> questions:

> It seems that in most area codes, numbers which spell seven-letter
> obsceneties are routed to intercept recordings.

> Examples of such numbers are: 382-5968 or 277-4653.  I wonder, has
> somebody at the phone company figured out a list of numbers that will

"The phone company" does not exist as any single entity.  There are
many many of them, and all are different.

> not be assigned, or were such numbers originally given out and then
> disconnected due to prank calls.  How large is the list of numbers
> which are unassigned because of what they spell?

My only experience in this area came about just the other day.  And it
would suggest that the list is very very small.  At least in this one
case.

I offer no opinion on this, just the facts ... (grins and giggles ...)

Alascom just recently installed an earth station at some kind of a new
community that I understand is more or less a religious commune, named
Dry Creek.  (Located half way from Fairbanks to the Canadian border.)

There is no way to tell just how long this will last, but at the
moment the telephone number for the Alascom ES in Dry Creek, AK is ...
907-323-3825.

I'm not sure who the local phone company there is.


Floyd L. Davidson        [e-mail]        Salcha, Alaska

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Castleberry)
Subject: Re: IBT and Caller-ID
Organization: Machine Intelligence Lab, University of Florida
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 04:42:59 GMT


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

> As of Monday December 30, I noticed that Illinois Bell has turned on
> caller ID.

> A curious thing is happening at my home though.  As of December 27, I
> have been receiving an abnormal amount of blank calls on my home
> answering machine.

> What I was wondering is it possible that IBT is generating these calls
> to get people to subscribe to Caller-ID?  There is no way I would ever
> pay $6.50 a month for this service.  I wonder if these blank calls
> will stop once I subscribe.  Has anyone else experienced this?

Yes.  A few months ago Southern Bell started pre-selling the fancy
services, just before they were actually available, and ran a barrage
of TV ads.  At the same time I started getting at least one or two
such calls every day.  When the ads stopped a couple of weeks later so
did the calls.  I'm not much for conspiracy theory so I dismissed it
at the time.  Maybe overzealous sales staff working on commission?

> [Moderator's Note: I don't think IBT needs to stoop to the 'marketing
> practices' you describe in order to sell Caller-ID. The latest word on
> this from IBT earlier this week was they had already signed up several
> thousand subscribers to Caller-ID within the first month of taking
> orders for the service.  *67 has been working here since 12-1-91.  PAT]

What does *67 sound like?  We're supposed to have it here, but when I
tried it the dial tone just beeped three times and went back to the
constant tone.  Then (without hanging) up I dialed that alarm
company's 800 CID number that was posted a while back and they still
knew my number.  Sounds like it didn't work, huh?


Jim Castleberry


[Moderator's Note: That is exactly what *67 is supposed to do: Beep
three times and go back to the dial tone. This indicates that for that
one call, your ID is blocked from the called party. It is NOT blocked
from either your CO or the called CO ... merely the end subscriber. It
sounds just like the three beeps you get when you prepend *70 to
cancel call-waiting for the duration of the call, and like *70, you
need not wait for the beeps and fresh dial tone to continue dialing;
you need not put in a pause with auto-dialers, etc ... just shove all
the digits out; the switch will keep up with them. For folks with a
default condition of blocking, the same works in reverse. But with
either blocking by default or blocking call by call, you can NOT block
your ID on a call to an 800 number (called party pays charges, thus
gets billing detail), nor on calls to 911 or various administrative
lines at the telco, and there are other exceptions.  PAT

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 00:13:57 PST
From: Earl R. Hall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IBT and Caller-ID


[e-mail] (Mark E Anderson) writes:

> A curious thing is happening at my home though.  As of December 27, I
> have been receiving an abnormal amount of blank calls on my home
> answering machine.  I received 3 on Friday December 27, 3 on Monday
> December 30, 3 on New Year's Eve, and so far one today.

I also experienced about the same thing.  I don't have the exact
number and times, but got a number of blank calls during the evenings
near the end of December.  I wonder if it means they're working on
turning on Caller-ID on my local switch (Chicago-Kildare).  It doesn't
seem to be on yet, since I get a recording if I try to disable it with
a *67.

And that brings up another point.  I think it's pretty stupid that I
get a recording ("When dialing a long-distance number, ...") if I
punch in *67.  You'd think that they'd at least have the courtesy to
give me another dial tone!  I'm going to soon grow tired of the
message, and stop trying to use it.  Then, when the feature is finally
turned on, they'll start transmitting my phone number when I don't
want them to.  Ah, progress!


Earl Hall  | [phone] (home) | via PeaceNet:  | GEnie: ERHALL
Chicago IL | [phone] (work) | [e-mail] | CIS: 72746,3244


[Moderator's Note: There is definitly a programming error there
somewhere. CO-wise, I am 'next door' to you in Rogers Park. We are now
equipped coming and going, both ways with Caller-ID and blocking.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1992 08:13:14 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Andy Brager)
Subject: Re: Call Trace on Usage Basis in Florida
Organization: Wonder Server - Public Access for SoCal


[e-mail] (Dave Leibold) writes:

>> ... ANI provides the billing number of the calling line. Whenever
>> you dial a 440- or 930- number, your telephone number is provided
>> to the >> business you have called.  This service is not Caller ID
>> Service and therefore the Caller ID blocking codes will not apply
>> in these instances.

I'd like to know what happens if I call one of those numbers from here
in Southern California (GTE).  Do they get my number or not?


Andy    cerritos.edu!wndrsvr!andyb    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 92 11:46:47 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Minimum Charge" for Unsuccessful LD Calls From Bell Canada?


In a message dated 1 Jan 92 20:11:00 GMT, [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
writes:

> Incidentally, this means that Bell Canada can now beat Canada Post on
> price, as domestic postage is just now going up to 42 cents.  Even
> with 15% sales tax on the phone call and only 7% on the postage
> stamp, the minimum-charge phone call can win.

Since you mentioned this minimum charge, I have to ask this ... a
couple of years ago I read that Unitel in Canada was offering what
amounted to alternate long distance service similar to what U.S.
carriers used to offer (that is, you dial a local access number, then
wait for a second tone and key in an account number and number you
wish to call), except that at the time it couldn't be used for voice
transmissions because Bell Canada and the other Canadian telephone
companies have a legal monopoly on voice long distance service.

So they actually had to install equipment to break the connection if
it appeared that a voice connection were taking place (I think it
broke the connection after 60 seconds of no carrier tone, but I'm not
sure about that).  Obviously, it was used for low-cost FAX connections
(that is how they promoted it, as a FAX network) and computer modem
connections (and probably also for the occasional _short_ voice call,
even though that was supposedly illegal).  Rates were something like
30% lower than Bell Canada, and I suspect that there was no "minimum
charge", since FAX transmissions are typically short-duration.

I'm just curious as to whether that service is still offered, and
whether the legal monopoly on Canadian voice traffic still exists.


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

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

From: grout![e-mail] (Mark Oberg)
Subject: Re: Weird AT&T Rates
Date: 4 Jan 92 18:15:46 GMT
Organization: Grout, Beltsville, MD


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

> In <[e-mail]> grout![e-mail] (Mark
> Oberg) writes:

>> [....]  the reason might be marketing rather
>> than any corporate sympathy for the plight of fax users.  MCI has had
>> the very interesting habit of quoting first minute rates that are
>> lower than the additional minute rate for quite some time now.

> When have you been quoted lower first minute charges by MCI?. I
> have been using MCI for five years now and have never had a case where
> that was true. All my minutes cost the same (there was a time when the
> first minute was HIGHER, but that stopped a couple of years a go).

>   I just called MCI customer service and was unable to find a case
> where the first minute was less expensive, so I asked for a
> supervisor.  The supervisor was unaware of any such case.

>   If there is such a case would you be so kind as to provide me with
> the area and prefix of the calling and called numbers so that I can
> pursue this with said supervisor?

    I replied to your email in more detail, but will also reply
here for the benefit of others who may be curious as to the answer.

    In March 1991, I did a telephone survey of long distance
carriers in which I asked for rate information by mileage band, first
minute charge and additional minute charge for calls originating in
the Baltimore, MD LATA and billed at "standard" Dial-1 rates.

    MCI's rate quoted at that time was lower for the first minute
and higher for additional minutes.  All of the carriers called
initially insisted on quoting a rate for a specific call between two
NPA/NXX's or quoting on the basis of some "special dialing plan", but
I was interested in the Standard rate by mileage bands and my
observation is based on the information given to me at that time.

    Rates and rate structures may have changed since that time.
It was not my intent to quote other carriers rates in my original
reply but rather to illustrate the possibility of a low first minute
rate being used for marketing reasons rather than to benefit a certain
class of users (fax users, in the case presented).


Disclaimer:  These observations and opinions are my own.  I do not speak
for NATel, Inc.

Mark Oberg   NATel, Inc.   |  UUCP: wb3ffv!grout!mark
Voice: [phone]       |  Internet: [e-mail]
  BBS: [phone]       |  Fidonet: 1:109/506

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Massachusetts DPU Ponders ISDN Request
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 16:03:27 GMT


You're still paying more for using less resources than a TB3000 and
POTS.  You're also getting less service (I've run PEP up to 14000 bps
before compression, and the theoretical limit over POTS is 21204 bps
(512 channels at 7 bauds with 6 bits/baud less the 300 baud back
channel), though the most I've heard of in practice is around 18000).

As for the economy of scale argument: it's the phone company's actions
that are keeping the demand for the ISDN hardware down... they can't
abrogate all responsibility.


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #10
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08455;
          5 Jan 92 15:10 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14538
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 13:26:19 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14413
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 13:26:05 -0600
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 13:26:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #11

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Jan 92 13:25:56 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 11

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Special Issue; New Archives File (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Jolson on the Phone (was Telecom's Greatest Hits) (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Dave Levenson)
    Re: CLASS Features on Inter-LATA Calls (was Very Courteous Rep) (D. Lewis)
    Re: Area Code Splits and our Phone System (John Higdon)
    Re: Questions About Calling Remote Areas (Floyd Davidson)
    10th Anniversary of the MFJ (David Gast)
    Contacting Other MINITEL Users (mainly US) (D Parsons)
    First Transatlantic Telephone Call (Newsday via Dave Niebuhr)
    Book Review: ISDN In Perspective (Bob Frankston)
    Re: American Express and ANI (Randy Jarrett)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Stephanie da Silva)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 12:44:22 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Administriva: Special Issue; New Archives File


Jim Haynes sent along a really nice article from the {Western Union
Technical Review} of April, 1961 on the history of the stock ticker.
It is too long for a regular issue of the Digest, and will be coming
to you as a special mailing this afternoon. I think you will enjoy it.

David Leibold has prepared a file for the Telecom Archives detailing
the 404/706 area code split in Georgia. This will be available in the
Telecom Archives sometime Sunday evening or early Monday. You may wish
to pick up a copy for your files. Corrections and comments should be
directed to Dave.

The Telecom Archives is accessible using anonymous ftp: lcs.mit.edu.


PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Jolson on the Phone (was Telecom's Greatest Hits)
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 16:25:06 GMT


[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

> Patrick, I can't *believe* the vast and erudite readership of TELECOM
> Digest failed to mention "Hello, My Baby," a big hit for Al Jolson in
> the Twenties.

Also found in the Golden Jubilee 24 Karat Collection: A Salute to
Chuck Jones from Warner Home Video. In "One Froggy Evening" we meet a
frog who sings such hits of the period ... but only under certain
circumstances. A cartoon classic.

For more cartoon telephony, there's always the wonderful service Bugs
gets from phone- and mail-order services. You see him talking on the
phone and 30 seconds later a female Tasmanian Devil is delivered by
plane. And anyone catch the number for ACME?


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits
Date: 5 Jan 92 14:14:48 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


Does anybody remember 'Ring-Ring' by ABBA (probably from about ten
years ago)?


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] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: CLASS Features on Inter-LATA Calls (was Very Courteous Rep)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 17:43:46 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dell H.
Ellison) writes:

> [e-mail] writes:

>> CLASS features only work for intra-LATA calls from exchanges equipped
>> with SS7....

> Are you sure?  I think the CLASS features will work for inter-LATA
> calls as long as they have SS7 all the way along the path.

Presumably, but considering there is nowhere in North America where
any inter-LATA call will have SS7 all the way along the path (except
for some trials), we can't say for sure, now can we?

The missing link is the LEC-IXC interconnection.  Specifications exist
for SS7 carrier interconnection, tariffs have been drawn up, and
trials are underway, but it's not in commercial deployment anywhere
yet.

> Besides, I would think that all the switch would need, so that it
> could do the Call Return, would be the phone number.  And it
> definitely should have that.

Only if SS7 connectivity exists.  With MF signaling connectivity
between the LEC and IXC, the calling party number stops at the LEC
side of the LEC-IXC interface.  Billing number is sent across, but
this is not necessarily the same number as calling party number (and
is handled differently in SS7).  Neither billing number nor calling
party number is sent out of the IXC network to the LEC via MF
signaling.  So the terminating switch will only have the calling party
number if the call is carried SS7 all the way.

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 09:44 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits and our Phone System


Ron Newman <[e-mail]> writes:

> I've never understood this ... why is it necessary for a PBX or
> Centrex to know anything at all about valid and invalid area codes and
> office codes?  Why can't they just pass everything on to the phone
> company and let them screen out invalid numbers?

Here is the explanation. A PBX with ARS (automatic route selection)
looks at the area code and prefix to decide which route to take. Many
routes can be available: local, intraLATA WATS, intrastate WATS,
various flavors of international, FX circuits, etc. Here in 408, we
have two LATAs. As yet there are many unassigned prefixes which end up
getting assigned constantly. If the prefix ends up being local, it
goes on a local trunk. If toll within the LATA it would go on
intraLATA WATS; and if out of the LATA, it would go on a dedicated IEC
trunk.

I do not know where the prefix will end up until it appears on a
regularly supplied list from Pac*Bell, shows up in the front of the
directory, or is actually assigned (surprise!). I cannot just "pass it
on to the phone company" as you suggest, since there are three
possible routes for it to go. Hence, any prefix that is unknown to the
PBX in question will not be processed.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Questions About Calling Remote Areas
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 07:36:50 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas
W. Martin) writes:

> On a related topic, there must be large, remote areas served by a
> single CO, or even a single exchange.  Does anyone know what COs serve
> the largest geographic area, e.g. central Nevada, Eastern Alaska, etc?
> When I was last in Alaska, I remember a forty-fifty-page phone book
> that covered almost the whole length of the Richardson Highway, from
> near Greeley or Delta, all the way south to Valdez.  As I recall,
> there weren't many exchanges for this whole region.  Any information
> about similar large areas served by a single CO or a single exchange
> would be appreciated.

Hmmm.  Perhaps you got the wrong impression, or you last traveled the
Rich Highway a long time ago.  There are relatively few exchanges
along that route, but each community is served by one single unique
exchange.  There are exactly as many "CO's" as there are communities.
The majority of them are owned by two separate companies: Copper
Valley Telco (I think it is called) and what used to be Telephone
Utilities and is now PTI Communications (owned by Pacific Telecom).

(My home is at Mile Post 326 on the Richardson Highway, and the
original Richardson Trail is in the back yard.  At one time there was
an open wire pole line using "O" carrier going down the road here, but
it was on the opposite side of the current road way.  I do have some
of the wire and a few not very unique glass insulators from that pole
line.)


Floyd L. Davidson        [e-mail]        Salcha, Alaska

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 00:34:52 -0800
From: [e-mail] (David Gast)
Subject: 10th Anniversary of the MFJ


Before all the wrong information starts flying again, I thought I
would take a moment to mention a few facts.

1. The MFJ stands for Modified Final Judgement.

2. The (unmodified) Final Judgement was the 1956 consent which AT&T
   settled with the Justice Department in 1956.  (Many DoJ lawyers
   felt that the settlement was a political payoff by Ike.  They were
   extremely happy when the anti-trust suit was filed.)

3. Judge Green did not listen to all the evidence and then make a
   ruling.

4. The DoJ and AT&T settled out of court and presented their settlement
   to Judge Green for approval.  That is, the basic terms of the settle-
   ment were negotiated out of court and Judge Greene approved them.
   In particular, AT&T did not have to divest itself of Western Electric
   or Bell Labs, one of the original goals of the 1956 case and this case.

5. At the same time the DoJ attornies and the AT&T attornies were in
   several different courts, filing all sorts of papers at the same time.
   For exmple, the judge who approved the FJ had to hand jurisdiction for
   the MFJ to Judge Greene.

6. This decision was announced the same day that the DoJ dropped the
   anti-trust case against IBM.

There is lots of interesting information about the participants and
the ploys that went on before this decision was announced.  The FCC
had also made some decisions independently of the DoJ anti-trust suit.
One book which I found interesting (and cheap, it only cost $1.98 as a
close out) was The Deal of Century.

So please, before the flame wars erupt, don't blame or praise Judge
Greene for what he did not do.  For example, don't say "Judge Greene
broke up AT&T", say "Judge Greene approved the negotiated settlement."


David Gast

P.S.  Wanna bet the Justice Thomas never discussed this either?

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

From: [e-mail] (D Parsons)
Subject: Contacting Other MINITEL Users (Mainly US)
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 11:23:58 GMT


I have just started to use the US software for MINITEL and am having
some trouble locating addresses in France.  I would like to reach
Philippe Garnerin, head of computer services for the French
Communicable Disease Network run by the Ministry of Health and INSERM,
Paris. I would like to hook onto this disease reporting system and
watch it in operation.

I cannot even contact my daughter (Clare Parsons, (1) 40 67 79 05
who is apparantly using the terminal at 5 r Chalgrin 16e, 75 PARIS)!!
Help will be appreciated (I do not find the New York office helpful!)


Thanks,

Don

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 12:19:25 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: First Transatlantic Telephone Call


I read an article in today's {Newsday} (Jan. 5, 1992) concerning
transatlantic telephone communications and thought I'd pass it on to
the readers of the Digest.

"It had always been an occasion when His Honor, the mayor of New York
spoke with his conferee, the lord mayor of London.  But the occasion
65 years ago Tuesday was special.  For the first time, each was in his
own city when they talked.

That day, Jan. 7, 1927, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company
inaugurated transatlantic telephone service.  The mayour of New York,
the popular, dapper but crooked Jimmy Walker, offered the "compliments
of the City of New York to you and to the people of London."  Later,
he commented that it was "just like talking to Albany."

 From New York, a call went via wire to Rocky Point, Long Island,
where a short-wave station sent it to a receiving station at
Wroughton, England, for forwarding by wire to London.

The reverse route used a transmitter at Rugby, England, and a receiver
at Houghton, Me.  Of the 31 calls made during the 9 1/2 hours the
circuit operated the first day, several dealt with business, including
one transferring a million pounds.

In 1956, a telephone cable supplemented the radio transmissions, and
today satellites help handle the half million transatlantic calls made
on an average business day."

Another receiving site (but owned by RCA) was established at
Riverhead, New York about 15 miles east of Rocky Point and is now
abandoned even though a few of the old towers are still standing.

Today, part of the Rocky Point site is owned by New York State and the
other part was owned by the defunct Peerless Photo Company.


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

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: ISDN In Perspective
Date: 5 Jan 1992 10:19 -0400


My purchased copy arrived Friday.  It should be required reading for
participating in ISDN discussions.  Or at least highly recommended.
It is a very good example of a book that makes a complex technical
topic accessible to those who are technical but not specialists in a
given area.  In particular, it is a good source of information for
computer people attempting to understand the telecommunication systems
as it attempts to come to terms with the transition from POTS to
computers.

I'm about 2/3 of the way through at the moment and will digest it a
bit before making more detailed comments on ISDN.  There are some nice
capabilities in ISDN but, as the book points out, lots of political
decisions and compromises for history.  Focusing on rate is a key for
starting to taking advantage of ISDN as a WAN (Wide Area Network).  It
is not clear, however, whether ISDN is the infrastructure for the WANs
of the future.

Thanks to Fred for writing the book.  Now about the garish covers and
what seems to be laser printer typography that gives the book the
quaint look of a newspaper from the 1800's ...

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

From: wa4mei![e-mail] (Randy Jarrett)
Subject: Re: American Express and ANI
Organization: Amateur Radio Gateway WA4MEI, Chamblee, GA
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 18:49:38 GMT


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

> Yesterday, I got a call from Amex over another matter (charge
> dispute).  The call came in on my private line. Then it hit me: Amex
> apparently enters the number you are calling from as your official
> phone of record when the rep sees fit. Yes, I had called Amex from my
> mother's phone some months before to complain about some bogus
> Compu$erve charges. And when I returned "Mr. Collector's" call last
> month, I used my private line.

> So here is a word to the wise: if you call American Express, be sure
> to make it clear that the phone you are using is NOT your personal
> telephone if such is the case. Otherwise your girl/boy friend,
> employer, barber, or modem may receive calls meant for you.

AMEX has been using ANI for years to keep track of the number that you
call them from.  Several years ago they used this information to
answer the phone with your name ( Hello Mr. xx ..) and because this
upset so many people they discontinued answering the phone this way
but your account information still pops up when you call from a number
that they have marked as yours.  There are many other companies that
use this information the same way.  Some of them keep a history of the
numbers that you call from and others only keep the one that you give
them as your residence and the last one that you called from.

Partial change of subject.  It is amazing the amount of interest that
various "public protection groups" have in the use of CID for
residences without seeming to have any knowledge of ANI in the
business place.  It couldn't be that these groups are somehow guided
by business or others to be quiet about their use of this information
could it?


Randy Jarrett  WA4MEI
UUCP  ...!{emory,gatech}!wa4mei!rsj   | MAIL: P.O. Box 941217
PHONE [phone]              | Atlanta, GA 30341-0217

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephanie da Silva)
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 18:44:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Charlie
Lear) writes:

> They wouldn't accept Sideways BBS as a valid residential listing.
> So now he gets billed as Mr. B.B.S. Sideways.
> Oh, and the directory listing?  "Sideways B.B.S.", of course...

One of our BBS lines is listed in the directory as "Taronga da Silva."
I wanted it listed as "Igor Stravinsky," but Peter was talking to the
people at the phone company at the time, so logic prevailed that
time ...


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #11
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10852;
          5 Jan 92 16:26 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03147
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 14:41:41 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30068
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 14:41:27 -0600
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 14:41:27 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Western Union History of the Stock Ticker


This piece was sent to the Digest over the weekend by Jim Haynes and I
hope you enjoy it as much as I did.


PAT


 From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
 Subject: Stock Ticker History
 Date: 4 Jan 92 06:59:46 GMT
 Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


The following article was originally printed in {The Western Union
Technical Review}, April, 1961, Vol 15, No. 2.  Copyright 1961 by The
Western Union Telegraph Company, formerly a leading manufacturer of
chads.

            Telegraph History
        Some Early Days of Western Union's
            Stock Ticker Service
                1871-1910

by Charles R. Tilghman [noted as deceased as of the time of publication]

     The Western Union Telegraph Company had been established only
     15 years when Charlie Tilghman was a "stock" messenger in
     Cincinnati, Ohio.  The story, as he tells it briefly, of
     early developments in Western Union's ticker service is a
     story also of his own resourceful rise to the position of
     General Superintendent of Ticker Services.

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

  About 1871 or '72 when I was a stock messenger in the Cincinnati
office, the Gold and Stock quotations were received by Morse from New
York and copied on manifold sheets and each boy had ten or twelve
subscribers to deliver reports to every fifteen minutes.  Gold was at
a premium and was bought and sold like stocks, so we had the name of
Gold and Stock Telegraph Company.

[Photo of etching titled "E. A. Calahan's 1867 stock ticker introduced
by the Gold and Stock Telegraph Co. required three line wires."]

  One day, our 'boss' told us boys that they would not need us any
more as they were going to send out the reports on electric printing
machines.  In a few days the equipment for a small ticker plant was
received, including a dial transmitter with letters and numerals in a
circle, an arrow or pointer pivoting in the center.  The turning of a
small crank operated a make-and-break contact point and also revolved
the arrow, stopping it directly over the character desired.  The
operator pressed a telegraph key with his left hand to close the press
circuit and print the character.  Six tickers were received.  They
were Edison's invention with type and press magnets of six ohms and
required a large amount of current to work them.  There was a ratchet
wheel on the type wheel shaft.  An arm, extending from the type magnet
and working perpendicularly into this ratchet wheel revolved the type
shaft and the two type wheels at the end of it.

  I took a great interest in the machine, helped to set one up on a
short circuit in our office and commenced to practice working the
transmitter.  In a short time, one machine was put in the First
National Bank and two wires were run from our office to connect it.
The bankers, brokers, and business men were invited to see the new
wonder of printing by electricity.  A crowd came and I operated the
transmitter, sending out stock quotations.  It created quite a lot of
excitement and talk.  Soon the Company had several subscribers signed
up and a ticker plant started -- I was the operator.  This Edison
ticker became known as the Universal ticker.

  We operated these tickers ten years before we ever had a voltmeter
or an ammeter or anything to tell us how much current was on our
lines.  When we added tickers, we added a few more cells and took them
off when we cut out tickers.  We had to judge the adjustments of
relays and ticker by feeling the pull with our fingers.

            Bunsen and Callaud Batteries

  This was the start of ticker service in Ohio, and Cincinnati was the
only town that had them.  We used bichromate of potash and sulphuric
acid solution in a porous cup set inside a circular zinc and a stick
of carbon immersed in the solution.  The zinc and porous cup were put
in a glass of water diluted with a small amount of acid.  This made a
strong battery of very low internal resistance but expensive to
maintain.

  The company was using Callaud or blue vitriol batteries on the Morse
wire and had twelve thousand cells in Cincinnati.  The officials at
Chicago were urging me to use the Callaud for ticker service, but I
objected, saying it was too slow and had too much internal resistance
for ticker work.  The fight went on for some time.  We did not have
any dynamos or motors of any kind in the Cincinnati office at that
time and had no more room for Callaud batteries.

  Finally, I got the idea I could use Edison light current to operate
the tickers.  I went to the Edison company, explained what I wanted to
do, and asked them to run a special wire into our office and let me
see what I could do with it.  They ran in a single wire from their
positive side of a three-wire system.  We had no resistance lamps so I
used Edison light bulbs and the small resistance boxes we had.  The
Edison current worked the tickers fine and, to make a long story
short, I worked the entire ticker plant, local and main circuits, with
this current.  This was in 1880.  When I started the first long
distance ticker circuit, Cincinnati to Columbus, Ohio, 125 miles away,
I required both polarities to operate the polar relay in Columbus;
therefore the Edison company ran in a negative lead with no additional
charge.

  I also used Edison current to work self-winding clock circuits.
Later I put it on the main switchboard in the Cincinnati operating
room and worked about fifty single lines and several duplex.  To do
this it was necessary to buy Edison lamps and make a lamp board above
the switchboard.  As I could spend five dollars without additional
authority, my city foreman made the boards and I bought five dollars
worth of lamps and receptacles at a time.  It was necessary to take
off two copper battery strips that ran across back of the board and
then run wires from the lamp receptacles to the small disks.  After
this was completed and a reserve lead from Edison company secured, we
eliminated three thousand cells of Callaud batteries and the acid
ticker batteries, making a saving of over $3000 per annum.  The Edison
company had taken out their meter and given us a flat rate of
twenty-five dollars per month.

  I wrote to Mr. G. B. Scott, Superintendent at New York, and asked
him to have a piano key transmitter made with a motor to work on
110-volt D.C.  After a lot of correspondence, they sent me a
transmitter and motor for 110 D.C. and told me to be very careful not
to let it burn up and be sure to let him know how it worked as it was
the first one ever made to use Edison current.

            Self-Winding Tickers

  The self-winding ticker was invented by Mr. George B. Scott,
Superintendent of the Gold and Stock Telegraph Company in New York,
and Mr. W. P. Phelps of the Philadelphia Local Telegraph Company.  Mr.
Phelps invented the automatic shift from letters to figures and vice
versa by changing the polarity on the second or winding wire.  This
was a great improvement over all other styles of printer at that time.
They were first called the Scott-Phelps ticker.  In 1903, Mr. J. C.
Barclay, then Assistant General Manager, wanted to change the ticker
and make it smaller.  He called Mr. Jay R. Page from Chicago to New
York for suggestions on the change; and, with Mr. Scott, they decided
to put the escapement magnet and adjustment screws inside the ticker
frame.  After this change the ticker was called the Scott-Phelps-
Barclay-Page ticker.

  My first experience with these tickers came when Mr. Barclay
transferred me from Cincinnati, where I was Assistant Superintendent
of the seventh district of the Central Division by appointment of Col.
Clowry, to New York, May 1, 1904,

    [Photo titled "Later model of Calahan ticker now in
    Western Union Museum, New York."]

and made me general inspector of ticker service in all divisions.  Up
to this time, I had never even seen these tickers working for they had
not been put into service in the west, and I knew not a thing about
them.  Yet the very first thing Mr. Barclay asked me to do was to make
these two-wire tickers with four pairs of magnets in them work a long
distance on one wire.

  A single underground wire from the ticker plant under the stock
exchange to the repair shop in the Supply Department on Franklin
Street was assigned for the test.  I started to connect up the relays
and tickers and then go down and make the connections on the ticker
panel at Broad Street.  At the end of the third day, when I went down
to our office and told Mr. Barclay that I had the tickers working on
one wire but not completed, he said in a very cross voice, "Oh, what
takes you so long; hurry up."  I later learned that electricians and
ticker men had worked for two months and spent two thousand dollars
trying to work the tickers from New York to Boston and had given up,
saying it was impossible.

            Long Distance Service

  I understood the quadruplex and that night I thought of using the
quad neutral relay to work the repeat and next morning I connected one
up before market opened and received the full market all day O.K. on
my fourth day of testing.  I took the day's tape down to Mr. Barclay,
who looked it over and said, "Let's go in and show President Clowry."
Mr. Barclay told the president, "Now we have a one-wire long distance
ticker and we can put tickers all over the country."  That was the
start.  The next week, Mr. Barclay said, "Now, Tilghman, put up a long
distance stock ticker in Philadelphia."

  When I went over to Philadelphia, the other inventor of the ticker,
Mr. Phelps, said, "Mr. Tilghman, I will do everything I can to help
you and would like to see it work, but it cannot be done.  The ticker
that will work from New York to Philadelphia does not exist; there is
no such machine."

  It was much harder to work over the ninety miles to Philadelphia
because of the induction from other wires.  I found that when the
operator in New York would strike the repeat key thus taking the
current off the line for a fraction of a second, the induction from
other lines would cause the polar relay in Philadelphia to jump ahead
two or three characters.  I went back to New York and bridged the
break of the repeat relay with adjustable rheostat, leaving just
enough current on the line to hold the polar and type wheel on the
character the operator was holding; then adjusted my neutral relay in
Philadelphia so that it would break away over the light current and
repeat the character.  Finally, we got it to work so that the keyboard
operator in Philadelphia sent from tape of the New York ticker.

    [Photo titled "Thomas A. Edison's two-wire "Universal"
    ticker, much improved, was used for many years."]
    [This appears identical, as well as I remember, to a
    ticker I saw in operation in a Western Union office,
    circa 1950.]

  Then Barclay said, "Now go on to Baltimore and Washington."  This
was some task and required repeaters in the line.  The installation
took time and Mr. Barclay sent Mr. William Finn over to help me in
order to hurry up the job.  Mr. Finn certainly was a very fine man to
work with and gave me some good advice about the use of condensers.
It was finally accomplished and we worked to Washington, later
extending the circuit to Richmond, Virginia.

  And so the long distance service spread.  In 1905, I went all over
New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana securing subscribers for
stocks and baseball.  One year, I secured $29,000 worth of service
before baseball opened.  In February 1910, Mr. Barclay left the
company and Mr. Atherton, a splendid man with a very kind disposition
and big heart, took his place.  I was transferred from General
Inspector to Mr.  Atherton's staff.  That summer, Mr. Kitton and I had
our first vacation.  I had been in the service forty one years.

  Mr. Atherton died the next year and I went into the office of Mr.
Yorke, a perfectly splendid man to work for; fair, and just to all.  I
was with him all during the war; and, while in his office, was given
charge of the ticker repair shop.  One day, Mr. Yorke spoke of the
"alphabet ticker", meaning the Scott-Phelps-Barclay-Page ticker, and
wanted to know if I couldn't give it a shorter name.  He didn't like
all those names.  I replied, "Yes, we can call it the self-winding
ticker".  He said to do it and drop all those names.  So it has been
the self-winding ticker ever since.  Mr. Yorke changed my title to
General Supervisor of Ticker Service.  I remained with him until Mr.
Titley came and was made Vice President of the Plant Department, when
I was transferred to his office.  He was another grand man and it was
a great pleasure and honor to be associated with him.

  The Western Union Co. had thousands of Burry tickers for which they
were paying the Stock Quotation Tel. Co. $3.00 per month rental which
totalled approximately $35,000 per annum.  These tickers cost $32.00
each to manufacture.  At the same time Western Union had a large stock
of their own tickers in the Supply Department and the Superintendent
of Supplies asked for authority to sell or destroy them.  He said they
would never be used and took up too much room.  Later he asked if he
could get rid of 100 a month until they were all gone.  I said, no, we
would use them to replace the Burry tickers and save the rental.  The
Burrys were not so fast as the self-winding tickers and would get way
behind on active markets.

  The first town I changed was Washington, then Baltimore, Albany,
Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, and many more.  Boston was using 350
Burry tickers and Chicago 750.  They also used the Worisching ticker
that was owned by the Stock Quotation Co.  It was years before we got
all these rental tickers out of our service.

  Superintendent Scott used two polar relays to work each self-winding
ticker circuit.  He said we could not possibly work with one on
account of the spark on the points.  These relays were 135 ohms each.
This made a great load on the transmitter and great retardation in the
local circuit; also created lots of sparking on the break wheel of
transmitter which was revolved in oil to keep from sparking and
burning.  I told Mr. Scott I had put in new self-winding plant in
Washington using only one polar relay on each circuit and it was
working all right.  There was no sparking on relay points.

    [Photo titled "Messrs. Scott, Phelps, Barclay and Page
    all contributed to "Self-Winding" ticker design." shows
    a ticker under a glass bell jar, and printing on the base
    "Quotation furnished by Western Union Telegraph apply to
        local manager"]

            The Big Blow Out

  The old stock ticker plant in the basement of the stock exchange was
operated from a storage battery plant of 150 ampere hours cells and
350 volts, positive and negative.  From these batteries there were two
large size copper wires run around three sides of the ticker room.
Smaller wires were connected with the larger wires and run direct to
the points of the polar relays on the ticker circuit panels.  The only
fuse was one connected in each battery wire in the battery room.

  One day in September 1910 there was a short circuit on one of the
stock circuits that blew out the fuse, splitting the fuse block in
pieces.  This cut off the entire stock ticker service in New York and
all over the country for the Morse operators in the Western Union
operating room were sending in all directions from the ticker tape.
This blow out made some blow up!

  General Manager Brooks came hurrying into Mr. Athern's office and
asked him to send me down to Broad Street to see what was the matter.
Up to this time I had nothing to do with this New York plant as Supt.
George B. Scott was in direct charge of it.  I went down,
investigated, came right back and made my report.  Mr. Athern and Mr.
Brooks both said for me to go back and take charge; do anything, order
anything you need, only fix it so it will never happen again.

  I ordered material and started the work with six or ten men
immediately after market closed each day, and worked till 9:00 or
10:00 P.M. I had a fuse put in each battery wire and through a
resistance lamp to every ticker circuit panel.  I found every circuit
in the plant had positive pole connected to unison so the entire load
of about 75 or 80 amperes was on one battery lead.  When I asked why
they did not put half the load on negative, they said "Why you must be
crazy, the tickers would not work."  Well, I had it done nevertheless
 -- and the tickers operated just as before.

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

[e-mail]   [e-mail]












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14012;
          5 Jan 92 18:17 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17353
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 16:31:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20279
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 5 Jan 1992 16:31:02 -0600
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 16:31:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #12

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Jan 92 16:30:41 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 12

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Original North American Numbering Plan (David Leibold)
    Re: Area Code Splits and our Phone System (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Call Trace on Usage Basis in Florida (John Higdon)
    Re: AT&T VoiceMark Service (Alan Toscano)
    Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc. (David Lesher)
    Re: AT&T Echo to the UK (Really Satellite Circuits) (David Lesher)
    Re: USA Today's 800 Turned 900 Number (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (David Leibold)
    Re: CLASS Features on Inter-LATA Calls (was Very Courteous Rep) (A Sherman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 05 Jan 92 15:11:24 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: The Original North American Numbering Plan


In the {Bell System Technical Journal} in 1952, the original numbering
plan for area codes in North America was described. Many codes have
been assigned since that time, but here is what the Bell System
started with.

Area codes with a middle digit of 0 were originally assigned when the
area code would cover an entire state or province. Area codes with a
middle digit of 1 were used when two or more area codes were required
within a state or province. This was intended to help out long
distance operators when working with area codes and states/provinces.
That rule had to be broken by the mid-50s as new area codes were
required, ie. when it was no longer possible to follow this rule.

Facts of note:

* The BSTJ article describing the numbering plan and its implentation
  was written by W.H.Nunn.

* Operator toll dialing was the predecessor to customer-dialed calls;
  some tricky dialing seqeuences were involved in some calls, although
  the numbering plan areas began to take effect in the system,
  simplifying call completion for operators and eventually provided
  the customer with an easily-understood dialing method.

* The first customer-dialed long distance call in the U.S. was completed
  10 November 1951 by Mayor M Leslie Denning of Morristown, NJ to Mayor
  Frank P Osborn of Alameda, CA. It was reported that the call was dialed
  with ten digits (area code + number, presumably) and that the connection
  was made in eighteen seconds.

* In 1943, the first #4 toll crossbar switching system was placed
  into service.

Without further ado ... here is the original area code setup from 1952:

201 New Jersey (Newark, entire state)
202 Washington DC
203 Connecticut (New Haven)
204 Manitoba (Winnipeg)
205 Alabama (Mobile, Birmingham, Montgomery)
206 Washington (state)
207 Maine (Bangor, Portland)
208 Idaho (Boise)
212 New York City
213 Los Angeles area
214 Northeast Texas (Dallas, Waco)
215 Philadelphia area
216 Northeast Ohio (Cleveland, Canton)
217 Central Illinois (Peoria, Champaign, Springfield)
218 North and West Minnesota (St Cloud, Duluth)
219 North Indiana (South Bend)
301 Maryland (Baltimore)
302 Delaware
303 Colorado (Denver)
304 West Virginia (Charleston, Huntington, Clarksburg)
305 Florida (Miami, Jacksonville)
306 Saskatchewan (Regina, Saskatoon)
307 Wyoming (Casper, Cheyenne)
312 Chicago area
313 Detroit area
314 East Missouri (St Louis, Moberly, Cape Girardeau)
315 Central New York (Syracuse, Elmira)
316 Southern Kansas (Wichita, Dodge City)
317 Central Indiana (Indianapolis, Terre Haute)
319 East Idaho (Waterloo)
401 Rhode Island (Providence)
402 Nebraska (entire state)
403 Alberta (Calgary, Edmonton)
404 Georgia (Atlanta, Augusta)
405 Oklahoma (Tulsa, Oklahoma City)
406 Montana (Helena)
412 Pittsburgh area
413 Massacheusetts except Boston area (Springfield)
414 Southeast Wisconsin (Milwaukee, Madison, Appleton)
415 Northwest California (San Francisco, Oakland)
416 Central and southwest Ontario (Toronto, Hamilton, London, Windsor)
417 Southwest Missouri (Joplin)
418 Eastern Quebec (Quebec City)
419 Northwest Ohio (Toledo, Mansfield)
501 Arkansas (Little Rock)
502 Kentucky (Lexington, Louisville)
503 Oregon (Portland)
504 Louisiana (New Orleans)
505 New Mexico (Albuquerque, Roswell)
512 South Texas (San Angelo, San Antonio, Austin)
513 Southwest Ohio (Cincinnati, Dayton)
514 Western Quebec (Montreal)
515 Central Iowa (Des Moines, Ottumwa, Fort Dodge, Mason City)
516 Long Island, NY
517 Northeast Michigan (Saginaw, Lansing)
518 East New York (Albany, Kingston)
601 Mississippi (Jackson)
602 Arizona (Phoenix, Tucson)
603 New Hampshire (Concord)
604 British Columbia (Vancouver)
605 South Dakota (Pierre)
612 Southeast Minnesota (Minneapolis, Mankato)
613 Northern and eastern Ontario (Ottawa)
614 Southeast Ohio (Columbus)
616 Western & Peninsula Michigan (Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Petoskey, Escanaba)
617 Boston area
618 South Illinois (Centralia)
701 North Dakota (Fargo, Bismarck)
702 Nevada (Reno)
703 Virginia (Richmond, Roanoke, Norfolk)
704 North Carolina (Charlotte)
712 West Iowa
713 Southeast Texas (Houston)
714 Southeast California (San Diego)
715 North Wisconsin (Stevens Point)
716 West New York (Buffalo, Rochester)
717 East Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, Scranton)
801 Utah (Salt Lake City)
802 Vermont (White River Junction)
803 South Carolina (Columbia)
812 South Indiana (Evansville)
814 West Pennsylvania (Altoona, Kane)
815 North and West Illinois (Rockford)
816 Northwest Missouri (Kansas City)
901 Tennessee (Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, Knoxville)
902 New Brunswick, Nova Scotia
913 Northern Kansas (Hays, Salina)
914 South New York (Monticello)
915 Northwest Texas (Amarillo, Wichita Falls, Cisco, El Paso)
916 Northeast California (Sacramento, Redding)


[Moderator's Note: Astute readers will notice the absence of Hawaii
(808) and Alaska (907) as well as the Carribean area (809). The United
States territories of Hawaii and Alaska did not acquire statehood for
several more years. And David did not mention a couple other early
rules for area codes: They were to never end with two zeroes, nor were
there to be two one's, ie 711, 811, etc. 'Area codes' of the style X10
were reserved for AT&T's Typewriter Exchange (TWX) service.  Also,
prefixes were rarely duplicated in adjoining area codes. This was to
be avoided in order to allow 'convenience dialing' between communities
nearby one another, but in different area codes; ie. prefixes used in
312 would not show up in 815 or 219.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 14:17:18 EST
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits and our Phone System
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, spencer@phoenix.
> I've never understood this ... why is it necessary for a PBX or
> Centrex to know anything at all about valid and invalid area codes and
> office codes?  Why can't they just pass everything on to the phone
> company and let them screen out invalid numbers?

> [Moderator's Note: The reason is because what telco considers valid
> might still be unwanted by the system proprietor, ie 900 calls; the
> use of certain long distance carriers, etc.   PAT]

There is also the matter of least-cost routing features.  You might
use different carriers or different trunk groups depending upon the
area code being called.


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: Sun, 5 Jan 92 12:27 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Call Trace on Usage Basis in Florida


[e-mail] (Andy Brager) writes:

> I'd like to know what happens if I call one of those numbers from here
> in Southern California (GTE).  Do they get my number or not?

They get the number from any FGD-compliant office. For all practical
purposes, the state of California is 100% FGD-compliant. Ergo, the
answer to your question is, yes, they get your number.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Alan Toscano)
Subject: Re: AT&T VoiceMark Service
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 20:40:23 GMT


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

> Several weeks ago I was able to use the AT&T VoiceMark service from my
> home (612-888-XXXX) however today I was not able to do so.  Has the
> number changed (800-576-MARK) or has the service been discontinued?
> Do any other carriers offer a similar service?  Thanks.

The correct number is 800 562-6275 (-MARK). The service was renamed a
few months ago. It's now called AT&T Message Service. I'm told that
people were confusing AT&T VoiceMark with AT&T Voice Mail Service.

You may call 800 662-2588 to request a wallet card with the service's
phone number.


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

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc.
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 16:20:57 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


> Examples of such numbers are: 382-5968 or 277-4653.  I wonder, has
> somebody at the phone company figured out a list of numbers that
> will ...

Strange you should mention that. For many years, the owner of a
classical music station in a major market had one of those numbers. He
was not known for his pleasant demeanor and the staff would sometimes
mutter about how appropriate the assignment was.

The chief engineer of another classical station elsewhere had
"TWINKLE" for a home phone. Signs in the station said things like:

    This is the FM OFF THE AIR alarm.
    Pushing this button silences the alarm.
    It does NOT restore the transmitter to the air.
    This outrage must NOT be allowed to continue.
    If you can not get it up - TWINKLE ASAP!

Luckily, I got someone in the know to explain it to me ;_]


[e-mail]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Echo to the UK (Really Satellite Circuits)
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 16:33:13 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


> And, yes, *every* carrier still has satellite circuits for international
> calling and places like Alaska and Hawaii.  (Floyd from Alascom can
> correct me if I'm wrong about Alaska.  I believe that Alascom is the
> only IXC there.)  There are some places where a satellite is the only
> way to get there.

Well, to Georgetown Guyana there are 12 or maybe 24 circuits to the
rest of the hemisphere. These are via an old Cable & Wireless
tropo-scatter system that sounds like Floyd's White Alice. It goes up
to Port of Spain, and then {I guess} hops up the island chain from
there. Note that along that route are some places in the 809, and
others in their own country codes. So if you call from the US, whose
switch decides how to get your call there? A Martinque to Georgetown
call might be interesting. I hear that all traffic from Fort de France
goes via Paris!

Georgetown also has an earth station that I was told goes to Britain.
There is no cable anywhere. (Overland? - forget it....)


[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: USA Today's 800 Turned 900 Number
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 13:30:50 CST
From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)


The Moderator brought up the question of mislabelled goods. The law
states that if you offer a product at some price you have to sell it
at that price, even if it was a mistake in labelling. This is intended
to prevent bait-and-switch tactics. Yes, this means if a company
advertises a $5.00 item in the paper for $.50 they have to honor that
advertisement.

I don't know the legal status of a separate disclaimer (such as a
notice posted in the store that the $.50 price was an error), but I
suspect that in that case you'd be pushing your luck to get the $.50
price. On the other hand, if you find a $80 handbag in a 50% off bin
with a $60 sale tag, you can get it for $40 (as I did on one occasion
 ... they didn't give me 50% off the sale price, though, and they
immediately removed the bogus 50% off label).

In this case, I think it unreasonable for the newspaper to suffer a
loss due to AT&T's programming error. I think it unreasonable for
people to benefit from AT&T's error, either ... they were told that
this was a mistake (that is, there was a notice). On the other hand, I
think that AT&T is making a mistake to go after them: in the long term
making the status of 800 numbers questionable has the potential of
losing them a lot of business. It doesn't look like it's hurt them,
this time, but it was a poor decision: the potential downside was
*way* more than any benefit they accrued.

This was an honest mistake, but it sets the precedent for a whole new
category of bait-and-switch type operations. And some of the people
running 800 services are less than ethical themselves.


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

Date: Sun, 05 Jan 92 15:06:38 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits


One obscure candidate for phone songs would be one by a group called
Toronto; this band was active in the early 1980's and had a lead
vocalist named Holly Woods (weird but true). One of their early songs
belted out the refrain "please call 272-5035". I don't know if this
was actually tied to a band promotion or not (416-272 was an exchange
in Mississauga, Cooksville to be exact).


[e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 14:07:20 EST
Subject: Re: CLASS Features on Inter-LATA Calls (was Very Courteous Rep)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dell H.
Ellison) writes:

> That I wrote:

>> CLASS features only work for intra-LATA calls from exchanges equipped
>> with SS7.  As for the call waiting call, I'm pretty sure it would be

> Are you sure?  I think the CLASS features will work for inter-LATA
> calls as long as they have SS7 all the way along the path.

There is no standard and, more importantly, no tariff or regulatory
enablement for the delivery of CLASS related data through and
inter-LATA connection.  Yes, duelling SS7 handoffs *could* do it, but
it is not yet allowed.

I should know.  I have an ISDN phone on my desk with a pretty LCD
display that gives CNID.  I *only* get CID from numbers in SS7 end
offices in my New Jersey LATA.  All other calls come in as incoming
call.

> Besides, I would think that all the switch would need, so that it
> could do the Call Return, would be the phone number.  And it
> definitely should have that.

I believe that the calling phone number is not routinely delivered to
the terminating switch on an inter-LATA call.  Since the information
is not needed there to complete the call, and is not needed there to
rate and bill the call (which is done either by the IXC or the
originating end office), then it is not passed across the IXC network.
Calling numbers are only routinely delivered to terminating offices
for interLATA calls.

ANI to 800/900 numbers is a different story.  That is a special
feature of the particular service being offered by the IXC, and I
think it may require a special connection between the IXC's POP and
the end customer.

Inter-LATA CLASS features have received some discussion, but will
require action by both the FCC and Bellcore to implement.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #12
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17884;
          7 Jan 92 1:44 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05035
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 6 Jan 1992 23:54:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29488
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 6 Jan 1992 23:54:17 -0600
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 23:54:17 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #13

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 Jan 92 23:54:11 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 13

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: IBT and Caller-ID (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: IBT and Caller-ID (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc. (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc. (Chip Olson)
    Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc. (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc. (Stan Brown)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Andrew M. Dunn)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Allen Gwinn)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Mikel Manitius)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Susan B Huntsman )
    Re: American Express and ANI (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: American Express and ANI (Michael Nolan)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Tom Perrine)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Maxime Taksar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 15:52:19 PST
From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: IBT and Caller-ID
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


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

> constant tone.  Then (without hanging) up I dialed that alarm
> company's 800 CID number that was posted a while back and they still
> knew my number.  Sounds like it didn't work, huh?

The 800 number receives ANI, which is transmitted despite your *67.
ANI is not Caller ID.


Ed Greenberg         | Home: [phone] | [e-mail]
P. O. Box 28618        | Work: [phone] | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95159    | Fax:  [phone] | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 07:24:05 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IBT and Caller-ID
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


> [Moderator's Note: That is exactly what *67 is supposed to do: Beep
> three times and go back to the dial tone. It sounds just like the
> three beeps you get when you prepend *70 to cancel call-waiting for
> the duration of the call, and like *70, you need not wait for the
> beeps and fresh dial tone to continue dialing; you need not put in a
> pause with auto-dialers, etc ... just shove all the digits out; the
> switch will keep up with them.

This brings up a complaint I have with DMS-100's: It has been my
experience that you cannot dial over the stuttering on a DMS-100 (it
works fine on 1AESS and 5ESS).  Also, the stuttering is the
busy-signal tone pair, not the dialtone sound that the ESS switches
use.  When dialing with a modem and using *70, you definately must put
in a comma, or the first digits of the phone number will be lost.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Another little thing to watch for is when using both
features -- number ID blocking and suspend call waiting -- on the same
call, do *67 first. We've found you can insert either one first and
the other second getting three beeps after each, but I'm told the way
it is programmed in some exchanges requires *67 to be first if you
expect it to work properly.  Make some test calls to see how it
works on your switch before doing any 'serious calling'.  :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc.
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 92 00:00:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas
W. Martin) writes:

> It seems that in most area codes, numbers which spell seven-letter
> obsceneties are routed to intercept recordings.

> Examples of such numbers are: 382-5968 or 277-4653.  I wonder, has

Perhaps your telco did something with the 5000 group in the 382 area,
but who really knows for sure.

Etak, Inc., in Menlo Park CA has a main number that is 328-ETAK. Never
mind that it also spells FAT-ETAK, and perhaps fat something else.  It
was amusing once, but no longer.

> On a related topic, most of the (900) numbers that deal with phone
> sex etc, seem to be in the 303 or 844 exchanges.  Are these exchanges
> assigned to a particular carrier, do they cover a particular
> geographic area, or what?  900-303 and 844 numbers belong to Pacific
> Bell and are indeed reserved for adult programming.

900-303 and 844 numbers belong to Pacific Bell and are indeed reserved
for adult programming.


Ed Greenberg         | Home: [phone] | [e-mail]
P. O. Box 28618        | Work: [phone] | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95159    | Fax:  [phone] | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)

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

Subject: Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc.
From: [e-mail] (Chip Olson)
Date: 6 Jan 92 10:20:42 EST
Organization: Spam-On-A-Rope Inc.


In the immortal words of [e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin) in
comp.dcom.telecom:

> It seems that in most area codes, numbers which spell seven-letter
> obsceneties are routed to intercept recordings.

> Examples of such numbers are: 382-5968 or 277-4653.  I wonder, has
> somebody at the phone company figured out a list of numbers that will
> not be assigned, or were such numbers originally given out and then
> disconnected due to prank calls.

Well, a friend of mine awhile back requested, and got, the number
739-9636.  When I mentioned what his number spelled to a mutual
friend, she got this evil look in her eye, dialed his number and said
in a stereotypically ditzy voice, "Do you know your phone number
spells SEXY MEN? <giggle>" and hung up.


Chip Olson
[e-mail] | [e-mail] | [e-mail]

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc.
Date: 6 Jan 92 16:01:19 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Douglas
W. Martin) writes:

> It seems that in most area codes, numbers which spell seven-letter
> obsceneties are routed to intercept recordings.

> Examples of such numbers are: 382-5968 or 277-4653.

Just out of curiousity, I decided to try both of these numbers, in the
404 area code.  They both rang through to real human beings!  I asked
them to excuse the ring (as though I had called a wrong number); they
didn't get upset or anything.  I wonder if these folks even know what
their numbers spell?


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 10:51:30 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: Obscene Phone Numbers, 900 Calls, etc.
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas
W. Martin) writes:

> It seems that in most area codes, numbers which spell seven-letter
> obsceneties are routed to intercept recordings.
> Examples of such numbers are: 382-5968 or 277-4653.

Here in Cleveland, a member of a club I used to belong to had the
phone number xxx-3825.  He used to tell people that his phone number
was xxx-(youknowtheword).  I don't know whether he was assigned that
number at random or asked for it.


Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA   [e-mail]

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

From: mongrel![e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1992 23:16:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269
<[e-mail]> writes:

> There was an Hewlett Packard corporate telephone book a few years back
> that got pulled the day after it was released because there was a
> bogus obscene entry.  I don't know if I still have my copy, but they
> sure tried to get them back from everyone.

Back when I used to work for Northern Telecom, we had that problem all
the time with the internal phone directory.  See, all you had to do to
put in an entry was fill in the blue card in the front of the directory
book, fake a manager's initial on it, and send it in through the
internal mail.  It then got published in the book.

(what, me?  no, of _course_ I never sent any in)   :->

There were some good entries in the book, too.   Folks like

     Dueck, Dahf E.
     Hunt, Mike
     Nasium, Jim
     Poo, Winnie T.
     Rahbeet, Rodger
     Street, E. C.

and, of course, many people under their nickname as well as their real
name (often, they wouldn't believe us ... we'd have to show them the
directory).

Last I checked, some of these things had been in there for years, and
I'm told are still there.  Nobody gets removed from the book unless
they quit, are fired or get laid off ... and these "people" will never
be in _that_ category!


Andy Dunn ([e-mail])  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn)

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 07:56 CST
From: [e-mail] (Allen Gwinn)
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor


Back in the early 80's, a "friend" of mine was dating a girl whose
mother worked for Southwestern Bell.  He managed to get a residential
entry into the phonebook as "PHUCHURSELV, MAHBELLE".

There was also a guy that lived out in Irving (a suburb of Dallas,
kinda like Ft. Worth) with the following name:

 Wolfeschlagelsteinhausenberger-Haupfsted, Herbert.

I forget whether it took two or three lines to list him.  His
telephone number was xxx-3825, so we assumed that it was a joke.


[Moderator's Note: Check out the entries for various labor unions and
you'll see several two and three line things such as 'Amalgamated
Union of Blah, Blah and Blah-de-dah, Local X, Y and Z.'   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 14:02:34 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor
Organization: American Automobile Association, Heathrow, FL


> [...] he contacted U.S.  West and was informed that they routinely
> include bogus listings in the directory so that anyone who copies the
> listings from the directory can be prosecuted for copyright violation.

An old cartographer's trick is to add or rename insignificant landmarks on
a map to keep track of copyright violations ...

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 16:43:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Susan B Huntsman )
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor


There were in this country two very large monopolies.  The larger of
the two had the following record: The Vietnam War, Watergate,
double-digit inflation, fuel and energy shortages, bankrupt airlines
and the 8-cent postcard.

The second was responsible for such things as the transistor, the
solar cell, lasers, synthetic crystals, high fidelity stereo
recording, sound motion pictures, radio astronomy, negative feedback,
magnetic tape, magnetic "bubbles", electronic switching systems
microwave radio and TV relay systems, information theory, the first
electrical digital computer, and the first communications satellite.
Guess which one got to tell the other how to run the telephone
business?


Susan Huntsman, DSAC-H Ogden
[phone]  AV 790-0517
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Very clever, Susan ... but you are forgetting that
federal judges always know what's best for us, the unwashed masses, as
they set about the business of saving us from ourselves.  :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: American Express and ANI
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 92 00:17:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


I noticed that calling American Express from a phone other than my own
would invariably result in the question "is your home number still ..."
where the number specified was the number I had placed in their records.

Seems like a reasonable way to handle the information.


Ed Greenberg         | Home: [phone] | [e-mail]
P. O. Box 28618        | Work: [phone] | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95159    | Fax:  [phone] | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Nolan)
Subject: Re: American Express and ANI
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tailored Software Services, Inc.
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 16:51:38 GMT


wa4mei![e-mail] (Randy Jarrett) writes:

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

>> So here is a word to the wise: if you call American Express, be sure
>> to make it clear that the phone you are using is NOT your personal
>> telephone if such is the case. Otherwise your girl/boy friend,
>> employer, barber, or modem may receive calls meant for you.

Doesn't bother me, because an answering machine is the only thing that
answers inbound calls on my private business line.  If Amex wants to
listen to a five minute message on where to play chess in Nebraska,
that's OK by me.

> Partial change of subject.  It is amazing the amount of interest that
> various "public protection groups" have in the use of CID for
> residences without seeming to have any knowledge of ANI in the
> business place.  It couldn't be that these groups are somehow guided
> by business or others to be quiet about their use of this information
> could it?

Seems to me like there is a fundamental difference here, in that ANI
(as I understand it) is on 800 numbers, where the paying party
generally will find out the phone number eventually, so it's mostly a
matter of timing.

I suspect mostly what's happening is that the 'public protection
groups' have discovered that they can't bamboozle the business world
as easily as they can the typical non-technologically competent
person.  As much as I value my own privacy, I find that most of the
arguments against CID are specious or can be overcome with minor
changes to the way it works.

Any business with more than one line knows that CID won't be much help
as a marketing tool to businesses, because you don't necessarily want
to call the number that a call came from, and in some cases either you
can't or (as above) it won't do you any good.


Michael Nolan, [e-mail]  Tailored Software Services, Inc.
Lincoln, Nebraska  [phone]
manager of the huskers mailing list:  [e-mail] for details

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 12:33:24 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  It's hard to believe that Spike Jones didn't do *something* on this
subject (how could he resist using the phone as a musical instrument?).
Any fanatics out there that could check his 'catalog' ?


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Perrine)
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits
Date: 6 Jan 92 20:58:57 GMT
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill
Pfeiffer) writes:

> Mojo Nixon had a song last year in which he implored Elvis to call him
> at 619-239-KING.  When I called, it was usually busy (of course), but
> when I did get through, it was an answering machine asking if I was
> Elvis, or had seen Elvis.  I got a 30 second chance to leave a
> message.  I don't know if it is still up and running, though.

239-KING is now (this morning) a recording of "Happy Birthday" to
Elvis.  It repeats once, then hangs up.


Tom Perrine (tep)   |Internet: [e-mail] |Voice: [phone]
Logicon - T&TSD     | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep     |  or : [phone]
P.O. Box 85158      |GENIE: T.PERRINE               |  FAX: [phone]
San Diego CA 92138

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 07:18:02 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Maxime Taksar)
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill
Pfeiffer) writes:

> Mojo Nixon had a song last year in which he implored Elvis to call him
> at 619-239-KING.  When I called, it was usually busy (of course), but
> when I did get through, it was an answering machine asking if I was
> Elvis, or had seen Elvis.  I got a 30 second chance to leave a
> message.  I don't know if it is still up and running, though.

It *is* indeed still running.  Probably gives him really good
publicity, as it's been modernized to accept fax as well as voice
messages.  (Doesn't seem to be very busy, so possibly it's no longer
just an answering machine on a POTS line).


Maxime Taksar             KC6ZPS            [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #13
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09956;
          7 Jan 92 23:13 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06047
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 7 Jan 1992 21:10:59 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18012
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 7 Jan 1992 21:10:22 -0600
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 21:10:22 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #14

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Jan 92 21:10:11 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 14

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CLASS Features on Inter-LATA Calls (was Very Courteous Rep) (D. Lewis)
    Re: CLASS Features on Inter-LATA Calls (Macy Hallock)
    Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit? (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: Area Code Splits and our Phone System (Bob Frankston)
    Adjacent Area Codes Off by a Digit (Carl Moore)
    Re: The Original North American Numbering Plan (Ron Newman)
    Re: USA Today's 800 Turned 900 Number (David Lesher)
    Re: Problem With PAC*TEL Cordless Phone (Bjorn Ahlen)
    Re: The Best and The Worst (Bob Denny)
    Re: Compression Bridges Ethernet-Ethernet (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: AT&T VoiceMark Service (Carl Moore)
    Re: Book Review: ISDN In Perspective (Bob Frankston)
    Re: Massachusetts DPU Ponders ISDN Request (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: 10th Anniversary of the MFJ (Bruce Klopfenstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: CLASS Features on Inter-LATA Calls (was Very Courteous Rep)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 18:05:34 GMT


To amplify and clarify Andy's and my earlier comments ...

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

> There is no standard and, more importantly, no tariff or regulatory
> enablement for the delivery of CLASS related data through and
> inter-LATA connection.  Yes, duelling SS7 handoffs *could* do it, but
> it is not yet allowed.

Actually, there are tariffs (I believe BellSouth and Southwestern Bell
have filed tariffs) and standards (Bellcore TR-905, TA-962, and
probably some others, as well as ANSI Committee T1 standards of which
the numbers currently escape me); however, technically things are
still being trialed and from a legal, regulatory, and business
standpoint there are still open issues to be resolved.

> I believe that the calling phone number is not routinely delivered to
> the terminating switch on an inter-LATA call.  Since the information
> is not needed there to complete the call, and is not needed there to
> rate and bill the call (which is done either by the IXC or the
> originating end office), then it is not passed across the IXC network.

In some cases it is passed across the IXC network, but is not passed
out of the IXC network.  The Committee T1 SS7 specification allows the
Calling Party Number parameter in SS7 to be labeled "Calling Party
Number" or "Billing Number".  The IXC can presumably carry the billing
number (received via EAMF signaling from the originating LEC) across
the network, but not pass it out of the network.

> Calling numbers are only routinely delivered to terminating offices
> for interLATA calls.

Add "with SS7 signaling".

> ANI to 800/900 numbers is a different story.  That is a special
> feature of the particular service being offered by the IXC, and I
> think it may require a special connection between the IXC's POP and
> the end customer.

It requires a direct connection of one form or another.  The AT&T
INFO-2 (TM) service uses an ISDN PRI connection.  MCI and US Sprint
also offer the service over PRI, and one or the other make it
available via some sort of in-band signaling on a non-ISDN direct
connect T1.

> Inter-LATA CLASS features have received some discussion, but will
> require action by both the FCC and Bellcore to implement.

And by ANSI T1, although I believe these standards have been published.


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

> What? Me speak for AT&T?  You must be joking!

Ditto.

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 22:48 EST
From: fmsys![e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Subject: Re: CLASS Features on Inter-LATA Calls


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

> I believe that the calling phone number is not routinely delivered to
> the terminating switch on an inter-LATA call.

That's true for most existing systems.  With the advent of the newest
pre-SS7 schemes, there was a provision for the delivery of the calling
number to the distant switch.

The missing key here is the supplemental information.  SS7 provides
for more that calling number info, there is class of service
information, too e.g. blocking information.

SS7 machines always receive the calling number, if the distant switch
can provide it.  Whether the number is delivered to ISDN or CNID
subscribers is a function of the Class of Service on both the
orginating and terminating lines.

My points here are:

- There are many central office signalling schemes that make
  calling number info available to the terminating switch.
  That does not mean that a subscriber's services will be
  given that info.

- SS7 has provisions to control who and when the calling
  number information will be presented to a subscriber's
  terminal.  These provisions were not found in previous
  central office signalling systems, since the calling
  number was provided for telco internal call processing
  purposes, not subscriber use.

Perhaps someone more familiar with SS7 will elaborate.

> ANI to 800/900 numbers is a different story.  That is a special
> feature of the particular service being offered by the IXC, and I
> think it may require a special connection between the IXC's POP and
> the end customer.

Not really.  Generally speaking, a customer with any real volume of
IXC business will have a T1 type connection to the IXC.  Depending on
the IXC, calling number info can be delivered by conventional MF ANI
tone sending, ISDN type common channel signalling or even in band DTMF!!

At least one IXC is working on using CNID type signalling.  Not quite
sure what they have in mind, though.

AT&T is perhaps the least flexible in this.  In their INFO-2 service,
they will only use ISDN (done the AT&T way, BTW) for this purpose.
Works great, though ... once you get it installed.


Regards,

Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 [e-mail] [e-mail]
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit?
Date: 6 Jan 92 21:44:07 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Gary Deol) writes ...

> Does anybody know why the middle number in a area-code is always a
> zero or one? Things that make you say Hmmmmmmmm :^)

Simple.  Because in the 1950's era numbering plan, that was the way to
tell an area code (ten digit call) from a local prefix (seven digit
call).  And that era is already half over; the other half (area codes
without a 1/0 in the middle) will be over in about three years.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
or [e-mail]    voice:  [phone]

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits and our Phone System
Date: 5 Jan 1992 18:33 -0400


Of course, it would be nice if there were a way the PBX could
automatically interrogate a remote database when it was confused.  But
that would require that the PBX act like a computer. And even IBM gave
up doing that.

But considering how often it takes years to update the PBX tables and
how cheap it would be for a PBX supplier to provide the data remotely
and even charge for it (and not involve the local Telco at all!), I'll
chalk it up to one more example of technological intertia.

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 12:16:50 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Adjacent Area Codes Off by a Digit


There are some pairs of area codes which are adjacent and off by just
one digit.  I have already discussed 301/302 (to go away when 410 is
fully cut over), 308/307, and 704/703 (gone before I was old enough to
remember, if it ever existed).  Others I have come up with:

These are off by just one click:

602 (Arizona) / 702 (Nevada)
501 (Arkansas) / 601 (Mississippi)
Went away in 1965 split of 305/904: 305 (Florida) / 205 (Alabama)
405 (Oklahoma) / 505 (New Mexico); I listed 405/918 as a possible
     early split, and notice that 918 does NOT touch 505.
217 (Illinois) / 317 (Indiana)

Off by more than one click:

309 (Illinois) / 319 (Iowa)
601 (Mississippi) / 901 (Tennessee); if there was a 901/615 split,
    it did not take this border away.
704 (North Carolina) / 404 (Georgia); if there was a 704/919 split,
     it did not take this border away, but the 404/706 split would
     apparently set up a 706/704 border.
503 (Oregon) / 509 (Washington state)
219 (Indiana) / 419 (Ohio)
308 (Nebraska) / 303 (Colorado); apparently part or all of this
    border remains after 303/719 split

I do NOT believe these touch:

812 (Indiana) / 815 (Illinois)
717 (Pennsylvania) / 716 (New York)
608 (Wisconsin) / 708 (Illinois)

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

Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
Subject: Re: The Original North American Numbering Plan
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 92 22:27:47 EST
From: Ron Newman <[e-mail]>


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

> Without further ado ... here is the original area code setup from 1952:

> 319 East Idaho (Waterloo)

That should be "East Iowa" !

> 515 Central Iowa (Des Moines, Ottumwa, Fort Dodge, Mason City)
> 712 West Iowa

Any idea why a sparsely populated rural place like Iowa rated three
area codes?  I've never understood how Iowa got three when much bigger
places like Alberta, British Columbia, Montana, and Arizona still need
only one each.


Ron Newman        [e-mail]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Today's 800 Turned 900 Number
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 19:39:59 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


I have a separate question about this mess.

Given that it can't be that difficult to prove that you dialed 800,
not 900 [two methods come to mind at once -- beat on the local LEC to
pull their call detail records, and/or refer the LEC to someone with
active 900 blocking getting charged] number; does AT&T have an FCC
tariff in place to charge for making an 800 call? If not, won't they
[even in this anti-regulation adminstration] have a hard time
collecting?


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bjorn Ahlen)
Subject: Re: Problem With PAC*TEL Cordless Phone
Organization: Retix, Santa Monica CA
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 04:06:32 GMT


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

> On my last visit to the United States, I bought a GREAT Technologies
> (Model CS8001) cordless phone (Manufactured for PAC*TEL Products by
> GREAT Technologies). I used it once in a motel and it worked. It uses

> Although the phone works well, it produces an
> annoying buzzer-like sound which is more or less loud depending on the
> location. I tried it out with three different power converters, yes, I
> even tried it with a 9V E-Block-type battery and on different
> locations, but it always sounds like an amplified power-converter-
> sound, even without the phone-line connected to it.

> Does anybody know where this sound comes from, as there should really
> be no noise when operated with a battery (at least this sounds
> logical) or has anybody else had problems with this particular
> cordless phone? The noise is really that loud that normal operation is
> impossible.

I had the same problem in my house with a SW Bell top-rated FF1725.

Two things helped significantly:

1. A ferrite core on the cable to the phone jack. I used a cheap Radio
Shack snap-on ferrite which is normally used to stop RF noise on power
cables. My humble speculation is that much of the noise comes in via
the phone lines, a phenomenal antenna for the 49 MHz used by most
cordless phones.

2. Reorienting the base unit antenna. After much experimenting I found
that for my setup a horizontal East-West orientation worked best, this
in spite of usually holding the handset vertically.


Bjorn Ahlen     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Denny)
Subject: Re: The Best and The Worst
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 05:27:30 GMT
Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc.


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
wrote about liking Pac*Tel Cellular in Atlanta.

I use LA Cellular, the A system in LA, and Pac*Tel is the B system. In
Atlanta, Pac*Tel is the A system. So if you are an A system
subscriber, you lose in Atlanta if you want to roam. At least this was
the situation a year or so ago.

Dumb.


Robert B. Denny        voice: [phone]
Alisa Systems, Inc.    fax: [phone]
Pasadena, CA    ([e-mail], ..uunet!alisa.com!denny)

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Compression Bridges Ethernet-Ethernet
Date: 6 Jan 92 05:40:54 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
indiana.edu (john stigall) writes:

> I need help finding info on compression bridges for a link to a far
> remote site via four-wire modems. What I have found so far is the
> Cryptall 3000 series compression bridge for $7900 list each. Has

Microcom also makes compression bridges, and the cost less. The
Cryptall ones will compress even on a full T1 line. The Microcom ones
don't have enough steam to compress as much at T1 as they can at lower
speeds.

Microcom sells that software and cards and you can supply some ratty
old PC to use them in. They have a 2x and a 4x compression card (its
the serial line card), and a bridge can be made that is 1 enet to
several remote sites -- you just add more of the compressing serial
line cards.

BUT, why are you using four-wire modems in this day and age? If it is
FAR, it probably is interlata, and virtually ALL interlata circuits
are actually DIGITAL. Only the tail circuits change. In many areas
DDS-II or more generically BDS type 56kb tail ckts (or occasionally
even 64kb ones!) can be had at about the same price as an analog one.
No modem needed. Just a CSU/DSU.

If all you were planning on was 4 x compression on 9.6, go digital and
use the really inexpensive NAT bridges that don't compress but that do
cost less than $2000 per end. Used at 56kb, that will be better than a
4 x compression running 9.6. Of course 4 x on 56kb is even nicer.

A good CSU/DSU (many are NOT good ...) and NAT will cost *LESS* than
the Microcom compressing bridge kit with no PC. Add the PC and the
Microcom costs even MORE.

I better not elaborate more or this won't get published ...

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 10:12:08 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T VoiceMark Service


800-576-MARK?  I had 800-562-6275 (MARK) for AT&T VoiceMark.

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Book Review: ISDN In Perspective
Date: 6 Jan 1992 10:57 -0400


I forget to include the ISBN info: 0-201-50016-7 Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Massachusetts DPU Ponders ISDN Request
Date: 6 Jan 92 21:55:05 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter da
Silva) writes:

> You're still paying more for using less resources than a TB3000 and
> POTS.  You're also getting less service (I've run PEP up to 14000 bps
> before compression, and the theoretical limit over POTS is 21204 bps
> (512 channels at 7 bauds with 6 bits/baud less the 300 baud back
> channel), though the most I've heard of in practice is around 18000).

Huh?  18000 is less than 64000.  How is ISDN's 64000 bps less than
POTS?  ISDN's D-channel packet data service _is_ slower than a
'blazer, but it is available 24 hours a day without tying up a
channel.  It lets your host be "on line" for things like receiving
mail, or low-speed (backgroun) ftps.  D channel packet is no speed
demon for interactive use, but that's where the B channel comes in.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

From: bgsuvax![e-mail] (Bruce Klopfenstein)
Subject: Re: 10th Anniversary of the MFJ
Date: 6 Jan 92 22:28:42 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


I still have not found a copy of Judge Greene's July 1991 forced
decision allowing telcos into information services.  Where can I get a
copy?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #14
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13394;
          8 Jan 92 0:39 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11154
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 7 Jan 1992 22:26:03 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32026
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 7 Jan 1992 22:25:26 -0600
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 22:25:26 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #15

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Jan 92 22:25:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 15

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Email Between AT&T Easylink and the Internet (H. Peter Anvin)
    Re: Playing Digitized Sound Over T1 == Distorted Sound? (Michael Salmon)
    Re: American Express and ANI (Mike Neary)
    Re: Rate Table For 900 Numbers (Paul S. Sawyer)
    Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit? (Dell Ellison)
    Re: Caller-ID Rejected in Indiana (Bill Nickless)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Jim Rees)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Jerry K. Wagner)
    Re: Voice Mail and TDD: Rolm (Mickey Ferguson)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Tad Cook)
    Re: Phone Company Humor (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: Who Picked Exchange Names? (Doug Faunt)
    NWT Intercept Recordings in Eskimo Language (Douglas W. Martin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP)
Subject: Re: Email Between AT&T Easylink and the Internet
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 02:25:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> of comp.dcom.telecom,
wu/O=ALAN_TOSCANO/DD.ELN=[e-mail] writes:

> Addressing the Internet from EasyLink IMS is somewhat more
> complicated. Owing to its Telex heritage, EasyLink converts all
> alphabetic characters in addresses to uppercase -- unless they're
> preceded by a bang ("!"). To include an actual bang in an address, you
> must type it twice. Here's the address format which I used to submit
> this article from EasyLink IMS to <[e-mail]>:

  [...extracted line...]

>      DDA ID-INTERNET!!EECS.NWU.EDU!!!T!E!L!E!C!O!M

This is really not necessary.  According to the appropriate RFC's, the
Internet and all other system using RFC-compliant addressing should
ignore case in the address.  There are some non-compliant systems
(notably IBM RS/6000 machines -- funny since IBM mainframes are the
biggest of the troublemakers that forced this rule), but
delta.eecs.nwu.edu is not.  Sending mail to [e-mail] reached
my account there ([e-mail]) fine.  Therefore you could
simplify this to:

    DDA ID-INTERNET!!EECS.NWU.EDU!!TELECOM

 ... without any loss.

hpa
INTERNET: [e-mail]   TALK:      [e-mail]
BITNET:   HPA@NUACC     HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/989.4   NeXTMAIL:  [e-mail]
IRC:      Xorbon        X.400:     /BAD=FATAL_ERROR/ERR=LINE_OVERFLOW

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Salmon)
Subject: Re: Playing Digitized Sound Over T1 == Distorted Sound?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael Salmon)
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 12:11:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Michael K. Minakami writes:

> I have some 8khz mulaw sound samples that I got off of a Sun
> SparcStation and have been trying to play them over a T1 line through
> a voice response unit. When I listen to it over a phone, voice sounds
> nasal and music sounds equally distorted. The most interesting
> phenomenon I've come across so far is that a sample of Yaz's "I before
> E except after C", which should say "You can see the difference,"
> comes out as "You can sue the difference." (There's one for the legal
> dept. :) Whether or not /i/ turn into /u/ seems to depend on context,
> as it happens quite often but not all the time (though for a given
> sample it will consistently happen in the same place.)

I am not very familiar with the U.S. system so perhaps you can
consider this just my $.01's worth, however I thought that you used
A-law rather than mu-law; I don't remember the details of the
differences but I think that they are both logarithmic laws but with
different slopes. Perhaps someone else can give more expert
information.


Michael Salmon
#include    <standard.disclaimer>
Ericsson Telecom AB   Stockholm

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 09:58:15 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: American Express and ANI
Reply-To: [e-mail]


No need to give your name ...

I always howl with laughter whenever the crime-solver shows on TV give
out their tip hotline number (800 or 900 of course) with the
reassurance that there's "no need to give your name".  It's carefully
worded *not* to actually say that the call is anonymous.

Friends think I've gone bonkers until I explain.  "Can they afford to
trace every call?  That must be expensive!"


Mike

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

Subject: Re: Rate Table For 900 Numbers
Date: 7 Jan 92 14:29:13 EST (Tue)
From: unhtel![e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer)
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
EDU (Sullivan) writes:

> Is there a vendor that keeps track of rates for 900 number service?

> If others are interested, let me know, in the absence of a canned
> ready-made rate table perhaps one could be built.

I wish it were that simple.  At first, they seemed to be priced by
"exchange", but now each number can have a different rate, so such a
table would be large, to start with.  As far as I know, the rates can
also change at any time, so such a table would have to carry effective
dates, and be updated frequently.  Also, the billed duration often
does not match the SMDR duration (and our PBX, like many, does not
receive/make use of answer supervision) so we wait for the LEC billing
tapes and rebill these calls.  This is one case where the caller often
has a better idea of the cost of a call than they do for "normal"
calls, so billing an "average" price per minute or per call, although
recovering our costs, would not be fair and would not go undetected.

As you said, if anyone has a better way, many of us would be
interested.  Maybe a special "time and charges" data link ...?


Paul S. Sawyer    - University of New Hampshire CIS - [e-mail]
Telecommunications and Network Services             - VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                   - FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dell H. Ellison)
Subject: Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 22:11:59 GMT


[e-mail] (Gary Deol) writes:

> Does anybody know why the middle number in a area-code is always a
> zero or one?  Things that make you say Hmmmmmmmm :^)

Yes.  To differentiate between the area-code and the office code.
(The office code is the first three digits of a seven digit number.)
The office codes used to have the middle number be any number, EXCEPT
zero or one.  That way the switch could easily tell the difference.

This is not true anymore.  You now see office codes that are not
restricted in this way.


Dell H. Ellison   ...!uunet!mcdchg!motcid!ellisond    Motorola, Inc.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Nickless)
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 18:13:42 -0600
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Rejected in Indiana


Quoting John R. Levine:

> Bell said they were dissapointed; claimed that C-ID would not be
> valuable if blockable, and wasn't sure whether they'd submit a
> modified proposal.

I find it quite strange that Illinois Bell and Michigan Bell found the
service valuable enough to offer, but somehow another Ameritech
subsidiary in a neighboring state doesn't.  But, of course, Ill. Bell
and Mi. Bell also weren't sure if blockable CID would be valuable
either.

Hmmmm ...


Bill Nickless   <[e-mail]>  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 92 17:27:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom
Perrine) writes:

> 239-KING is now (this morning) a recording of "Happy Birthday" to
> Elvis.  It repeats once, then hangs up.

Right now it's a series of beeps that sound almost like a busy signal,
followed by some very slow modem tones (300 baud?).  If anyone can
decode them, I'd be curious to know what it is.  That number is +1 619
239 5464.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 92 09:15:54 -0500
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Jerry K. Wagner)
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits


In TELECOM Digest V12 #13, Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
writes:

> It's hard to believe that Spike Jones didn't do *something* on this
> subject (how could he resist using the phone as a musical instrument?).
> Any fanatics out there that could check his 'catalog' ?

Spike Jones did a recording called (something like) "My New Year's
Resolution."  One verse of it contains the following by Doodles
Weaver:

"I resolve not to tell a corny joke."
Ring-Ring   (phone ringing in time with the music)
"Hello!  What's that?  The church burned down?  Holy Smoke!"

Also, in the song "Chloe," the phone rings at least twice and one side
of the conversation can be heard on the recording.

Person who answered phone:  "Hello!  You don't say!  You don't say!"
Other person listening:        "Who was that?"
Person who answered phone:  "He didn't say!"


Jerry Wagner

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 16:35:24 PST
From: [e-mail] (Mickey Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Voice Mail and TDD: Rolm
Organization: Rolm Systems


In TELECOM Digest V11 #1026 Item 4, Curtis E. Reid writes:

> Recently last month, Rolm announced that it is provided TDD capability
> to its Voice Mail system.

> Who is the best source of contact at Rolm to inquire about the Voice
> Mail and the TDD capability?

Anyone with any questions about this should contact Mark Bonine of
Rolm Company at [phone].  He should be able to handle any
questions one might have.  (He doesn't have Internet mail access right
now, so if you want to ask via e-mail, feel free to send your
questions to me and I will forward them on to him.)


Mickey Ferguson      Rolm Systems      [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 6 Jan 92 01:21:40 GMT


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

> After a few hassles about who's name it was listed under,
> she had the listing changed to "OTHERS, THE."

The Seattle phone book has a listing for "WART, THE".  This belongs to
my longtime friend Andrew Friedman.  When we were about 13, for some
reason Andy told his friends that from then on he wanted to be
addressed as "The Wart."  He even had business cards printed that said
nothing but "The Wart."  He took great joy in ceremoniously presenting
these to people, saying nothing, and then walking away.  The name
stuck, and annually for the past 27 years we have looked forward to
his yearly party, "The Wart Feast."

Barry Mishkind ([e-mail]) writes:

> Well, my friend was still unable to understand the situation, but she
> did as asked, and opened the telephone book to find that she was,
> indeed, the _very_ first entry, "0'Neill, T.J." ...etc. And that was
> the way it stayed all year!

A couple of years ago I convinced US West to list my ham radio call
letters in the residential listings.  It wasn't easy.  I had to
convince them that I had a roommate named KT7H.  I thought it would be
funny to see it listed between the commercial broadcast stations KSTW
and KTZZ.  The telco was very suspicious that I was trying to get a
business listing on a residential line.

When the phone book came out though, it was the first year (1990) that
the Seattle directory had separate residential and business listings
in the white pages.  So KT7H showed up between IGNAC KSHENSKY and CHU
SHANE KU instead.

Later that year US West called me and told me that there had been an
administrative decision not to allow numbers to be mixed with names in
the residential listings.  I guess they had some standard software
that used a limited character set for the residential listings,
although businesses could still get listings such as AAAAAAAA-1
INSURANCE.

They said they had a similar problem with a guy who wanted his name
listed with an exclamation point.  I kept looking for any exceptions
that they had made for anyone else, but they would not budge on this.
One thing that occurred to me was that there is a tribe in Africa that
uses the exclamation point in the English written form of their names,
to note the 'click' sound common in their language.  Alas, I could not
find anyone listed like this in the Seattle directory.  Otherwise I
would have used this as an example where they were making an
exception, so why couldn't I have my listing too?

Since the numerical characters were not part of the range of
permissible characters in their system, this presented special
problems for directory assistance.  I know that when my out of town
ham friends tried to find the number for KT7H, they couldn't.  Yet it
was right there in the directory for one year.

I know this seems weird, and it is.  But hams are funny about their
calls.


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: Mon, 6 Jan 92 23:29:16 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Susan B Huntsman ) writes:

> There were in this country two very large monopolies.  The larger of
> the two had the following record: The Vietnam War, Watergate,
> double-digit inflation, fuel and energy shortages, bankrupt airlines
> and the 8-cent postcard.

> The second was responsible for such things as the transistor, the
> solar cell, lasers, synthetic crystals, high fidelity stereo
> recording, sound motion pictures, radio astronomy, negative feedback,
> magnetic tape, magnetic "bubbles", electronic switching systems
> microwave radio and TV relay systems, information theory, the first
> electrical digital computer, and the first communications satellite.
> Guess which one got to tell the other how to run the telephone
> business?

> [Moderator's Note: Very clever, Susan ... but you are forgetting that
> federal judges always know what's best for us, the unwashed masses, as
> they set about the business of saving us from ourselves.  :)   PAT]

  You (and others) are welcome to your political opinions, whether I
agree with them or not. I'm even willing to listen to them, sometimes
ad nauseum, when there is at least a peripheral relationship to an
aspect of telecom. Personally, I think when you start passing through
posts like this that you are starting to abrogate your responsibilities
as Moderator and turn the Digest into a soapbox for one political
philosophy or another with no light shed on aspects of telecom. There
are plenty of other forums on the nets for this kind of stuff. Get
back to your job, PAT, please, or take a leave of absence and reflect
on what the job ought to be.


Jeff Sicherman


[Moderator's Note: I take it you didn't like the joke. Maybe you are
correct. Perhaps I'll just cease publication for awhile, allowing the
readers to spend the time reading more Socially Responsible newsgroups
and Digests instead of this little journal. I'll have you know if I
sold the Digest at the checkout line in supermarkets I could get 75
cents per issue easily.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 09:10:43 -0800
From: Doug Faunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Picked Exchange Names?


Has anyone built a file of exchange names?  I din't see anything in
the archives that was obviously that.

In Columbia, SC, our telephone number was 36765, and then it was
ALpine3-6765.  The "new" exchange in town was POplar.  This was in the
50's.

We also had a two-party line, shared with my grandmother, who lived
next door, and that must have lasted into the 60's.


[Moderator's Note: We do not have such a file in the archives.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 92 07:27:25 PST
From: [e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin)
Subject: NWT Intercept Recordings in Eskimo Language


     By now my fascination with intercept recordings and with calling
remote places is well documented.  On a whim I called Baker Lake, NWT
819-793-1234 and got an intercept recording in some Eskimo language.
I've kept it for possible future use on my answering machine.  Does
anyone know any even more isolated places with interesting recordings?


Doug Martin [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #15
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14957;
          8 Jan 92 1:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10437
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 7 Jan 1992 23:37:38 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05843
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 7 Jan 1992 23:37:13 -0600
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 23:37:13 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #16

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Jan 92 23:37:11 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 16

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Panasonic TP-500 Information Wanted (Bob Denny)
    Device Wanted to Screen Junk Calls (Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.)
    Device Wanted to Bridge ISDN Interface Pair (Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.)
    Party Lines: Two, Four, Eight-Party Semi-Selective Ringing (J. Cereghino)
    I Wasn't Billed For USA Today 800 Call, Were You? (David Ptasnik)
    Caller ID Device Wanted That Dials Back to Callers (Loran N. Yourk)
    HOLD Device Wanted For Residential Line (Don Maslin)
    Where Can I Find 1-2V 25kohm Amplified Speaker For Modem Card? (S Hinckley)
    PBS Documentary "Empire of the Air" (Allen Pellnat)
    How Do I Hook Up a Starset? (Scott Hinckley)
    Re: T1 on Fiber? (Alan Boritz)
    GSM and SPC Voice Compression (Mike Weal)
    Job Opening in Telecom ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bob Denny)
Subject: Panasonic TP-500 Information Wanted
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 05:35:34 GMT
Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc.


I have a Panasonic TP-500 cell-tel phone. On the whole, I like it a
lot, especially for the price I paid and the 3W on battery (great for
LA power wars). I have a couple of questions:

(1) How can I program it? The store reps said that it requires an
external box. Is this true? If so, it's the first "modern" phone I
have heard of needs a box.

(2) How can I attach a hands-free microphone without buying an entire
fixed mount kit?

(3) From day one, the phone has had an annoying habit of going BZZZZT
in your ear during a conversation. It occurs far more often in the
crowded LA area than in rural areas. The person on the other end hears
a 1/2 s.  interruption but no buzz or other noise. I can hear the T/R
relay in it click at the tail end of the buzz burst. What is this? Is
it a design flaw or can it be adjusted out?

If you have any answers, please email me at [e-mail]. If anyone
else wants to have these answers, let me know by email as well.

Thanks in advance.


Robert B. Denny           voice: [phone]
Alisa Systems, Inc.         fax: [phone]
Pasadena, CA    ([e-mail], ..uunet!alisa.com!denny)

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

From: isus![e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Device Wanted to Screen Junk Calls
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 00:27:44 GMT


I would like a cheap device that connects to the phone line that
answers with "If this is a junk call, please press 1, Personal, 2 etc.

Use your imagination about what happens if you press 1 :-).


 Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| [e-mail]
 4131 E. Cannon Dr. |
 Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |     voice
 _______USA_________|_602_996_1717__

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

From: isus![e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Device Wanted to Bridge ISDN Interface Pair
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 00:25:02 GMT


Is there a commercial device available which can bridge an ISDN U
interface pair (2B1Q), and separate out the two signal directions (and
possibly analyze the data)?

If not, I have sketched out some designs -- is there much of a market
for such a thing?

(I sure could have used one whilst working at GTE, but couldn't find
one.)


 Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| [e-mail]
 4131 E. Cannon Dr. |
 Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |     voice
 _______USA_________|_602_996_1717__

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 01:17:37 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jon Cereghino)
Subject: Party Lines: Two, Four, and Eight-Party Semi-Selective Ringing


[e-mail] asked about how party lines work.
I'm going to give an explanation as I understand. My intent is to
explain things at a level most everyone can follow.  Don't be
insulted.

There are three types of party lines in the former Bell System:
two-party, four-party, and eight-party semi-selective ringing.

Two-party lines have customers attached to the central office (C.O.)
as if they are extensions of the same number.  Both parties are
connected to, and dial calls from, the same physical pair.  Ringers,
however, are wired differently.  The two parties are called tip-party
and ring-party.  The ring party, for example, is sent ringing battery
by the central office across the ring conductor and the central office
ground.

A local ground must be run from the telephone company protector to the
telephone set to complete the circuit.  So, party lines require
three-conductor inside wire if the bell is to ring.  With two-party
service, it's possible to have automatic number identification (ANI).
A high resistance to ground is added to one party's phone and the C.O.
bills that party whenever it "sees" that ground while a billable call
is being dialed.  How can you tell if your exchange has ANI?  If an
operator asks what number you're calling from after you dial long
distance, it doesn't.  Most of us have single-party service which uses
bridged ringing: the bells are connected across the tip and ring
conductors and no ground is required at the phone.

Four-party takes this scheme and builds on it.  There are two tip- and
two ring-parties.  Two different ringing battery frequencies are
produced by the C.O. for each side of the pair.  I don't recall
frequencies, but say one tip-party is on the tip side at 30 hertz
ringing and the other at 60 hertz.  The ringers are frequency-
selective and only ring for "their" correct frequency.  If
everything works right, bells only ring at the dialed location.

Eight-party semi-selective is just as it sounds.  Take a four party
and double the number of tip and ring parties.  There are four tip-
and four ring-parties.  Now, for every ringing frequency we send out
from the C.O., we ring two customers' bells.  In order for customers
to tell who the call is for, the C.O. sends short rings or long rings
to identify which party the call is for.  That's where the name
semi-selective comes from!  It has a funny effect on people: they stop
everything for a few seconds when the phone rings until they can
identify whether the ring is short or long.


Jon Cereghino        [e-mail]
C-Message Weighting BBS [phone] 2400 8N1 via PSTN...

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: I Wasn't Billed For USA Today 800 Call, Were You?
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 9:05:24 PDT


I thoroughly searched my November and December bills, and I as not
billed for several calls to the {USA Today} number on any of the lines
from which I tried it.  I don't believe I've read of anyone else who
made the calls but did not get billed.  Did anyone else in US West or
greater Seattle territory also dodge this bullet?  I do not have AT&T
as my primary carrier, perhaps this made the difference.  Makes one
suspect that AT&T *asked* local Bells to bill 800 calls as 900's and
that some did not comply.

Also, has anyone yet been told that the charges would not be removed?
Without arguing the merits of the actions of our Moderator, has anyone
been told by AT&T or a local telco that "We are aware of your scheming
ways, and we will never credit you for these calls!!!!!!"

I have not seen or heard an official pronouncement yet from AT&T or a
regional.  Has there been one put out that I missed, or are they
chosing to deal with the issue on a case by case basis?

Enquiring minds want to know.


Dave         [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I can state with assurance -- unfortunatly! -- that
Illinois Bell charged for the calls. They appeared in Section 2 (Long
Distance Calls) of my December bill entitled '700/900 Calls'. I got by
for only a few dollars, which I paid.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon,  6 Jan 92 12:12:11 EST
From: [e-mail] (Loran N Yourk)
Subject: Caller ID Device Wanted That Dials Back to Callers
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Now that I can subscribe to CID, I would like to find a stand alone
(or even one built into a phone) CID box which would store numbers and
have buttons which would dial the currently displayed number.

The only units I have seen are the three AT&T models which store
numbers along with date and time called.  AT&T also has a phone which
has the CID box built in along with buttons dedicated to the various
CLASS features but it doesn't allow the automatic dialing of any
number on the display.

Are there any other units which will allow the automatic dialing of
stored numbers?  What other boxes are available and what features do
they have?

With all the various interpretations of the NANP dialing plan (1 +
prefix/no prefix or dial area code/don't dial area code) the box might
have to be flexible to accommodate for the variations.


Loran Yourk   [e-mail]
Disclaimer: These are not the opinions of AT&T


[Moderator's Note: Is there any truth to the rumor that customers who
subscribe both to Caller-ID and telco voicemail (by whatever name)
will someday soon get the calling number 'voice-stamped' on messages
in their mailbox along with the time and date as at present?   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 22:45:50 PST
From: [e-mail] (Don Maslin)
Subject: HOLD Device Wanted For Residential Line


Many of the newer residential use telephones, being sold by AT&T Phone
Store and others, are now coming equipped with a HOLD button which
functions in the same manner as on multi-line instruments.

Recollection suggests that stand-alone HOLD devices were marketed
several years ago which were actuated by going on-hook momentarily and
then hanging up, and the device was released when any instrument went
off-hook (or some similar mode of actuation and release.)

Does recollection serve me correctly?  If so, are such devices
presently available?  From whom, and at what price?

Thanks for the help.


UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!donm
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think Radio Shack has what you are seeking.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Hinckley)
Subject: Where Can I Find 1-2V 25kohm Amplified Speaker For Modem Card?
Date: 6 Jan 92 19:29:07 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


The subject line pretty much says it all. I need a speaker capable of
handling 1-2V high impedance (25kohm) input that has an internal
amplifier. This is what my voice-mail card needs for me to monitor
call and modem progress.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Allen Pellnat)
Subject: PBS Documentary "Empire of the Air"
Organization: Computer Consoles Incorporated
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 18:22:36 GMT


There will be an airing of a PBS documentary that should be of
interest to many readers of comp.dcom.telecom and the various amateur
radio groups. It is titled "Empire of the Air".  Subtitled: "The Men
Who Made Radio". It is a biographical study of Lee DeForest, E.H.
Armstrong and David Sarnoff and how they developed "wireless
telegraph" into the broadcasting and electronics industies we know
today.

I am presently about a third of the way through the companion book of
the same title by Tom Lewis, published by Harper Collins Publishers at
$25.00. One of the most fascinating personal and corporate biographies
I've ever read. It touches on the involvement of government in R&D and
the lone inventor versus the R&D sweatshop as well as the
personalities of the three and how they influenced each other and the
fledgling industry.

Locally here in Rochester it is scheduled for 9:00 PM, January 29th on
WXXI, Channel 21. Look for it in your local listings.

While I'm at it I'll drum once for my own local tie-in to this book
and documentary, the Antique Wireless Association. The dust cover of
the book is a reproduction of the cover of December 1926 "Radio
Broadcast" magazine and several of the photos included in the book are
from the AWA collection. Many of the equipment pieces that will be
shown in the TV version are from the AWA collection. If any readers
are interested in more information about the AWA, (a bargain at $10.00
per year membership), they may drop me an e-mail response to this
posting.

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Hinckley)
Subject: How Do I Hook up a Starset?
Date: 6 Jan 92 21:38:47 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I have inherited (with a box of misc-elctronic junk a friend gave me)
a hands-free headset called a Starset. This consits of a small unit
that clips over your ear which has an earpiece and a speaking tube.

There is a wire coming out of it that ends in a 2-prong (tip/sleeve on
each prong) plug.

What do I need to plug it into to make it work?


[e-mail]

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

Date: 06 Jan 92 19:26:21 EST
From: Alan Boritz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber?


[e-mail] (Tom Gray) writes:

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

>> Recently I talked with an AT&T rep (for T1 service) about T1.  Somehow
>> we were talking about the 'wire'. And he mentioned that the wire would
>> be FIBER. Well, 1.5Mbps and FIBER that does not sound reasonable,
>> because fiber is very EXPENSIVE.

> Fibre is not EXPENSIVE.

> Fibre is CHEAP - to repeat - FIBRE IS CHEAP.

But it's INFERIOR service.  The City of New York got into a battle
with New York Telephone on that issue in '87.  A bunch of circuits
were ordered for a City-owned building in lower Manhattan. NY Tel
couldn't (or wouldn't) locate pairs (or duct space for a new service
entrance), so they pulled in fiber.  NY Tel asked where to plug in the
power for their mux, and my former boss politely told them where to
put the plug. :)

>> So, is this true? Do they install some type of 'NETWORK TERMINATOR' at
>> the customers premises, or how do they handle this?

> They install a fibre transceiver at the customer premises in the same
> way that they would have installed a transciever for copper cable.
> The only real difference is that the fibre transceiver is CHEAPER than
> the copper transceiver

Conventional telephone service on copper facilities are self-powered,
so there is no need for a power supply at the subscriber's drop.
Providing continuous power for mux equipment isn't cheap, so a
customer who wants the same reliable service as one served by copper
facilities has to spend more to get the same thing that everyone else
gets as part of the basic service.  So the tariff'd services telco
provides on fiber facilities SHOULD be cheaper for its customers,
since it's something of LESSER value than what customers are provided
with COPPER facilities.


Alan Boritz    [e-mail]

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

Subject: GSM and SPC Voice Compression
From: [e-mail] (Mike Weal)
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 92 23:04:39 PST
Organization: Questor - Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC::[phone]


I have been looking for information on realtime voice compression, in
particular GSM and SPC.  My understanding is that SPC is a European
standard, and GSM is a compression technique used by AT&T.

Could anyone help find a full description of these compression
techniques.


Thanks,

  Mike Weal ([e-mail])
    The QUESTOR Project: Free Public Access to Usenet & Internet in
      Vancouver, BC, Canada.  BBS: [phone]  FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 92 09:17 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Job Opening in Telecom


Job opening: Director, International Center for Telecommunications
Management

ICTM at the University of Nebraska at Omaha has begun a national
search for a new director.  The ideal candidate will have experience
in international telecommunications management, economics, or policy
with expertise in one or more geographic ares, i.e., Asia-Pacific Rim,
Africa, Europe, etc.  Position requires a doctorate for tenure track
faculty appointment in one of the departments of the College of
Business Administration.  Ideal candidate will possess a broad
knowledge of the telecommunications industry with experience in
research, obtaining funding for research, administering research
projects, and outstanding administrative and interpersonal skills.

Initial closing date: January 15, 1991.

Send resume/cv to Mr. Tom Livingston, Asst. Dean, College of Business
Administration, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182.

Telephone: [phone]
Telefax:   402/554-3747

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #16
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21751;
          9 Jan 92 2:23 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09515
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 9 Jan 1992 00:25:38 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01036
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 9 Jan 1992 00:25:16 -0600
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 00:25:16 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #17

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Jan 92 00:25:09 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 17

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago (Don Kimberlin via Alan Boritz)
    America's Future (John Higdon)
    Are 950 Numbers Dying Off? (Emmanuel Goldstein)
    Sprint Along the Towpath (Gordon Grant)
    Autodialing a Digital Phone (Kevin P. Kleinfelter)
    Digital Cellular Telephony (Anindadeb Vijaykumar Dasgupta)
    Information Age Media Bites (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton)
    Dialed as 800, Billed For 900 (Paul S. Sawyer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 06 Jan 92 19:27:23 EST
From: Alan Boritz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago


I thought TELECOM Digest readers might like this entertaining piece
about Western Union's time service, from the FidoNet FCC conference
(not distributed as a newsgroup), submitted by Don Kimberlin.

               Alan Boritz
               [e-mail]

<War Story mode OM; short form>

The year: 1962

The place: Fort Lauderdale, FL - a time when "Miami" was still a
separate market, and people listened to local radio.  However, no
network affiliates in Ft. Lauderdale, only Miami.

The prelude: I was CE of a 10 kW AM and a 33 kW FM in Ft. Lauderdale.
I'd be bothered when I drove to Miami and ran out of range of my own
station, finding my watch was a couple of minutes off, and have to set
it.  Then, I'd get back to Ft. Lauderdale and have to set it again.
But, nothing ever clicked.

The scene: We used WUTCo clocks, but never really joined a network
program, so the jocks never griped about the clocks.  One day, I get a
"pink letter" in the mail from the FCC Monitoring Station about 12
miles west of Ft. Lauderdale, citing us for violating Section
73-whatever-it-is - "Transmitting False Signals," stating they had
observed our announcements of time that was two minutes off.  I of
course tune in WWV, and by golly our WUTCO clocks _are_ two minutes
off.  Now, the mystery of my watch comes clear!

The action: I call WUTCo at Ft. Lauderdale.  That's a whole `nother
story.

Suffice it to day WUTCo's rules for people that answered the phone
seemed to require they did not answer for 189 rings, then be 125 years
old and be totally uncommunicative.

The Dialogue:
(after 189 rings for 20 minutes):

"Hullo?"

"Is that Western Union?"

"Yup."

"My clocks seem to be two minutes slow here."

"You'll have to talk to the Wire Chief."

(long silence)

"Well, may I speak to the Wire Chief, please?"

"He's not here."

"When will he be back?"

"Never."

(To reduce the time for this typically painful exchange with WUTCo,
I'll revert to summary mode.)

It finally ensued that I learned the magic of WUTCo clocks was that
each local area had a "Master Clock" that ran like an old schoolhouse
clock with a punched paper tape to ring the bells -- except that a
WUTCo local master clock had only one set of holes at the top of the
hour.  When it ran past the holes, it send a two-second pulse down a
local telegraph loop that had all the clocks wired in series like
teleprinters.  Receiving this current pulse would operate the solenoid
in the clocks that pulled their second and minute hands up to the top
of the hour, in some models illuminating a red light while the pulse
was on.

The operation was that in each local area, it was the distinct "job"
of the Wire Chief to be there at noon daily, to get a "click" on the
sounder of one national wire, and set their local Master Clock to the
once-a-day time from the national "click."

At Fort Lauderdale, the Wire Chief had been promoted out of town
_two_years_ previously, so it was nobody's job to set the local Master
Clock.

Well, I had my answer for the FCC.  "Dear FCC: I have investigated the
source of false signals you observed and found they were caused by
erroneous information supplied by the Western Union Telegraph
Company's failure to maintain its tariffed Clock Service.  Since
Western Union personnel have told me they do not intend to correct the
error in their tariffed service, we have instituted measures to obtain
correct time from WWV.  There should not be a recurrence of the false
signals."

Well, it took about two days for the phone calls to start -- from
inside every crack and crevice of Western Union, from Upper Saddle
River to Hudson Street to Washington to Atlanta to Jacksonville to
Miami.  A hundred or so insects came out of the WUTCo woodwork:

"Mr. Kimberlin?  This is ______ from Western Union.  Why didn'tn you
call me about the problem with your clocks?"

"Where did you emerge from? Who are you? How the h--- would I ever
even know you existed?"

"Well, that's all beside the point now.  I want you to know that _I_
have taken personal steps to see that your clocks will function
perfectly from now on.  If you _ever_ have _any_ problem with
_anything_ at Western Union, I want you to call me personally.  Here's
my unlisted direct in-dial number at my desk."

I collected a huge list of names and numbers, and it seemed from that
day on that I never failed to get responsive service from WUTCo after
that.

The story actually has a point: It doesn't matter if it's telegraph,
phone, electric, gas, water, sewer or bus company.  If you take the
time to find out what they are really selling, and you can couch your
complaint in the terms of that tariffed deal with the public, you can
make it stick if you have to ... and from then on, you'll have a whole
different relationship with them.  They _will_ know your name and
they'll _want_ to make you happy the next time you call ... kinda like
the famous joke about the Quaker with the mule!

(I have only used this trick three times in 34 years -- on WUTCo,
Southern Bell, and GTE of Florida -- buit it sure works!

If some BBS users and sysops would learn enough to use it, they'd find
a whole new relation with the Phoneco.  They're doing a bit of that in
Missouri now, and finding out how easy it is to overcome the stonewalls
most people scream at and lose to.


-!- WM v2.00/91-0073
 ! Origin: AET BBS - [phone], 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)


[Moderator's Note: We had WU clock service for many years. Fortunatly,
I was able to grab two clocks when they discontinued the service in
the middle sixties; and I have both clocks running in my house,
without the setting circuit, of course. I knew where there were a
dozen more, but within days of WUTCO discontinuing the service the
clocks were ripped off by collectors (like me!) ... (:  I'll mention
more about this in a couple days if someone reminds me.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 22:46 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: America's Future


 From an organization that calls itself the "United States Telephone
Association" comes, on a national scale, the old blather about
"America's future is too important to be put on hold". On KGO today
during the afternoon drive was a spot that told a heart-warming story
about how a deaf woman could "talk" daily with her son on the
telephone with the aid of [what I assume was] TDD equipment.

"This service could be offered by your local phone company, but there
are some in Congress ... [blah, blah, blah]" Now it appears that the
RBOCs have banded together to spread the gospel of "Total Telco
Control" by taking a page from Pacific Telesis and spreading the
garbage nationwide.

The spot made sure that we, the listeners, were left with the
impression that only the telcos could provide the service mentioned in
this touching story and that meanies in the Congress were standing in
the way. It also concluded with that stupid line about the spot NOT
being paid for by ratepayer money. (Why do I have such a hard time
believing that money is taken out of stockholder dividends for this
campaign?)

The telcos are going for the gold, and they mean business!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Emmanuel Goldstein)
Subject: Are 950 Numbers Dying Off?
Date: 7 Jan 92 08:38:41 GMT


One of the better deals offered by long distance companies over the
years has been the 950 service. This allows customers to use a long
distance company of their choice from any touch tone phone as if they
were calling from their homes, i.e. no surcharges. Over time, however,
I've noticed that it's becoming increasingly difficult to get such
services and that those that do exist seem to be dying off. Just
yesterday, I talked to a US Sprint representative who told me that
instead of using my seven digit authorization code with no surcharge,
I would now have to use a 14 digit code and pay a 75 cent surcharge
for every call! My days with Sprint have reached an end.

Does anyone know why this is happening and what can be done to stop
it?  950 service could be quite a money-maker if the idiots only
marketed it properly. I was making a great deal of LOCAL calls over
Sprint and actually saving over the New York Telephone rate from
payphones. Instead of dropping a quarter into a phone to tell a friend
I was meeting them someplace or to check messages on my voice mail, I
would dial 950-1033, enter my code, dial the number, and pay about 13
cents for a one minute call. Not to mention all of the long distance
calls I was also able to make. Now I'm expected to pay a huge
surcharge for the same service. What is the rationalization for a
surcharge when you're not doing anything above or beyond what the
service is designed for in the first place?

I'd be interested to know how many companies still actively offer 950
service. I know that MCI discontinued their 950-1986 service a while
ago and that their 950-1022 number carries a surcharge.  Allnet's
950-1044 didn't have a surcharge last I checked but their rates seemed
much higher than other 950 numbers. Cable and Wireless still offers a
good deal at 950-0223 and Metromedia (formerly ITT) has the only 950
number that allows you to use the same code from anywhere in the
country at 950-0488. However, with each of those two companies, you
have to put up quite a fight to get the service.

I let Sprint know exactly why I wasn't doing business with them
anymore and I intend to spend lots of money on those companies that
still offer 950 service. Perhaps more of us can do the same.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (gordon grant)
Subject: Sprint Along The Towpath
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Joint European Torus
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 09:06:36 GMT


On BBC radio last night the programme 'The Financial World Tonight'
reported that US Telecommunication company Sprint had signed a deal
with British Waterways the organisation which controls the canal
system in the UK.

The agreemant will allow Sprint the lay underground cables along the
towpaths besides all the canals in the UK. A spokesman for Sprint said
that the towpaths were a friendly enviroment for cables.

He went on to say that in the US Sprint had installed 23000 miles of
cable and had challenged AT&T Dominance of the market by providing a
superior service and being responsive to customers needs. It would do
the same in the UK with this investment of 200 million UKP.


[e-mail]     Gordon Grant     Jet Abingdon OX14 3EA UK
Voice [phone] x4822     Fax [phone]
Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
be construed as an official comment from the JET project.

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

From: msa3b![e-mail] (Kevin P. Kleinfelter)
Subject: Autodialing a Digital Phone
Date: 7 Jan 92 15:17:49 GMT
Organization: Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA


We've got an AT&T System 85 PBX. We've got digital phone sets hooked
to it.  We've got hundreds of customer service reps who need to call
our clients.  We'd like to have either their PC or a central computer
autodial the call.

If we had analog phone sets, I'd just plug the phone set into a cheap
autodial modem, and plug the modem into the wall.  AT&T can sell us a
new digital phone set, with a modem built into it, but the cost is
prohibitive.

I thought of building a Y connector, to have a rep's handset and a
modem wired in parallel, and then plug that into the phone (since the
handset HAS to be analog).  I don't know if this would work due to
voltage, current, etc.

I though of having one modem on a central computer, dial the call and
transfer the call to the rep's extension.  This is unreliable because
the time to place a call (before it can be transferred) is variable, I
can't get enough feedback from the modem, and it is possible for
someone ELSE to call the rep before I can get the call transferred.
Since we're talking about hundreds of reps, I'd like to find a way to
have a modem (or a few modems) do the dialing, instead of a modem for
each rep, so I'd like to find some way to make this work.

Any suggestions?


Kevin Kleinfelter @ DBS, Inc [phone]   ...gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin
Dun&Bradstreet Software, 3445 Peachtree Rd, NE, Atlanta GA 30326-1276
WARNING: I have been advised that email to [e-mail] may bounce.
It looks like email will have to go via 'gatech' because that is well-known.

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

From: [e-mail] (Anindadeb Vijaykumar Dasgupta)
Subject: Digital Cellular Telephony
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 7 Jan 92 18:08:34 GMT


I read somewhere that in most large cities cellular carriers are
switching to digital systems due to saturation of existing cells.  I
couldn't tell what the advantages of this would be:

With analog transmission, each equipment would need 4 KHz. while with
8 bit PCM, 64 Kbps would be needed, which would surely translate to a
higher frequency than 8 KHz.  This definitely does not free up any
bandwidth.  Are these carriers using source coding?  Won't that make
the cellular phones more expensive/bulky?

I am not a telecom person and maybe I am missing the point here.
Could someone explain the advantages of digital over analog (other
than improvement in voice quality, if any) in cellular systems?

Thanks in advance.


Aninda DasGupta    ([e-mail])

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

Subject: Information Age Media Bites
From: [e-mail] (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton)
Date: 7 Jan 1992 11:39 MST
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department


I'll be teaching a course this coming semester on "Issues for the
Information Age," and I am looking for interesting media bites (in the
range of a minute or two) to use as conversation starters in the
various segments of the course.  The course will cover issues like
privacy, mass-marketing databases, government and other surveillance,
national security, man-machine "relations," etc.

Ideas thus far include:

   * "Wopper" in "War Games" (on technological dependence & risk)
   * Robert Redford playing with the Bell System in "Three Days
     of the Condor"
   * HAL and Dave Bowman in "2001"
   * Doomsday device from "Dr. Strangelove" (and the "Doomsday gap!")

I'd greatly appreciate other suggestions from this forum, bearing in
mind that the Information Age is so much a telecommunications issue --
the ideal "bite" would be short and sweet, and ideally humorous ...
something to spark the imagination (and this would include very dated
clips ... I really want to use a scene from Spencer & Tracy's "Desk
Set," with the giant computer with the acre of blinking lights and
spinning tapes ... too fun!).

Thanks for your help!


Ross    [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Subject: Dialed as 800, Billed For 900
Date: 7 Jan 92 14:48:25 EST (Tue)
From: unhtel![e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer)


Well, we just got hit with it ... our LEC bill "as a service to AT&T"
is billing us for calls (back to October) to 900-555-5555 (USA Today).

While we do NOT block 900- calls, the SMDR records clearly show the
calls to have been dialed as 800-555-5555.  Since we do not require
authorization codes on 800- (once thought to be "free") calls, we
cannot really bill individuals for these ...

Should we send a flyer to campus saying: "Since AT&T is now converting
some calls dialed as 800- calls to 900- calls and billing for them, we
now will have to request an authorization code on 800- calls, and will
bill you accordingly.  We suggest you listen carefully to all 800-
calls you make to catch any hints of charges."?  (1/2 :-)


Paul S. Sawyer    - University of New Hampshire CIS - [e-mail]
Telecommunications and Network Services             - VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                   - FAX: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #17
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24970;
          9 Jan 92 3:34 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04247
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 9 Jan 1992 01:33:00 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05806
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 9 Jan 1992 01:32:13 -0600
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 01:32:13 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #18

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Jan 92 01:32:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 18

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (Kurt Guntheroth)
    Canadian Caller-ID Specs (Bob Fillmore)
    'Mother-in-Law' Field (was Caller-ID Chip Spec Sheet Humor) (Ralph Hyre)
    Re: Caller-ID Rejected in Indiana (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Caller ID Device Wanted That Dials Back to Callers (R. Kevin Oberman)
    Re: Caller ID Device Wanted That Dials Back to Callers (Bob Miller)
    Name Stamped Voice Mail (David Ptasnik)
    CCITT Recommendation E.124 (Nigel Roberts)
    Re: Playing Digitized Sound Over T1 == Distorted Sound? (Clifton Koch)
    Re: Playing Digitized Sound Over T1 == Distorted Sound? (David Lemson)
    Re: T1 on Fiber? (David G. Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kurt Guntheroth)
Subject: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kurt Guntheroth)
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 16:27:54 GMT


I now understand that ANI is not Caller ID, and that 'blocking' caller
ID may not have the desired effect when you call a business.

Would someone in the know please concisely explain:

 * What, exactly, is "Caller ID", as technical people describe it?
 * What, exactly, is ANI?
 * What are the differences between these two things that determine whether
   or not a properly equipped receiver can get your phone number, especially
   in places that (1) don't currently offer Caller ID (2) offer blocking of
   one kind or another?
 * Does the answer vary depending on exchange, and is there a way I can find
   out how my exchange is configured?

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Fillmore 992-2832)
Subject: Canadian Caller-ID Specs
Organization: Dept. of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 21:05:28 GMT


I have been following the progress of the Caller-ID feature, and
recently I bought a demodulator device (from Rochelle) and started
writing a program to process the Caller-ID data.  I compared a hex
dump of the data to the spec published in the Bellcore documents and
posted to this group recently.  The message formats are quite
different, with the only the preamble (hex 55) and checksum appearing
to be the same.  I am now assuming that there is a different standard
in Canada for the Caller-ID message format.

Does anyone have documentation, or know where to get it, for the
Canadian spec?

Any help is much appreciated.


Bob Fillmore, Systems Software & Communications  email: [e-mail]
Information Technology Branch,                   BIX:   bfillmore
Energy, Mines, & Resources Canada                Voice: [phone]
588 Booth St., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  K1A 0E4  FAX:   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Subject: 'Mother-in-Law' Field (was Caller-ID Chip Spec Sheet Humor)
Date: 7 Jan 92 21:34:57 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter
da Silva) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 1051, Message 12 of 12

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

>> But when you look at the sample data message shown for the extra 109 bits
>> ... because it says "MOTHER IN LAW"!

[Isn't this a data field description?  MOTHER IN LAW is 14 bytes in
ASCII.  A dialed number [phone] is 10 characters, which is
easier to fit, even at 10 bits/char.]

> ...  It could be the CB/vanity plate craze of
> the 21st century. With only 109 bits (why 109? What's the character
> set?), you'll have to think carefully: "IN 4 THE MONEY", ...

My impression was that these bits were for delivery of the CALLED
number.  With Ringmate/Distinctive Ring and other features, the you
can have many different numbers terminating on one line.

'Mother in law' describes a typical application perfectly: Imagine
you are fulfulling the 'husband' role in your home:

Call for: 555-1313 (your mother in law, who is staying with you for a
few days.)

 From: 555-1212 (your wife, who is calling from work to check on her)

[this suggests that you don't want to answer it, as the call is not for you.]

disclaimer: I haven't looked at the REAL CLID spec from Bellcore, but
I do have the Motorola data sheet.  This is all a WAG, but if I have
come up with a new service idea, please let me know :-!


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

E-mail: [e-mail]    Snail: Box 85, Milford OH 45150-0085
Phone: [phone]        Radio: N3FGW

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Rejected in Indiana
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 09:54:07 GMT


> Bell said they were dissapointed; claimed that C-ID would not be
> valuable if blockable, and wasn't sure whether they'd submit a
> modified proposal.

As a would-be customer of CLID, I would *prefer* a CLID system that
offered blocking and block-blocking to one with no blocking. But, of
course, Ma Bell still hasn't learned to listen to her customers.


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID Device Wanted That Dials Back to Callers
Date: 8 Jan 92 16:44:50 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Is there any truth to the rumor that customers who
> subscribe both to Caller-ID and telco voicemail (by whatever name)
> will someday soon get the calling number 'voice-stamped' on messages
> in their mailbox along with the time and date as at present?   PAT]

We have our own 5ESS and an Octel voice mail system. All messages from
internal phones are stamped with the number of the caller. All others
are stamped "from an outside caller". If you block the number when
calling (*67), you still get a stamp of "from an outside caller", even
though it isn't.


R. Kevin Oberman            Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]        [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 92 07:38:36 PST
From: Bob Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Device Wanted That Dials Back to Callers


Loran N. Yourk writes:

> Now that I can subscribe to CID, I would like to find a stand alone
> (or even one built into a phone) CID box which would store numberrs and
> have buttons which would dial the currently displayed number.

Northern Telecom has a 'Maestro' phone which stores the numbers that
have called and allows you to redial them.  They are also have a new
phone which will display the name of the caller when that service
becomes available (I assume this is the contents of the 109 bit field
which was discussed here a short while back), I don't remember off
hand what this phone is called.  Both phones are on sale in phone
stores in Toronto, with 'Communications Canada' stickers on them, I
don't know if they are FCC approved of if Northern intends to market
them in the U.S.

What I would like to see in a phone:

 - Associate a phone number with a name (and set of attributes)
 - Have a relay on the ringer to disable the 1'st ring
 - Attributes include:
     My name for caller - eg. first name of friend, MOM, Teleslease
     Action to take on incoming call
       - Close relay and enable ring
         (this would be for close friends and mom who would only call
          if there was an emergency late at night)
       - Close relay if in accept mode
       - Ignore call - let ring
       - Pass call to answering machine
     Alternate phone numbers for same person
 - Optional integration with answering machine, possible costomized
   message on answering machine depending on caller
 - Accept/Deny call mode.  This would be activated by a button with
   visual indicator when in deny mode.  Mode would also automatically
   be set depending on time of day, etc.

What do you want to bet that Japan Inc. will beat North America by
mass marketing at a reasonable price point a real phone?

P.S. I forgot to mention a serious flaw in the Maestro phone if you
have an answering machine or answer the call on another phone.  It
will not record the number of a called party if the call was answered.
I think that this is corrected in their new phone.


Bob Miller / Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd.
Views expressed are mine, Digital rarely listens to me.

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Name Stamped Voice Mail
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 92 8:39:39 PDT


> [Moderator's Note: Is there any truth to the rumor that customers who
> subscribe both to Caller-ID and telco voicemail (by whatever name)
> will someday soon get the calling number 'voice-stamped' on messages
> in their mailbox along with the time and date as at present?   PAT]

I suspect that the rumor is true.  The University of Washington is
primarily a Centrex environment.  We have our own Octel voice mail
system.  US West passes the calling party number as well as the called
party number to our voice mail system.  It then tells the recipient of
a message the name of the person leaving the message, if the person
leaving the message has voice mail and is using their personal line.
As Centrex is essentially just a microcosm of the telco, I feel very
confident in saying that they could do the same thing if they wanted to.
Particularly when you consider that US West uses an Octel system for
their voice mail.  If they think it will make more money, they will
almost certainly implement it.

One real advantage to this feature is the ability to record messages
and replies to messages and have them delivered directly into a
person's voice mail box.  Often I don't need to talk to someone to reply
to their questions, leaving a message is sufficient.  By sending a
recording straight to their box I avoid having to deal with their
receptionists, or even the ring delay before their box answers.


Dave   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 92 04:25:11 PST
From: Nigel Roberts  08-Jan-1992 1322 <[e-mail]>
Subject: CCITT Recommendation E.124


I recently obtained copies of the CCITT E series Recommendations (Blue
Book) in order to do some research into a complaint I have about the
British cellular telephone systems, Cellnet and Vodafone. (Regular
readers of the Digest may remember my original posting). At this point
I'd like to offer a big thank-you to the Telecom readers who put me
on the right track, and I will report back if I have any success or if
there are any further developments.

However, while reading through the Recommendations (light bed-time
reading :-) I came across E.124 and I thought it would be of interest
to a number of readers:

"Recommendation E.124

     DISCOURAGEMENT OF FRIVOLOUS INTERNATIONAL CALLING TO UNASSIGNED OR
     VACANT NUMBERS ANSWERED BY RECORDED ANNOUNCEMENTS WITHOUT CHARGE.

1. Preamble

It sometimes happens that there is a severe outbreak of international
calling to telephone numbers that answer with recorded announcements
without charge.  It seems that some subscribers make such calls merely
for free amusement.  Frivoulous calling can occur unnoticed by an
Administration unless it is deliberately looked for, and serious
degradation of quality of service can result.

This Recommendation concerns prevention and abatement of frivolous
international calling "

(Sections 2, 3 and 4 go on to deal with Monitoring, Prevention and
Abatement).

Now I wonder who'd do such a thing?


Nigel Roberts   [phone] / [phone]   FAX [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Clifton Koch)
Subject: Re: Playing Digitized Sound Over T1 == Distorted Sound?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 23:57:11 GMT


[e-mail] (Michael K. Minakami) writes:

> I have some 8khz mulaw sound samples that I got off of a Sun
> SparcStation and have been trying to play them over a T1 line through
> a voice response unit. When I listen to it over a phone, voice sounds
> nasal and music sounds equally distorted. The most interesting

  I'm not sure what you mean by a voice response unit.  Are you sure
it is expanding the Mu-law companded data before the D-A conversion?
It sounds as though it is trying to reproduce the companded
information directly.


CVK    .. [uunet | mcdchg | gatech]!motcid!koch

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

From: [e-mail] (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Playing Digitized Sound Over T1 == Distorted Sound?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 05:57:25 GMT


[e-mail] (Michael Salmon) writes:

> I am not very familiar with the U.S. system so perhaps you can
> consider this just my $.01's worth, however I thought that you used
> A-law rather than mu-law; I don't remember the details of the
> differences but I think that they are both logarithmic laws but with
> different slopes. Perhaps someone else can give more expert
> information.

In the U.S. we do definitely use mu-law.  You use A-law in most
European countries.


David Lemson              [phone]
University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant   /   CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
Internet : [e-mail]                    UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson
NeXTMail accepted (but use ASCII for quicker response) BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 13:59:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Alan Boritz) writes:

> [e-mail] (Tom Gray) writes:

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

>>> Recently I talked with an AT&T rep (for T1 service) about T1.  Somehow
>>> we were talking about the 'wire'. And he mentioned that the wire would
>>> be FIBER. Well, 1.5Mbps and FIBER that does not sound reasonable,
>>> because fiber is very EXPENSIVE.

>> Fibre is not EXPENSIVE.

>> Fibre is CHEAP - to repeat - FIBRE IS CHEAP.

> But it's INFERIOR service.  The City of New York got into a battle
> with New York Telephone on that issue in '87.  A bunch of circuits
> were ordered for a City-owned building in lower Manhattan. NY Tel
> couldn't (or wouldn't) locate pairs (or duct space for a new service
> entrance), so they pulled in fiber.  NY Tel asked where to plug in the
> power for their mux, and my former boss politely told them where to
> put the plug. :)

> Conventional telephone service on copper facilities are self-powered,
> so there is no need for a power supply at the subscriber's drop.
> Providing continuous power for mux equipment isn't cheap, so a
> customer who wants the same reliable service as one served by copper
> facilities has to spend more to get the same thing that everyone else
> gets as part of the basic service.  So the tariff'd services telco
> provides on fiber facilities SHOULD be cheaper for its customers,
> since it's something of LESSER value than what customers are provided
> with COPPER facilities.

If, however, you look at the entire range of parameters that make up
"quality of service" instead of just whether the telco or the
subscriber provides the power, you might get a different answer.  For
example: fiber has bit error rates in the range of 10^-11, compared to
between 10^-3 and 10^-7 for copper.  Fiber supports automatic
protection switching (although most LECs don't, particularly if
they're putting a single DS1 on fiber, which they wouldn't do
anyway...), copper doesn't.

Teleport Communications Group (disclaimer: where I used to work) cites
BERs of 10^-11 and availability of 99.999+% for its customers, all of
whom are provided service via fiber.  I believe the standards for
copper T1s are 10^-6 BER and availability of 99.9%.  The TCG
availability figures include loss of customer-provided power (although
it was a contractual arrangement between TCG and the customer for the
customer to provide UPS power, and in particularly critical
arrangements, TCG would provide battery backup).

Overall, I would strongly question the blanket statement that
"services provided on fiber facilities ... are of lesser value than
(those) provided on copper facilities."  I would restate it to sat say
something more like "services provided on fiber facilities may require
a different commitment to support the service on the part of the
customer, which the customer may be unwilling to support if the
benefits of fiber are not sufficient."


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #18
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18952;
          10 Jan 92 2:49 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29276
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 10 Jan 1992 00:48:25 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01500
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 10 Jan 1992 00:47:56 -0600
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 00:47:56 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #19

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 Jan 92 00:47:51 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 19

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Honda 800 Line Flooded by Caller (Sanford Sherizen, RISKS via Thomas Lapp)
    Rotary Callers Go Home! (Larry Rachman)
    GTE Sells its Last Part of Sprint (Dave Leibold)
    Cellular Prices Go Up (Dave Leibold)
    AT&T Drops The Ball? (John Higdon)
    Interesting Advertisement (John R. Levine)
    Repeat Dialing Question (Doug Thackery)
    Trying to Locate "PCN/PCS" Expert Russel Neuman (J. Butz)
    Need NPA Exchange Lists for 216 and 619 (Douglas W. Martin)
    Emulation Software Wanted for IBM-PC ([e-mail])
    Help Identify This Network (Rick Honaker)
    PC Based PBX (Ken Jongsma)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 92 19:14:57 EST
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Honda 800 Line Flooded by Caller


[Moderator's Note: Thanks also to Dave Leibold and others for
submitting this to the Digest.   PAT]

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

Sanford Sherizen, in a recent issue of the RISKS Digest, discusses a
{Boston Globe} report of a disgruntled Honda owner flooding several
800 phone lines.  I have his permission to repost this along with a
followup that he is also submitting to the RISKS Digest.  He would be
interested in answers to the questions he poses.

+++++ begin forwarded text ++++++

 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 21:57 GMT
 From: Sanford Sherizen <[e-mail]>
 Subject: Customer Clogs Honda 800 number

{The Boston Globe} (December 30, 1991) reported that a disgruntled
Honda owner called its "Better Business Bureau Information Line"
toll-free customer relations number so many times that he clogged the
line.  He did the same to other 800 numbers used primarily by Honda
employees and dealers.  In both cases, he presumably used an automatic
redialing mechanism (Daemon Dialer).  He then began tying up a Honda
facsimile number by transmitting muti-page letters during a four-day
period.

American Honda Motor Co. says that it was forced to ask AT&T to step
in and block the calls which allegedly came from a Holliston, Mass.
home.  However, AT&T security said that it also had to block any calls
to the Honda numbers for the entire 508 area code, which covers west
and north of Boston.  Attempts to reach the Holliston complainer was
not possible since his phone is unlisted!

I seem to remember that a televangelist's number was tied up in a
similar fashion a few years ago and there has been rumours of
political candidates' phones being plugged by their competition.  How
common is this form of destructive behavior?

It will be interesting to see whether AT&T does some form of call or
line blocking on this individual.  How can phones be made open except
for certain parties who overstep bounds?  When are there too many
calls and when is the line crossed into harassment?  Is this a case
where caller ID would have "proven" harassment?  Under what conditions
is someone no longer allowed "phone rights?"  Was the Los Angeles
judge's denial of telephone use by Ian Mitnick to prevent him from
connecting to a computer in any way related in a legal sense to this
present incident?

Good story to end 1991.  The year of ousted regimes, stalled
economies, and phone disorders.  Sort of an updated version of Sex,
Lies, and Videotapes, to be called Lex, Slides, and Telegaps.


Sanford Sherizen, Data Security Systems, Inc., Natick, MA 01760

+++++++++++  End of Forwarded Text ++++++

I told Sanford that since it was an 800 number, it was certainly
possible for the people owning the 800 number to determine the
caller's phone number through ANI.  Sanford also suggested that I send
along the following followup to his original posting.

+++++++++++ Begin Forwarded Text +++++++++

 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 92 01:56 GMT
 From: Sanford Sherizen <[e-mail]>
 Subject: Customer Clogs Honda 800 Number (Cont.)


There is more about this incident.  According to the TAB, a very good
local newspaper in this area, Daniel Gregory has been charged with
telephone harassment after he made at least 100 phone calls in one day
and faxed a 14-foot computer banner saying "Dan Gregory is unhappy
with his Honda."  Gregory admitted making the calls.  "It could have
been as many as 100 in one day," he said last week.  "MAYBE I OVERDID
IT.  BUT EVEN IF THAT WAS THE CASE, SO LA DE DA." (Emphasis added by
me to highlight why the U.S. is in decline)

He made a comment about the long fax.  "A roll of fax paper is $12 at
Staples (office store).  We're talking about a multi-million dollar
company getting mad because I use a lot of fax paper?"

While this story has received some coverage around the U.S., it has
been treated as if it is a funny story.  Some form of man-bites-Honda.
The fact is, however, that this incident shows a vulnerability of
technology.  Is this phone clogging almost a virus-type phenomenon?
Can it be possible on a larger scale?  Say someone doesn't like their
boss, the Internal Revenue, their ex-spouse, a political candidate, a
computer network, or some other party.  Then "la-de-da" is the right
response.

For all we know, Gregory may run for national office on the La De Da
Platform.  Oops, sorry, I think that political platform is already
taken by at least one other candidate for president.


Sanford Sherizen, Data Security Systems, Inc., Natick, MA 01760 USA
++++++ End of forwarded text ++++++


tom
internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail] (home)
             : [e-mail] (work)
OSI          : C=US/A=MCI/S=LAPP/D=ID=4398613
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Location     : Newark, DE, USA

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

Date: 07 Jan 92 19:57:04 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rotary Callers Go Home!


Well, it was bound to happen eventually. I called Casio, at 800-762-1241,
and got the following recording:

"Thank you for calling the Casio Referral Hotline. If you are calling
from a touchtone telephone, press one now. If you are calling from a
rotary dial telephone, please call back on a touchtone telephone.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And if you don't have one, tough luck! (I guess).


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX     reply to [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 22:50:57 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: GTE Sells Its Last Part of Sprint


GTE until now held onto a 19.9% share of US Sprint, the number three
long distance carrier. That 19.9% has now been sold to United
Telecommunications for $530 million, with expected closing of the
first $250 million 31st January 1992 and the balance in cash 1st July
1992. United Telecom will then adopt Sprint's name. In the USA, GTE
remains as the largest non-RBOC local telco while being the number two
cellular service provider.


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node
1:250/98 INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 22:43:53 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Cellular Prices Go Up


Bell Canada and Cantel will be raising their cellular rates soon. The
average increase will be on the order of 7-9% according to {The
Toronto Star}. Some customers will reportedly experience a 20%
increase. The increases generally affect the access rates such as
Bell's $24.95 to $124.95 (increasing to $29.95 to $139.95) or Cantel's
$24.95 access rate (going to $29.95). Bell has a "Lifeline" rate of
$9.95 which will not be changed (though this might involve higher
connect time charges).

Both cellular carriers are offering long-term contracts which would
allow customers to keep the current rates, but the catches with these
are three-year contract periods and high cancellation penalties (up to
$400 reported).

Bell Cellular's price hike takes effect 1st Feb 1992; Cantel raises
its rates on 1st March 1992.


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 92 16:56 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: AT&T Drops The Ball?


Early today I complained to AT&T about the abysmal connections to the
Hawaiian islands. As has been discussed here before, there is a delay
that is variable even during the same call; there are varying levels
of background hiss; the audio is distorted; and below a certain
threshold, the audio is actually chopped off.

What finally set me off was that I happened to have occasion to use a
client's ComSystems (it never occurred to me to use my own for calls
to the islands!) service. Each and every call of about ten was clear,
noiseless, without annoying transmission delays, etc., etc. Sure
enough, using my own account with ComSystems, the calls are perfect.

So far, AT&T has not seen fit to respond to my complaints. Fortunately,
I have ComSystems to fall back on. But it is really sad when the
quality leader is aced by a second-string industry player.


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

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

Subject: Interesting Advertisement
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 92 21:23:11 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


I noticed this quarter-page display ad in the {Air Travel Journal}, a
free newspaper distributed at Logan airport in Boston.  Roughly
reproduced:


    Caribbean Bound?

<picture of cute little girl holding a cell phone>

Cellular telephone service is available on St. Maarten, St. Barths,
Anguilla, etc. --- on land or sea!

Bring your own and dial "0" for instant "credit card" roaming.

Phones available for rent or purchase.

If you would like to receive our rates and terms by mail or fax, call
617-566-8613.

E. CARIBBEAN CELLULAR
ST. MAARTEN, 011 5995-22100


I'll call them in the morning and have them fax me the info, you never
know when it might be useful.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Thackery)
Subject: Repeat Dialing Question
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 16:53:31 GMT


My question is, does repeat dialing allow people to "camp on" a dialed
number and stack up in the order that they dialed, causing people
without it to be blocked from ever seizing that line?

I guess radio contests would be a possible application, but in my case
it has been trying to access the number of a Cineplex Odeon theater to
get shows and times.  I used to be able to get through by manually
dialing.  It might have taken eight times or so but at least I was
usually able to get through.  Now I can't at all.  Is it possible that
people with repeat dialing are stacked up on this number thus making
it impossible for me to get through?

Currently repeat dialing is not available in my area so if this proves
to be the case then I am s.o.l. until it becomes available.


doug


[Moderator's Note: I think it only checks every few seconds to see if
the called line has become available (especially if the called party
is on another switch somewhere) as opposed to instantly knowing the
status of the called line. Therefore, a 'free lance' dialer -- someone
manually trying to get in -- could catch the line during a period of a
few seconds when it is free and seize control. I don't think the
service is truly 'camp-on' in a technical sense, but rather, just a
Demon Dialer like thing in the CO.  People with repeat dial, try this
experiment: Dial yourself, and of course, get a busy signal. Pass it
all to *66 or whatever repeat dial is in your exchange. The system
will respond saying 'the line is busy, if it is free in the next 30
minutes you will be notified with a special ring ...'  Hang up. In a
few seconds, you'll get the special ring, but when you pick up, after
a few seconds of silence, you'll get the message 'the number you were
trying to call *was* free, but it has become busy again ... ' Well of
course it became busy again in that short interval, since you picked
up to answer the ringback! This will continue for thirty minutes, or
until you use *86 to cancel your 'repeat dialing request'.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 92 08:39 EST
Subject: Trying to Locate "PCN/PCS" Expert Russel Neuman


I read with great interest a commentary from the Sunday {New York
Times}, Week in Review section on PCN/PCS.  The article mentions W.
Russel Neuman, from MIT, who presented his visions of personal
communications networks to the FCC.

Does anyone know if he can be reached on the net, also might anyone
know if a transcript of the FCC hearing is available (in particular W.
Russel Neuman's talk)?


J. Butz     [e-mail]    908 949 5302

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 92 11:53:51 PST
From: [e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin)
Subject: Need NPA Exchange Lists For 216 and 619


About a year ago, there was a mention in this Digest that in addition
to exchange lists for NPA-809 and the Canadian area codes, lists were
available for U.S. area codes.  I need lists for area code 216
(Cleveland Oh) and 619 (San Diego Ca).  How might I obtain these
lists?


Thanks,

Doug Martin     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: These lists are not in the Archives simply because
there are so many, and space is somewhat limited. I'm turning your
request over to Dave Leibold and Carl Moore, both of whom have very
extensive lists of area codes and associated prefixes.    PAT]

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

Date: Tue Jan  7 16:59:24 1992
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Emulation Software Wanted for IBM-PC


I am finding information about a emulation software for the IBM-PC.

I need a resident software lower than 120 Kb in RAM memory for SDLC
remote communication between a IBM-PC and a HOST IBM 4381.

Do you have any information about this? Do you have where I can find
it?

Please send me electronic mail to: [e-mail].  (I'm not
in this list)

Thanks in advance.


Luis R. Valdivia P.

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

From: [e-mail] (Rick Honaker)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 92 05:43:41 (EST)
Subject: Help Identify This Network


When I dial the system (the phone number escapes me, I am calling from
work) answers and offers no identification at all, nor does it prompt
for a logon.  I have used Telenet and Tymnet before and this doesn't
look (to me) like either.  It's command prompt is a * (instead of the
familiar Telenet @).  It reacts to commands like, SET (to set
different parameters, i.e.  SET 1,1 would set parameter 1 to the value
of 1), PAR will show the value of all the parameters (I think there
are 12-15 of them) CALL will attempt a connect of some sort but I have
no clue as to the address snytax.  STA will return the current status
of the particular node.  All of these examples are just my theories,
if anyone has seen a system resembling one like this please lend a
hand.  Please!


Rick Honaker
InterNet : [e-mail]
UUCP : crash!gnh-starport!rickh
ARPA : crash!gnh-starport![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It sounds suspiciously like some dialect of
whatever Sprintnet/Telenet uses.  Your local telco's net, perhaps?
Illinois Bell has a packet network with the same characteristics you
are describing.  PAT]


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

Subject: PC Based PBX
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 92 20:55:04 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


It seems to me that several people have asked about PC based PBX
systems.  I just came across the following in {Communications Week}
and thought it might be of interest:

Start-up PCBX Systems Inc. has developed what it is calling the first
PBX to run on a personal computer. The PCBX is a PC card that can give
any telephone set full PBX functionality, said the Woodland Hills,
California company.

The card can be plugged into any IBM compatible PC and handle up to 16
trunks and 48 lines. The system can choose long distance carriers,
provide Direct Inward Dial service, specify calling restrictions and
provide full call management. Each board, which supports 4 trunks and
12 lines, costs $1800. The system, which can support four boards, is
available now.

I know nothing more about this ...


Ken Jongsma               [e-mail]
Smiths Industries         [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan    73115,[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #19
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10530;
          11 Jan 92 2:37 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17861
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 10 Jan 1992 23:51:35 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20467
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 10 Jan 1992 23:50:58 -0600
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 23:50:58 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #20

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 Jan 92 23:50:54 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 20

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Those Are REAL Phone Numbers! (Jack Winslade)
    RFC822 Address Case Sensitivity (Stephen B. Kutzer)
    Unidentified Telecom Equipment (Scott Dorsey)
    900 Number Advertisements and Charges (Michael Rosen)
    MCI Calling Card from Canada (David Ash)
    Need Phone Service (Michael J. Logsdon)
    Inexpensive Voicemail System Needed For 100 + Users (Sissy Kelly)
    VME Fax Modem Hardware? (Dean Neumann-Grant)
    Part 68 FAQ ([e-mail])
    Baby Bells Hit New Low (David Niebuhr)
    Mu-Law Versus A-Law (Joseph Chiu)
    Modem/Fax/Voicemail/Sound Blaster Wanted (Saad Husain)
    Data-Under-Voice Hardware Wanted (Jean Renard Ward)
    Re: Telecom Humor (Gary Segal)
    Selling TELECOM Digest (was Phone Humor) (Robert L. McMillin)
    I Got Pregnant Through Phone Sex (was Phone Humor) (Michael Nolan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 06 Jan 92 16:21:38 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Those Are REAL Phone Numbers!
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


I've been following the various messages about 555-xxxx and Klondike-5
and all of that, but this morning I was thumbing through the December
1991 issue of the {National Lampoon} (yeah, I admit to being a regular
reader and an infrequent contributor for 20 years ;-) and I noticed
what appear to be real numbers in one of their comic strips.

One panel of Kyle Baker's _Petty_And_Vindictive_Funnies_ contains a
panel showing four faces with the caption 'Four people who deserve to
get laid and their phone numbers' and four phone numbers, one in 818
AC and the others in 212 AC.  'Dana 212-673-xxxx, Bill 212-976-xxxx,
Bob 212-645-xxxx, Marcia 818-954-xxxx'

I am assuming 212-976 is an <ahem> 'information' prefix, but I KNOW
that 645 is a real Midtown Manhattan prefix with real dialable numbers
and I believe 673 is as well.  I dunno about the 818-954 prefix.

Now I know NatLamp has done some borderline stuff, but I am very
curious as to where those numbers came from.  ;-) (Not curious enough
to dial them, though.)  Remember that this is not the world's
straightest publication.  I can ALMOST see them publishing some real
numbers just to see who will call them.  (Remember, these are the guys
who published a parody of the famous floating Volkswagen ad that
featured Ted Kennedy.)


Good day!      JSW
Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
DRBBS, Omaha.  Farewell to Admiral Grace  (200:5010/666.0)

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

Date: Wed, 08 Jan 92 13:39:16 EST
From: "Stephen B. Kutzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RFC822 Address Case Sensitivity


In TELECOM Digest V12 #15 [e-mail] wrote:

> This is really not necessary.  According to the appropriate RFC's, the
> Internet and all other system using RFC-compliant addressing should
> ignore case in the address ...

This is not quite true.  According to RFC822, the userid portion
should maintain case sensitivity, while the hostid portion is case
insensitive.  Most systems won't care one way or the other, but the
odd gateway (such as the SoftSwitch SMTP gateway) might, so it's best
to preserve the case to the left of the '@' synmbol.

>From RFC822 section 3.4.7:

 3.4.7.  CASE INDEPENDENCE

   Except as noted, alphabetic strings may be represented in  any
   combination of upper and lower case.  The only syntactic units
   which requires preservation of case information are:

        -  text
        -  qtext
        -  dtext
        -  ctext
        -  quoted-pair
 *----emphasis--->  -  local-part, except "Postmaster"

  When matching any other syntactic unit, case is to be ignored.
  For  example, the field-names "From", "FROM", "from", and even
  "FroM" are semantically equal and should all be treated ident-
  ically.

  When generating these units, any mix of upper and  lower  case
  alphabetic  characters  may  be  used.  The case shown in this
  specification is suggested for message-creating processes.

  Note:  The reserved local-part address unit, "Postmaster",  is
         an  exception.   When  the  value "Postmaster" is being
         interpreted, it must be  accepted  in  any  mixture  of
         case, including "POSTMASTER", and "postmaster".


Stephen B. Kutzer  703-769-2900
I-NET, Inc.        [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Unidentified Telecom Equipment
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 00:07:29 GMT


I find myself the proud possessor of an _Atlantic Research
Corporation_ brand "control signal generator."  It's a small box whose
cover opens to expose a dial, provision for a handset, and various
switches to place it on-hook, select two or four-wire line, lights
marked E and M, and three buttons.  I presume this is used to simulate
an exchange on a trunk line for testing.  I got it to tear the hybrid
out, but upon investigating it I find that it's not that great a
hybrid, and it looks like it might make an interesting telephone.
Does anyone have any documentation on such a device?


scott

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: 900 Number Advertisements and Charges
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 01:00:31 GMT


Seeing as I was sitting in front of the TV today (I got my wisdom
teeth out today ..:( ), I happened upon Geraldo on the tube.  At one
point in the show, possibly the end, a 900 number was put up on the
screen for the show that stated that the call cost "only $1 dollar."
It did not say $1 per minute, just $1 dollar.  Is this deceptive
advertisting?  Surely they are not going to charge only $1 dollar for
this call.

Years ago, when I was a kid, I called a 900 number that let you listen
in on the NASA astronauts communications that had been announced as
being a .50 cent call on the local tv news.  I told this to a friend and
he went ahead and made the call, leaving the phone off the hook for a
long time ... after all, it was supposed to be .50, let's get the most out
of it -- that was our thinking.  Of course, the bill came later ...


Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (David Ash)
Subject: MCI Calling Card From Canada
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 02:26:21 GMT


When using my MCI calling card from Canada to the U.S. recently for an
evening call, the call was identified on my bill as being from
"Originating City, North America".  i.e. the billing system appeared
not to know it was from Canada.  When the charge for use of the
calling card was deducted, it appears to reflect this -- the charge
was about 15 cents a minute, a typical domestic U.S. rate.

However, I have also used the calling card from Canada to the U.S. and
had the call billed as being from "Ontario, Canada".  In this case the
billing system apparently knew the call was from Canada and charged
the appropriately higher international rate of about 40 cents a
minute.

Obviously there's a big difference between 15 and 40 cents a minute
for the exact same service.  Does anyone know what gives here?  40
cents a minute is the standard evening rate for U.S.-Canada traffic,
so I have no "right" to the lower rate, but all the same it would be
nice to know if there's any way to tap into the 15 cent rate.  Does
the originating Canadian city matter?


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

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 92 23:51:31 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael J. Logsdon)
Subject: Need Phone Service
Reply-To: [e-mail]


     Here in Ohio Bell-land, our building manager is being denied
residence telephone service.  It seems that his roommate moved out
with a $200 balance on the roommate's bill, which was in the roommate's
name.  Our manager cannot get service because he lived there and had
access to the phone.  Now, we can't reach him in case of a building
breakdown.  Does anyone have a suggestion as to how, as his employer,
we can help resolve this problem for a VERY GOOD employee?


Mike Logsdon  [e-mail]    216-831-2213


[Moderator's Note: Perhaps telco would accept your personal guarentee
in lieu of a deposit. Or, what about simply paying off the old bill,
with the understanding telco will no longer associate the former poor
payment record with the present manager and his account?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Sissy Kelly)
Subject: Inexpensive Voicemail System Needed for 100 + Users
Date: 9 Jan 92 16:49:28 GMT
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA


I am looking for an inexpensive voice mail system that would support
at least 100 users.  We currently have a Meridian SL-1 system.  I am
open to all suggestions.  Please send me any information you have.

Thank you.


Sissy    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dean Neumann-Grant)
Subject: VME Fax Modem Hardware Wanted
Date: 9 Jan 92 18:14:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: TGI Technologies Ltd.


I'm looking for information on VME based modems and/or fax hardware
and would appreciate ANY input, even just a company name, on where I
might find these.

Can anyone give me any leads?   Thanks.


Dean Neumann-Grant      TGI Technologies Ltd
Vancouver, British Columbia    Canada

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 92 01:11:11 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Part 68 FAQ


I hope this isn't too FAQ, but ...

Is there a copy of Part 68 lying around (anon ftp) somewhere? Has
anyone gone through Part 68 in a small business environment? Is it a
big deal?  I'd like to approve a small device (handful of parts) for
attachment to Mama Belle (from Fr. for "beautiful mother") and wonder
what I might look forward to without a big gun attorney and a Part 68
Department.

I'll summarize e-mails, or post here if you think we'd all like to
know.   Thanks.

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

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 07:24:09 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Baby Bells Hit New Low


The Baby Bells and the United States Telephone Association have
descended to the pits with an ad in yesterday's papers.

The ad set a scenario of a group of doctors in Upstate New York
operating on a little child for a rare blood disease.  The doctors
were supervised by a physician in New York City, over a hundred miles
away.

The thrust was for letting the Baby Bells and USTA into the
information providing services and that lives could be lost if they
aren't allowed to enter that arena.

The ad urged readers to contact their Representatives and Senators and
demand that they approve legislation letting them into the information
services.

I always knew that the BB's were low-lifes but this is going too far.
It's o.k. to try to generate demand for something but to go about it
in this way s***s.


Dave


[Moderator's Note: Is the United States Telephone Association the same
as (or what used to be called) the United States Independent Telephone
Association?  (Sometimes known as USITA).        ^^^^^^^^^^^    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joseph Chiu)
Subject: Mu-Law Versus A-Law
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 05:17:57 GMT


[e-mail] (Michael Salmon) writes:

> I am not very familiar with the U.S. system so perhaps you can
> consider this just my $.01's worth, however I thought that you used
> A-law rather than mu-law; I don't remember the details of the
> differences but I think that they are both logarithmic laws but with
> different slopes. Perhaps someone else can give more expert
> information.

> From Transmission Systems for Communications, 5th ed. (Bell Labs, 1982):

   While the mu-law has found acceptance in the North American and
   Japanese digital networks, the standard compression law in Europe
   (CEPT) is the A-law...

While we're on the topic of mu-law, can someone send me the conversion
table between "raw" value and it's mu-law value in binary?  I still
have not figured out how the binary representation works.


Joseph Chiu, Dept. of Computer Science, P-NP non-equivalence project, Caltech.
1-57 California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91126.    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Saad Husain)
Subject: Modem/Fax/Voicemail/Sound Blaster Wanted
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 19:07:40 GMT


I am in the market for a Voicemail and Soundblaster Pro.  I would also
like to upgrade my modem into a fax(s/r).  The ideal solution would be
if there was one card which support all of the obove options.  Has
anyone developed a card with these features and (if not why not! ;-))?
Is it possible to hook up the soundblaster to the modem to
answer/decode/digitize and playback?

Am I presenting my questions properly?  Thanks.


Motorola Inc, N349      | Saad Husain [phone]
1501 West Shure Drive   | Electronic: [e-mail]
Arlington Hghts, IL 60004 | Disclaimer: The above is all mine.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu 9 Jan 1992 10:51 -0500
Subject: Data-Under-Voice Hardware Wanted


Who is aware of hardware products (and related software products) that
support simultaneous transmission of data and voice on either a
dial-up telephone line, or on a low-data-rate (the lower the better)
communications line that I could connect to the serial port on a PC?

Any help would be appreciated.


Jean Renard Ward

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary Segal)
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humor
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 00:04:14 GMT


The Moderator appends:

> [Moderator's Note: I take it you didn't like the joke. Maybe you are
> correct. Perhaps I'll just cease publication for awhile, allowing the
> readers to spend the time reading more Socially Responsible newsgroups
> and Digests instead of this little journal. I'll have you know if I
> sold the Digest at the checkout line in supermarkets I could get 75
> cents per issue easily.  PAT]

But only if you had headlines like "AT&T employes aliens as
operators!"  or "Navy discovers ways to use telephone to cure cancer!"
or even "Dialing for dollars: how your phone number can be used to win
the lottery!"  :-)


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

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 92 02:46:58 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Selling TELECOM Digest (was Phone Company Humor)


Our Fearless Moderator writes:

> I'll have you know if I sold the Digest at the checkout line in
> supermarkets I could get 75 cents per issue easily.

True, but you'd have to change the lead story to "I Called Elvis
Direct -- And You Can Too!", along with "ISDN: Network of the Future
or Tool of the Devil?", "Your Exchange Number Rules Your Fate", and
"Joan Collins' Telephone Diet -- Lose 10 Pounds In A Week".


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Nolan)
Subject: I Got Pregnant Through Phone Sex (was: Phone Company Humor)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tailored Software Services, Inc.
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 15:36:16 GMT


 ... but only if you had headlines like:

I Got Pregnant Through Phone Sex
911 Staffed by Monsters
106 Year Old Woman Runs 1-900 Sex Phone for Seniors
Lose 10 Pounds in a Week By Phone
5 Cent Pay Phone Located in Manhattan
Do Cellular Phones Cause Cancer?

But seriously folks, let's not reactive the 'I Hate PAT' fan club.  I
didn't read the original post (comparing the two monopolies), but
enjoyed it when I read it in the followup.  There, now my secret is
out -- I don't read EVERY post in comp.dcom.telecom.  (I'm *so*
ashamed!)

Everybody take a deep breath, then lighten up, OK?


Michael Nolan, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #20
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10648;
          11 Jan 92 2:39 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27015
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 11 Jan 1992 00:44:49 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13265
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 11 Jan 1992 00:44:11 -0600
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 00:44:11 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #21

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Jan 92 00:44:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 21

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Rolf Meier)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Ron Dippold)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Dan J. Declerck)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (John McHarry)
    Re: How Do I Connect Two Lines Together at Home? (Richard Tilley)
    Re: NWT Intercept Recordings in Eskimo Language (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: Email Between AT&T Easylink and the Internet (William J. Carpenter)
    Re: HOLD Device Wanted For Residential Line (Don Maslin)
    Re: T1 on Fiber? (Peter da Silva)
    Re: America's Future (Allen Gwinn)
    Re: America's Future (John R. Levine)
    Re: AT&T Drops the Ball (Eric Florack)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Rolf Meier)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 12:11:03 -0500
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Anindadeb
Vijaykumar Dasgupta) writes:

> With analog transmission, each equipment would need 4 KHz. while with
> 8 bit PCM, 64 Kbps would be needed, which would surely translate to a
> higher frequency than 8 KHz.  This definitely does not free up any
> bandwidth.  Are these carriers using source coding?  Won't that make
> the cellular phones more expensive/bulky?

> I am not a telecom person and maybe I am missing the point here.
> Could someone explain the advantages of digital over analog (other
> than improvement in voice quality, if any) in cellular systems?

You raise a good question.  The simple answer is that there probably
won't be any improvements in audio quality with digital cellular, and
the improvement in spectral efficiency is only due to some special
compression techniques.

First, the existing analog cellular system (AMPS) has assigned 30 kHz
of bandwidth per voice channel.  This is somewhat more than necessary,
and in fact Motorola has proposed a Narrowband version of AMPS that
would be spectrally more efficient by a factor of three, with little
compromise in voice quality.

The main proposal for digital cellular, also known as IS-54, also
claims an improvement of three times in spectral efficiency.  However,
this is achieved mostly through low bit rate voice encoding at 8
kb/sec.  This will result in poorer voice quality than standard 64
kb/sec PCM, as well as echo problems due to the extra delay of an 8 kb
codec.

In the long term, digital phones should be cheaper and lighter,
however, as VLSI components are employed.


Rolf Meier    Mitel Corporation

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 19:26:43 GMT


[e-mail] (Anindadeb Vijaykumar Dasgupta) writes:

> I read somewhere that in most large cities cellular carriers are
> switching to digital systems due to saturation of existing cells.

They're moving towards it, as fast as they can.

> I couldn't tell what the advantages of this would be:

> With analog transmission, each equipment would need 4 KHz. while with
> 8 bit PCM, 64 Kbps would be needed, which would surely translate to a
> higher frequency than 8 KHz.  This definitely does not free up any
> bandwidth.  Are these carriers using source coding?  Won't that make
> the cellular phones more expensive/bulky?

Okay, you're assuming that the analog phone is much more efficient in
bandwidth than it actually is.  In actuality, each phone completely
occupies a 30 KHz channel, and each phone is transmitting at thre
watts for marginal quality.  And it still sounds bad.

With digital encoding done correctly (so you can use Viterbi
decoding), you need much less power to get your data through (you're
just looking for on-off instead of a FM sound waveform).  In addition,
if you're using CDMA, CDMA doesn't require that you divide up your
bandwidth into bandwith wasting 30 KHz chunks.  Intead, each phone
uses exactly as much bandwidth as it needs.  More phones just mean
more "noise" (not noise heard by the user, but as in signal to
noise ...)

For example, if you had 50 users that needed computers, then the
analog analagous way to do it would be to buy two mainframes, and let
only one user at a time use each computer, even if all they needed to
do was simple word processing.  The CDMA way would be to buy one
computer that was 20 times more powerful and give each user a
terminal, so they only use as much of the computer power as they need,
and everyone can use it at once.

Even better, we use active power control (something we can do because
it's digital).  The mobile and cell channel elements transmit with
only as much power they need.  If you're close to the cell, you don't
need much power.  As you get farther away, it slowly boosts power.

Finally, with digital we can (and do) use a variable rate vocoder.  In
this way CDMA makes use of the Voice Activity Factor of conversation:
either of the parties involved is not saying something about 60% of
the time.  (Interestingly, even when we force the vocodoer to use a
maximum rate of half its top rate, it still sounds better than my
analog phone).

What it works out to is that while an analog phone transmits at three
watts, and the cell-site power requirements are truly horrible, CDMA
phones transmit in the milliwatt range, and the entire cell site
transmits with only as much power as a couple of the radios in the
analog cell.

Bottom line: We have an officially capacity tested (tests observed by
the major companies in the industry) CDMA system in the field that
gives a capacity improvement of 10 to 30 times (depending on
conditions) over an AMPS system, with better voice quality, better
handoffs, and less dropped calls.

Efficient use of resources is the key (plus a lot of geniuses in the
theory department, and then ignoring those who claimed we couldn't do
it).

One further advantage: The digital medium is a lot more flexible.
When an AMPS phone has to transmit control information, the voice
blanks out.  With CDMA, we can just vocode at half the normal rate and
send the control information in the other half of the frame.  Result:
undetectable loss of voice quality instead of complete loss of voice.

In addition, we can divide the channel between different data sources,
so you could send voice and data (from a modem, perhaps) on the same
channel.  What we can do is limited only by the messages we can think
up to send back and forth.

Another voice quality advantage: because it's a digital vocoder,
rather than sending the analog waveform out, we can more easily do a
lot more filtering on it.  For example, continuous background noises
(such as a car engine or the wind) can be severely reduced.

There are further advantages, but that should be enough.

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

From: motcid![e-mail] (Dan J. Declerck)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 20:25:17 GMT


The modulation techniques are not PCM, for European Digital Cellular
(known as GSM) it is GMSK. This standard allows for up to 8 users to
share a single channel by Time Division Multiplex (TDM) methods.  Each
channel is 200 KHz wide. For DAMPS (The U.S. standard) I believe it's
QPSK. This standard is also TDM and has 3 timeslots. Each channel is
the same width as analog.

> I am not a telecom person and maybe I am missing the point here.
> Could someone explain the advantages of digital over analog (other
> than improvement in voice quality, if any) in cellular systems?

When you fit more users on one channel, you get more call density per
given (allocated) spectrum, thus more potential revenues.

Also, there are added features with digital cellular, easier to do
encryption, expanded services like short message pages, limited ISDN
(European) services, high speed fax, etc ...

The drawbacks are the cost of the subscriber equipment. Digital
Cellular usually requires Power Amplifiers with short ramp-up and
ramp-down times, DSP's or Custom IC's to do channel and speech
encoding, etc.  As with any technology, over time, the costs reduce,
and the size goes down.

The first Radio telephones and Cellular phones were briefcases, now
they are less than 8 oz and fit in your pocket.

Where do you think we'll be in five years?


Dan DeClerck     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John McHarry)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date:  9 Jan 92 14:45:54 GMT


There are competing digital systems, but they all use low bit rate
encoding, like vocoders.  What really makes the phones more
expensive/bulky is that the digital phones must all be dual-mode.
Conversion will come cell by cell and system by system, so you will
still have to speak AMPS for many years to come.


John McHarry ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Tilley)
Subject: Re: How Do I Connect Two Lines Together at Home?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 06:38:40 GMT


A suitable bookstore would have a book with the circut.  I think a 1:1
transformer is the main ingredient.  Less hassle to get a two line phone
with the "Conference feature".  Most will have it. Around $100.

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: NWT Intercept Recordings in Eskimo Language
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 06:50:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas
W. Martin) writes:

> By now my fascination with intercept recordings and with calling
> remote places is well documented.  On a whim I called Baker Lake, NWT
> 819-793-1234 and got an intercept recording in some Eskimo language.
> I've kept it for possible future use on my answering machine.  Does
> anyone know any even more isolated places with interesting recordings?

That seems to be a very strange recording!  Some of us here have our
own translators for such things as Yupik or Inupiat.  My cohort at at
work tonight got his translator on line (she is from Tuktoyaktuk in
the Canadian Arctic) and called that line a couple times to listen to
it.  His translator says that sounds like "Eastern Arctic", which
would be a variation of Inupiat Eskimo.  But she also says it doesn't
have anything to do with the telephone, but sounds like a snip of
something intended to be part of a news broadcast on the radio!


Floyd L. Davidson        [e-mail]        Salcha, Alaska

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

Date: Wed,  8 Jan 92 23:55:51 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Email Between AT&T Easylink and the Internet
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>>      DDA ID-INTERNET!!EECS.NWU.EDU!!!T!E!L!E!C!O!M

> This is really not necessary.  According to the appropriate
> RFC's, the Internet and all other system using RFC-compliant
> addressing should ignore case in the address.

Almost true.  RFC-822 says to ignore case in the address, except for
the "local-part"; ie, "TELECOM" in the above example.  Although many
system go the extra step of providing case-independence for the whole
address for received mail, it is not guaranteed.  (There's another
exception: if the local-part is "postmaster", case isn't significant.)


Bill                      [e-mail]        or
[phone]            attmail!bill   or   att!pegasus!billc
AT&T Bell Labs / AT&T EasyLink Services               LZ 1E-207

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

From: [e-mail] (Don Maslin)
Subject: Re: HOLD Device Wanted For Residential Line
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1992 20:16:04 GMT


[e-mail] (Don Maslin) writes:

> Recollection suggests that stand-alone HOLD devices were marketed
> several years ago which were actuated by going on-hook momentarily and
> then hanging up, and the device was released when any instrument went
> off-hook (or some similar mode of actuation and release.)

> Does recollection serve me correctly?  If so, are such devices
> presently available?  From whom, and at what price?

> [Moderator's Note: I think Radio Shack has what you are seeking.  PAT]

I thought so also until I checked. ;->


UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!donm
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]   INET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Our local RS has (or had) a thing like the two-line
controller they used to sell but with one of the keys for holding
either or both lines. I thought they were still available.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber?
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 13:06:14 GMT


You missed another point in favor of fibre:

Fibre doesn't conduct electricity. Cuts down the sources of surges
from lightning strikes.


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

From: [e-mail] (Allen Gwinn)
Subject: Re: America's Future
Organization: sulaco
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 13:01:09 GMT


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

> This service could be offered by your local phone company, but there
> are some in Congress ... [blah, blah, blah]" Now it appears that the
> RBOCs have banded together to spread the gospel of "Total Telco
> Control" by taking a page from Pacific Telesis and spreading the
> garbage nationwide.

I've seen the same thing somewhere (I think it was in Dallas).  Yes,
this is a real interesting chain of events.  I don't know what kind of
chance they have at affecting any real change doing this (probably not
too good).  But if enough people write newspapers and television
stations and attach evidence of inaccuracies in their claims, then the
whole thing is liable to backfire on them.  Don't you think?


Allen Gwinn ([e-mail])

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

Subject: Re: America's Future
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 9 Jan 92 11:16:08 EST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


In yesterday's {Boston Globe} there is a full page back of the section
ad in the same disinformation campaign.  This one shows a sick baby in
a house in a remote area, and tells lies about how remote diagnosis
would be possible except the congress wants to make it illegal.

It looks like it's time to make the RBOCs divest their telephone
business; they're clearly not fit to run it themselves.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 06:57:58 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Drops The Ball
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>


John Higdon in #19:

> As has been discussed here before, there is a delay
> that is variable even during the same call; there are varying levels
> of background hiss; the audio is distorted; and below a certain
> threshold, the audio is actually chopped off.

Not unusual of late. Now, imagine trying to run 2400 or 9600 baud
through that connection.  :-p

> So far, AT&T has not seen fit to respond to my complaints. Fortunately,
> I have ComSystems to fall back on. But it is really sad when the
> quality leader is aced by a second-string industry player.<<

That's been that way for some time ... particularly to the Islands,
though I've noted similar problems to the UK, as well as stateside
connections. Our POTS hookups with several GT-NET nodes out there have
been running via other carriers for some months because of this
problem with AT&T lack of quality and seeming lack of concern over the
problem.

Your comments show quite clearly that quality is a perception thing,
as much as it is a tangable. Given the outages of service we've all
seen with AT&T, and the high-handed manner they deal with their
customers in, even AFTER deregulation, not to mention the wet-string
connections we've been seeing all over the planet of late ... your
calling AT&T a quality leader is a subjective comment at best.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #21
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13173;
          11 Jan 92 3:16 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07925
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 11 Jan 1992 01:24:01 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29202
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 11 Jan 1992 01:23:22 -0600
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 01:23:22 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #22

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Jan 92 01:23:13 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 22

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (William Sohl)
    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (Joe Konstan)
    Re: ANI in NJ (and Other Telco Test Lines) (William Clare Stewart)
    International ANI is Here? (Peter Clitherow)
    Re: Canadian Caller*ID Specs (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Canadian Caller-ID Specs (Derek Andrew)
    Re: Caller ID Device Wanted That Dials Back to Callers (Dave Levenson)
    Bell Canada Tests New Forwarding, Voice Caller ID Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (24411-sohl)
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 14:40:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI
Reply-To: [e-mail] (24411-sohl,william h)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kurt
Guntheroth) writes:

> I now understand that ANI is not Caller ID, and that 'blocking' caller
> ID may not have the desired effect when you call a business.
> Would someone in the know please concisely explain:

> * What, exactly, is "Caller ID", as technical people describe it?

Caller ID is a telephone service whereby the called customer (the one
who's phone is ringing) has a display device that displays the
telephone number of the telephone where the call is originating from.

Caller ID requires ANI (Automatic Number Identification) to be able to
deliver the calling party's number to the called party's display
device.

> * What, exactly, is ANI?

Automatic Number Identification is the inclusion of the calling
party's telephone number in the routing and call setup messaging which
takes place in order for the call to be established.  If a "caller ID
blocking" is invoked by the calling party, then (I believe) the
calling party's number (using ANI) is still sent, but the additional
info that the calling party does NOT want his/her number displayed to
the called party is also included in the call setup messageing.  The
end office (the telephone switching office) of the called party then
recognizes that caller ID blocking is in effect for that call and the
calling party's number is NOT then displayed to the called party.

I'm not 100% certain, but I belive that call blocking is ONLY involved
in Intra-LATA (possibly Intra-State) calls.  That is because (In my
understanding) that state regulations of caller ID services do NOT
apply to Interstate nor possibly Intra-state (but Inter-LATA) calls.
Those situations (tariffs) are controlled by the FCC which I belive
has not prohibited any aspect of caller ID.

> * Does the answer vary depending on exchange, and is there a way I
> can find out how my exchange is configured?

Caller ID services require an end-to-end capability using an
electronic signaling network and protocol called Signaling System 7
(SS7).  If either the originating or the terminating office does NOT
have that capability, then there is no way for the ANI information to
be passed from the originating end to the terminating end.

I'd say that the simplest way to determine if your local exchange has
caller ID capability would be to ask the telephone company if the
service is currently available to you at your current telephone
number.

Standard Disclaimer - Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.


Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!taichi!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 18:20:44 GMT


Caller ID is a tarrifed service from the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)
which delivers the "calling number" in-band on the audio path between
the first two rings (using FSK "modem" encoding). The number provided
is defined to be the directory number of the station originating the
call.

ANI, as used in this context, refers to the delivery of the billing
number associated with a call passed from an LEC to an InterExchange
Carrier (IEC or "Long Distance Carrier"). This number is sometimes
provided in-band using MF ("touch tone") signalling, but usually
passed out-of-band on the common carrier signalling system (SS#6 or
SS#7).  Some IECs have tarriffed on-line delivery of this service to
the receiving customer by various means for those large customers that
have private ("bypass") access facilities to the IEC.

For most residential service, the directory number and the billing
number will be the same. Even when they are not, it is common for the
Central Office switch (CO) to be misconfigured to deliver the
directory number instead of the billing number. (Example: I have two
lines to my home, which are billed together. I still had to ask MCI to
consolidate the bills.)

For business service of more than a couple lines, it is in the
interest of both the customer and the LEC that the billing number be
correctly configured for each line, and any errors will likely be
corrected soon.  For customers with an PBX equipped for automatic
route selection, the directory number "should" be the number leading
to the main switchboard, while the billing number is likely to be the
number of an outbound-only trunk group. As the subscriber interfaces
go digital, I would expect PBXs to increasingly be attached to ISDN
(Integrated Services Digital Network) Primary Rate Interface (PRI -
the ISDN version of "T1" lines carry 23 voice channels and one
X25-like data channel) which will allow the PBX to identify the actual
calling station in the directory number field of the call request
record.

The LEC is obligated to provide the billing number to the IEC;
otherwise the IEC would be unable to get paid for the call. Since
there has not in the past been any regulation prohibiting the delivery
of this information to bypass customers, they have started selling it.
If anyone tried to stop that now, they would complain loudly about
interference with their business.

The LECs are subject to local regulation, and when regulators tell
them to block delivery of the number, they must block it, even if they
have it and COULD deliver it. When a caller requests Caller-ID
blocking, the information is still delivered from the calling CO to
the receiving CO, but it is tagged with a flag that informs the
receiving CO that blocking was requested. It is conceivable that an
interstate call might be delivered to a state that does not allow or
require blocking, and the number might be displayed despite the
blocking request. The fact that this is unresolved is one of the
reasons that C-ID currently may not be delivered across LATA
boundaries.

The relationship between LEC subscriber loop pair, directory number
and billing number is programmed on a per-line basis.

All COs deliver billing number to IECs.

The capability to deliver calling directory number to the destination
CO along with the billing number depends on the software features of
the CO. It is fairly certain that any CO that offers "custom calling
features" can be configured to deliver both numbers.

The capability to deliver calling numbers to the called subscriber
requires FSK modulators on the subscriber line cards; such hardware is
unlikely to be installed in switches more than two years old, unless and
until the LEC is ready to start selling C-ID service.


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

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

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 13:55:59 PST
From: [e-mail] (Joe Konstan)
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI


Caller ID is a service by which the phone number of a caller is delivered
to the recipient (presently between the first and second rings) if:

a)  the recipient is a subscriber to the service
b)  the caller, recipient, and path in-between support passing
    this information (i.e. Signalling System 7).  This is currently
    not available for long distance carried over IXC's.
c)  the caller does not (or is unable to) block display of the number.

It is often referred to as Calling Line ID or Calling Number ID since
it never identifies the CALLER, only the phone (or trunk) used to
place the call.

Automatic Number Identification is a service that all local phone
companies provide to the long distance services where the billing
number for a phone call is passed along with the requested
destination.  Nominally, this is to allow the IXC to bill you for the
calls.  Many (all?) long distance carriers sell this information (in
real-time or delayed in billing statements) to their 800 and 900
customers.

Our Moderator consistently maintains that 800-number customers have a
right to this information since they are paying for the call.
Personally, I don't see that as being the case -- indeed when other
companies pay for you to get information about their product (either
with business reply mail, free shuttle busses, etc.) they are not
provided with any specific information about you unless you provide
it.  The argument is even less compelling for 900-number customers who
generally do not pay for the call.  Nonetheless, you should assume
that any 800 or 900 number you call gets your calling number passed to
them.

If your area (entire local phone company area) doesn't provide
caller-ID then nobody will get caller ID from your phone.  If your
local switch is not running SS#7 then nobody will get caller ID from
your phone.  The only time you can prevent ANI is if you are on a
service without direct distance dialing (i.e., all long distance calls
must be made by going through operators) and I don't think we have to
worry about that.  Caller ID blocking never affects ANI, 911 service,
etc.


Joe Konstan

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

Date: Thu,  9 Jan 92 14:10:10 EST
From: [e-mail] (William Clare Stewart)
Subject: Re: ANI in NJ (and Other Telco Test Lines)


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

> Dial 958 in Northern New Jersey.  You get a verbal readback of the
> number you're calling from.  This did not work a few months ago; does
> anybody know exactly when NJ Bell turned this on?

This works in 908 (Central/Western NJ) - interesting.  I haven't been
able to try it in 201, since our Centrex wants a 1 + 10-digits to dial
numbers with area codes, and 1-201-958-1000 and 1-201-958-# both
failed.

My normal method here at work is to dial the NJ Bell operator, and say
"Telephone repair - which extension am I dialing from?"  Works every
time :-)


Bill Stewart [phone]
erebus.att.com!wcs  AT&T Bell Labs 4M312  Holmdel NJ

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Clitherow)
Subject: International ANI is Here?
Reply-To: <bellcore![e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore - IMS, Morristown, NJ
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 19:31:01 GMT


An article in today's {New York Times} said:

"...a small start-up company, International Discount Telecomm-
unications, has found a way to allow callers abroad to telephone the
United States at the same low rates Americans pay to call overseas.
When a customer calls the company, he lets the phone ring once and
hangs up.  The black box is programmed to call back the customer's
number and patch in the second American telephone line. The customer
now has an American dial tone, ..."

This implies that ANI can be delievered internationally, does it not?
I never heard anything announced about this.  Are there CCITT specs
for this?


peter clitherow, [e-mail], [phone], DQID: H07692
bellcore, 445 south street, room 2f-085, morristown, nj 07962

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 01:22:45 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Canadian Caller*ID Specs


> Does anyone have documentation, or know where to get it, for the
> Canadian spec?

I guess it's time for the semi-annual post on this (actually last
posted on April 30 91):

Here is the official place to get Bell Canada's version of Call
Display technical disclosure information:

Bell Canada
Director - Switched Network Services
220 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario   K1G 3J4
[phone]

The document is "Call Management Service (CMS) Terminal-to-Network
Interface", Interface Disclosure ID - 0001, November 1989.  (The
document number may give you a clue as to how long this service has
been running :-))

I was not charged for this document, but Bell does reserve the right
to charge for it in future.  It is only 18 pages so it seems unlikely
they would charge a lot.  They are required to disclose this
information to anyone, so any charge would be administrative only --
i.e. they cannot sell the information.  Phone and find out.

Please note that it is incorrect to call this "the Canadian Caller*ID
standard".  This document describes only what is being implemented by
Bell Canada in its service areas.  Other Canadian telephone companies
may well implement something quite different, though it isn't too
likely.


Tony Harminc

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

From: [e-mail] (Derek Andrew)
Subject: Re: Canadian Caller-ID Specs
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date:     Fri, 10 Jan 1992 00:28:56 -0700


In the wee hours of Thursday morning, a change was made to the way
Call Display is delivered. A call to repair service has suggested that
this change was Canada-wide to bring us into line with the way that
other phone companies deliver the data.

Prior to the change, there was a string of digits like
010203043065551212 where:

01 is the month
02 is the day
03 is the hour
04 is the minute
306 is the area code
5551212 is the number.

After the change, for numbers within the city, I see a string of
digits like 01020304 followed by hex 3 and 7, the followed by the
seven digit number.

Phones such as the Maestro and other call display displayers used to
provide the area code but now do not.

Since Canada does not yet have Call Display delivered across
provincial borders, I have no news on out of area code numbers.


Derek Andrew, Manager of Computer Network & Technical Services
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskachewan, Canada, S7N 0W0
[e-mail], [phone],  52 11 23N 106 48 48W

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Device Wanted That Dials Back to Callers
Date: 9 Jan 92 18:48:26 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Loran
N Yourk) writes:

> Now that I can subscribe to CID, I would like to find a stand alone
> (or even one built into a phone) CID box which would store numbers and
> have buttons which would dial the currently displayed number.

Northern Telecom offers a telephone set called Maestro.  It has a
built-in Caller*ID display, and a 'return call' button that does
exactly what you want.  I haven't tried using this phone, so I don't
know how it handles dialing the home area code when it is displayed as
part of the calling number.  The phone also has a 'call in absence'
indicator that lights when it rings, and is extinguished when it is
answered.  If the light is lit, a call came while you were out.  If
the call was intra-Lata, you may have got the calling number, and a
single button will return the call.  I've seen this set offered ratail
for about $150 in a high-priced electronics shop in Short Hills, NJ.
It was also in the Hello Direct catalog, I think.


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: Thanks also to [e-mail] (Derek Andrew)
for providing almost identical information.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 09 Jan 92 18:36:57 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Bell Canada Tests New Forwarding, Voice Caller ID Options


Bell Canada is starting an eight-month trial of new local service
features as reported by the {Toronto Star}. Currently it is undergoing
a technical trial; if successful, a marketing trial will begin in the
fall.

The new features include:

* Find-Me: with a single phone number, you can be reached at up to
three different locations. A Personal Communications Services operator
will maintain a schedule of where to direct calls during certain hours
(say, work, home or another location).

* Follow-Me: calls can be diverted from your normal line to the line
you are currently at; this can be used if there is a disruption in the
Find-Me calling schedule.

* Call Message: used as an answering service.

* Caller Announce: a voice caller ID service; when a call is answered,
the central office will send along a voice callout of the number
calling. This is a Caller ID service without the need for add-on
displays.

While there is a trial of 1000 residential and business subscribers,
such features will have to be approved by the CRTC before it is made
available to the general populace.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #22
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12868;
          11 Jan 92 21:34 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31788
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 11 Jan 1992 19:50:39 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26983
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 11 Jan 1992 19:50:20 -0600
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 19:50:20 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #23

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Jan 92 19:50:16 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 23

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Craig Ibbotson)
    Re: Honda 800 Line Flooded by Caller (Michael Ho)
    Re: Repeat Dialing Question (Arnette P. Baker)
    Re: Device Wanted to Screen Junk Calls (David Ptasnik)
    Re: PC Based PBX (Stephen Friedl)
    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (Alan L. Varney)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Craig Ibbotson)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 21:23:47 GMT


[e-mail] (Anindadeb Vijaykumar Dasgupta) writes:

> I read somewhere that in most large cities cellular carriers are
> switching to digital systems due to saturation of existing cells.  I
> couldn't tell what the advantages of this would be:

> With analog transmission, each equipment would need 4 KHz. while with
> 8 bit PCM, 64 Kbps would be needed, which would surely translate to a
> higher frequency than 8 KHz.  This definitely does not free up any
> bandwidth.  Are these carriers using source coding?  Won't that make
> the cellular phones more expensive/bulky?

> I am not a telecom person and maybe I am missing the point here.
> Could someone explain the advantages of digital over analog (other
> than improvement in voice quality, if any) in cellular systems?

There are currently two digital cellular proposals.  One is TDMA (Time
Division Multiple Access) and the other is CDMA (Code Division
Multiple Access).  TDMA divides the existing 30kHz radio channels into
six time slots, yielding three equivalent voice channels.  TDMA
proponents say this will offer a 3.7 time capacity of existing analog
systems.  CDMA is a spread-spectrum technology which calls for a
channel bandwidth of 1.25 MHz.  The entire bandwidth is reused in
every cell site, and is shared by a number of customers with different
codes.  Proponents say it will offer a 20X capacity increase.  The
main advantages of digital cellular (regardless of technology) are
capacity increase and the introduction of data services.

It is going to be very interesting to see what happens in the digital
cellular market.  TDMA was the initial technology of choice, picked
over FDMA after lengthy trials here in the US.  After TDMA was chosen,
however, a company called Qualcomm met with some of the larger
cellular vendors and convinced them that CDMA could greatly increase
their capacity and provide some additional features.  Both
technologies are in market trials now, and the initial indications are
that both work.

The problem here is that different vendors are aligning themselves
with different technologies.  LA Cellular is promising a cellular
system using Ericsson TDMA technology sometime this year.  PACTEL and
one of the vendors in New York are heavily involved in CDMA.

A third technology has been introduced by Motorola, called N-AMPS.
N-AMPS stands for Narrowband Amps, and is a "digitally enhanced"
analog system.  It increases capacity by using 10kHz radio channels
instead of 30 kHz radio channels, using the existing analog
technology.  It also has a digital sub-audio channel which allows data
to be sent to the mobile.  This technology is intended as a bridge
between an analog and digital system.  I believe all Motorola mobile
and portable cellular phones now shipping are dual mode AMPS/NAMPS.

All of these technologies have their pluses and minuses.  TDMA is the
basis for GSM, which is in commercial service in Europe, so it is a
proven player.  NAMPS is in commercial service in Japan, and can be
used with Micro-TAC LITE sized phones (the other technologies cannot
be used with portables at this time).  CDMA promises the biggest
capacity increase and possibly higher quality handoffs.  The big
problem I see is that CDMA and TDMA are incompatible; the standards
currently call for all mobiles to be dual mode (digitial/analog), but
there is no thought at this time for a mobile to support both TDMA and
CDMA.  For example, if you are an LA Cellular TDMA user and attempt to
roam in a CDMA system, you will not be able to use the digital system
(you should always be able to go back to standard AMPS service,
however, no matter where you are).

This has also made it very difficult for manufacturers.  Ericsson and
Northern Telecom are firmly behind TDMA.  Motorola and AT&T are
developing CDMA, TDMA and NAMPS.  Hughes is pushing E-TDMA, a second
generation TDMA system which uses a half-rate vocoder to get an
eight-fold increase over today's analog capacities.  And Qualcomm is
pushing CDMA.

One thing should be noted about digital cellular.  Everyone is hot
about anything digital nowadays.  When cellular goes digital, however,
you will not see a quality improvement like that from LP records to
compact discs.  I quote the editor of Cellular Business:

"Cellular's digital technology is another beast altogether.  It might
sound better.  But chances are good that the customer won't even
notice a difference, except that some manufacturers phones might be
bigger.  And initially, they might be bulkier, too."  (Cellular
Business, "Moving Into Digital", supplement to October 1991 issue).


Craig Ibbotson, Motorola, Inc.  ...uunet!motcid!ibbotsonc
Cellular Infrastructure Division, Radio Telephone Systems Group

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Re: Honda 800 Line Flooded by Caller
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 07:07:37 GMT


I have no way of knowing whether this is related to the Honda guy, but
someone just submitted a forged post to alt.binaries.pictures
(crossposted to all the smut groups) claiming that some 800 number is
a "free sex line" and asking everyone to please call it.

I wonder who the target of this is.


Michael Ho | UNTIL JAN. 20, sysmgrs willing: Internet:[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 11:25:44 EST
From: [e-mail] (Arnette P Baker)
Subject: Re: Repeat Dialing Question
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>> My question is, does repeat dialing allow people to "camp on" a dialed
>> number and stack up in the order that they dialed, causing people
>> without it to be blocked from ever seizing that line?

> Moderator's Note: I think it only checks every few seconds to see if
> the called line has become available (especially if the called party
> is on another switch somewhere) as opposed to instantly knowing the
> status of the called line. Therefore, a 'free lance' dialer -- someone
> manually trying to get in -- could catch the line during a period of a
> few seconds when it is free and seize control. I don't think the
> service is truly 'camp-on' in a technical sense, but rather, just a
> Demon Dialer like thing in the CO.

I am not sure of whether Doug`s inability to reach his movie line is
due to Repeat Dialing (Automatic Recall/Callback) users, but I thought
I would clarify Pat`s description.  There are two modes of operation
for a switch to determine the "busy/idle" status of a repeat dialed
party.  Some newer switches actually "queue" the camp on requests for
a given line in a FIFO order.  This queue list is then used to send a
"party free" SS7 message to the originating switch if the line becomes
idle. Only one queue entry is given "party free" notification at a
time.  This mode of operation is referred to as "Terminating Scanning"
and does NOT tie up network resources as a war dialer does.

The other mode of operation is "Originating Scanning".  This method is
usable by every switch that offers Repeat Dialing.  In this case the
originating switch does send a "query" SS7 message every few
seconds/minutes (decided by the Telco) to determine if the camped-on
party is idle.  Although this method does tie up network resources, it
is not as detrimental as a war dialer, since the query messages are
SS7 signalling messages and do not use voice circuits.

My personal guess is that Doug's increase in busy signal could be due
to Repeat Dial users (since people may now camp-on and eventually
complete a call rather than giving up after five to ten busy signals);
however as Pat correctly pointed out -- there is some minimum window
during which direct dial calls can get through.

I hope this is useful information.


Arnette Baker   [e-mail]

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Device Wanted to Screen Junk Calls
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 8:48:34 PDT


isus![e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) wrote:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 16, Message 2 of 13

> I would like a cheap device that connects to the phone line that
> answers with "If this is a junk call, please press 1, Personal, 2 etc.

> Use your imagination about what happens if you press 1 :-).

 From a previous edition of TELECOM Digest:

[e-mail] (Brad Houser/SC9-43/765-0494) wrote:

I received the Heartland America Catalog last month, and they list a
product that intrigues me.  It says you can add the power of a PBX and
Voice mail to your existing phone system.  It's features include:

Add up to five inside extensions (on their own loops) to the outside line;
Works with standard one or two line phones, faxes, modems;
Needs an answering machine to simulate "voice mail";
Routes calls (caller enters a number from 1-5);
Works as an intercom;
Adds "hold" to any phone.

Heartland Customer service couldn't help me with my questions, but
they gave me the name of the manufacturer: Areanex Technology Inc
(408-257-5880).  They have the system (Model ACR105) on that line.

Areanex calls it the "Phone Director" as the answering machine OGM
plays the message: "Thank you for calling, press 1 for Joe, 2 for
Chris, ... or stay on the line to leave a message".  If the call is
not redirected by the caller (or they don't have DTMF) the phone is
answered by Line 0, which is the answering machine line.  Otherwise,
one of the other lines can be individually rung. (You can still use it
without the answering machine and telemarketers won't know how to
reach you, but then neither will your friends for a while.)

Hold is obtained by hitting #, (## if you made the call) and then an
extension can be dialed.  It answers after one ring, and then the
caller hears a much different ring.

I have ordered the product with a 30-day money back guarantee, but I
will have to wait about another week or so.

I don't work for either company, but so I don't get asked to send the
address, here it is:

    Heartland America
    6978 Shady Oak Rd.
    Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3453
    1-800-229-2901   Fax: [phone]

I will post a followup with my impressions after using the device.


Brad Houser  | Deus Ex     | Intel California Technology Development, SC9-43|
408-765-0494 | Machina!    | 2250 Mission College Blvd.                     |
[e-mail]      | Santa Clara, CA 95052                          |

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Friedl)
Subject: Re: PC Based PBX
Date: 10 Jan 92 16:44:28 GMT
Organization: Steve's Personal machine / Tustin, CA


Ken Jongsma reports the following from {Communications Week}:

> Start-up PCBX Systems Inc. has developed what it is calling the first
> PBX to run on a personal computer. The PCBX is a PC card that can give
> any telephone set full PBX functionality, said the Woodland Hills,
> California company.

Directory assistance for Woodland Hills, CA (area code 818) doesn't
know about these folks, so anybody knowing how to find them is
encouraged to fill the rest of us in.


Stephen Friedl   |  Software Consultant   |   Tustin, CA
3b2-kind-of-guy  |  uunet!mtndew!friedl   |   [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 21:35:24 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kurt
Guntheroth) writes:

> I now understand that ANI is not Caller ID, and that 'blocking' caller
> ID may not have the desired effect when you call a business.

> Would someone in the know please concisely explain:

I believe I did this about a year ago (so you could check the
archives) but, to answer your questions briefly:

> * What, exactly, is "Caller ID", as technical people describe it?

This phrase is NOT technically defined, but refers generally to the
capability to present the Telephone Number of the Caller to the Called
party, prior to answer.  Bellcore TR-TSY-000030 & 000031 describe the
basic technique for signaling over individual T/R pairs between ring
cycles, while other documents (not all Bellcore) specify the
capability of blocking the display of a Caller's number, the use of
the number in various other CLASS features (Auto Callback, Customer
Orig. Trace, Selective Call Forwarding/Rejection, etc.), signaling
over an RS-232 channel (instead of the T/R pair) for groups of lines,
interactions with various capabilities such as Voice Mail providers,
etc.

> * What, exactly, is ANI?

ANI is strictly Automatic Number Identification, describing the
hardware used in SxS, etc. to provide the Billing Number to the
Automatic Message Accounting (AMA) Switches for use in charging for
Toll calls, and later to various Operator systems.  Without ANI,
Operators had to ask you for YOUR number before Toll calls (even 1+
calls) would complete.

ANI has evolved to refer to methods of transmitting a Billing Number
during call setup, and even to the digits of the Billing Number.  The
basic method is called CAMA (Centralized AMA), using MF to transmit an
"I" digit followed by a seven-digit Billing Number.  The receiving
Switch would determine the NPA from the incoming trunk and record the
Billing Number and duration of the call.  The "I" indicated Coin
Phone, POTS, Hotel, ANI failure, etc.  This mechanism allowed one
Central Switch to make call record for many SxS switches, with only
the ANI hardware needed at those switches.  CAMA is seldom transmitted
more than one switch beyond the originating switch, for several
reasons, one being that answer supervision is not possible after
transmitting the Billing Number.  (The receiving switch does
supervision.)

To allow various InterLATA Carriers to do their own billing (or
monitor the billing of the LECs for the Carrier), the industry
developed a scheme for sending information to the IC using MF
signaling.  In general, it is:

    KP-0ZZ-XXX-ST followed by KP-II-10_digit_Billing_#-ST KP-Called_#-ST

and is called FG-D (Feature Group D) signaling.  (See Bellcore LSSGR.)
This Billing Number is also referred to as ANI.  The CAMA "I" was
replaced with "II", indicating the "class" of caller (Coin, etc.) in
more detail.

> What are the differences between these two things that determine whether
> or not a properly equipped receiver can get your phone number, especially
> in places that (1) don't currently offer Caller ID (2) offer blocking of
> one kind or another?

"Caller ID" may be blocked if so provisioned by the LEC.  Note that
the number is delivered to each Switch where SS7 circuits are used,
but the "Private" indication goes with the number.  This allows such
features as CO Trace or Auto Callback to use the number, even if it
was "blocked".

Billing Number information cannot be "blocked" (would allow free
calls!), and there is no protocol standard for marking the Billing
Number "Private".

> Does the answer vary depending on exchange, and is there a way I can find
> out how my exchange is configured?

The exchange has little to do with it: If the call uses an InterLATA
Carrier, they can get the Billing Number; if the call uses
SS7-all-the-way, the terminating Switch (and any intermediate carrier)
gets the Calling Number.  I know of no way to determine this
information without looking at TELCo or IC private information.
(Don't ask -- I won't give it out or even bother to check!)

One difference to keep in mind: The Billing Number is the telephone
PAYING for the call, which is not always the original Caller's
telephone number.  "Caller ID" attempts to track the originator of the
call.


Al Varney, not-officially-speaking-for-anyone

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #23
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16948;
          12 Jan 92 0:24 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08798
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 11 Jan 1992 22:21:22 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28099
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 11 Jan 1992 22:21:02 -0600
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 22:21:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #24

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Jan 92 21:21:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 24

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Autodialing a Digital Phone (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Dialed as 800, Billed For 900 (Paul S. Sawyer)
    Re: Information Age Media Bytes (Don Lewis)
    Re: NWT Intercept Recordings in Eskimo Language (Brian Prenovost)
    Re: Call Return Has Its Problems (S. Spencer Sun)
    Re: HOLD Device Wanted For Residential Line (Jack Winslade)
    Re: HOLD Device Wanted For Residential Line (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (John Higdon)
    Re: Who Picked Exchange Names? ([e-mail])
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Dell H. Ellison)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 09:49:43 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Autodialing a Digital Phone


msa3b![e-mail] (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes:

> We've got an AT&T System 85 PBX. We've got digital phone sets hooked
> to it.  We've got hundreds of customer service reps who need to call
> our clients.  We'd like to have either their PC or a central computer
> autodial the call....

> I thought of building a Y connector, to have a rep's handset and a
> modem wired in parallel, and then plug that into the phone (since the
> handset HAS to be analog).  I don't know if this would work due to
> voltage, current, etc.

This works for radio station phone patches moderately well.  Use a 600
ohm transformer to couple the modem and transmitter.  To eliminate hum
(the main problem with this arrangement) prehaps you could use the A-A1
leads of your modem (if so equiped) to operate a relay to disconnect
the transformer except when dialing.

For ruggedness the connection should be made inside the phone, IMHO.
Otherwise you can just cut the handset cord, crimp on two RJ-11's and
insert a splitter.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: Dialed as 800, Billed For 900
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 15:50:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> unhtel![e-mail]
(Paul S. Sawyer) writes:

> Well, we just got hit with it ... our LEC bill "as a service to AT&T"
> is billing us for calls (back to October) to 900-555-5555 (USA Today).

To be fair, I just got word that AT&T has agreed to credit these calls
on our bill.  We did not have very many of these after all, especially
compared to some of you who reported here.

The price of 800-calling is eternal vigilance!


Paul S. Sawyer    - University of New Hampshire CIS - [e-mail]
Telecommunications and Network Services             - VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                   - FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Don Lewis)
Subject: Re: Information Age Media Bites
Organization: Silicon Systems, Nevada City CA
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 01:02:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
arizona.edu (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton) writes:

> I'll be teaching a course this coming semester on "Issues for the
> Information Age," and I am looking for interesting media bites (in the
> range of a minute or two) to use as conversation starters in the
> various segments of the course.  The course will cover issues like
> privacy, mass-marketing databases, government and other surveillance,
> national security, man-machine "relations," etc.

The phone company revealing its grand plan to James Coburn's character
in "The President's Analyst".


Don "Truck" Lewis              Phone: [phone]   Silicon Systems
Internet: (under contruction)  FAX:   [phone]   138 New Mohawk Road
UUCP: {uunet,tektronix!gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com}!ssigv!lewis  Nevada City, CA  95959

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 10:40:30 CST
Subject: Re: NWT Intercept Recordings in Eskimo Language


In TELECOM Digest V12 #15, Doug Martin writes:

> By now my fascination with intercept recordings and with calling remote
> places is well documented [...eskimo recording...]  Does anyone know
> any even more isolated places with interesting recordings?

Well, I lived in Minneapolis for 20 years, and I consider that pretty
Isolated.  Anyway, when I was living there one of my phreaker friends
stumbled upon a group of consecutive numbers that NW Bell must have
been using for intercept recordings.  One was out of order, another
number changed, but the most interesting one was the 'coin needed for
this call'.

Well, I imagine you can see what was coming next, I went right to my
phone, and forwarded my number to the 'coin needed' recording.  Then,
I went to another phone and tried to call my phone.  Sure enough, "The
call you have placed requires a coin deposit."  So, now with the trap
set, I dialed the Operator, and asked if she might be able to help me
complete my call, as I had no slot to deposit a coin into!  Bahaha!!


Brian Prenovost

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Call Return Has Its Problems
Organization: Princeton Class of '94
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 01:12:13 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tony
Harminc) writes:

[The Moderator uses Call return for wrong numbers]

>> What's funny though are the ones who lie about it; claim they did
>> not call, and have 'no idea' why I am calling them. :)

[Mr. Harminc suggests a "PBX-related" situation]

> [Moderator's Note: I'm not as dumb as I look, Tony. A call at midnight
> with a two year old child on the other end saying 'da da da' then a
> voice in the background screaming 'hang up the phone and get back in
> bed you little 'bas---d' followed by a receiver going on hook most
> likely did not originate from the Widget Corporation's PBX.   PAT]

Ah, but if you heard such a conversation, and are presumably quick of
mind, even at midnight, then you could figure out what was going on
and would hardly need to use return call anyway, right? :-)


S. Spencer Sun - WWIVnet #1 @6913 - 609-258-8647 - USR DS v.32bis

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

Date: Thu, 09 Jan 92 11:45:24 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: HOLD Device Wanted For Residential Line
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


I still have (somewhere) a genuine AT&T or {something} Bell (can't
remember which -- this was in the era that AT&T and Bell still meant
more or less the same) white box that did just that.  We used it at
our old house (ca. '83 or so) but never installed it at the new place.
It would sense the hook flash and place a resistance on the pair, thus
allowing the sub to go on hook and pick up the call on another
extension.  If I remember correctly, a series of beeps after the hook
flash indicated a successful hold.

My wife NEVER used it.  ('..could you hang this up as soon as I pick
up in the bedroom ...')  I kept forgetting it was there and did the
same thing most of the time.  The times I did use it, it worked fine.
It would always release the line should the holding current drop,
either when an extension picked up, or when loop current would be
interrupted, such as if the far end hung up.


Good day!   JSW
Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
DRBBS, Omaha.  Farewell to Admiral Grace  (200:5010/666.0)

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 23:31:09 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: HOLD Device Wanted For Residential Line
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

> [e-mail] (Don Maslin) writes:

>> Recollection suggests that stand-alone HOLD devices were marketed
>> several years ago which were actuated by going on-hook momentarily and
>> then hanging up, and the device was released when any instrument went
>> off-hook (or some similar mode of actuation and release.)

>> [Moderator's Note: I think Radio Shack has what you are seeking.  PAT]

> I thought so also until I checked. ;->

Officially discontinued but may still be a few around at a steep
discount. Last was $19 or so.


Jeff Sicherman

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 09:46 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!


Larry Rachman <[e-mail]> writes:

> "Thank you for calling the Casio Referral Hotline. If you are calling
> from a touchtone telephone, press one now. If you are calling from a
> rotary dial telephone, please call back on a touchtone telephone.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> And if you don't have one, tough luck! (I guess).

I am surprised that it has taken this long. Tone signaling is SO
superior to rotary that it is nothing short of amazing that it has
taken nearly twenty years to become the dominant dialing method.
Consider that the CD has been around for about eight years and has all
but decimated the LP, which was king for the previous thirty-five
years.

Since 1987, my personal answering machine has REQUIRED DTMF input to
be of any service to the caller. First, I cannot imagine that I would
want to talk to anyone using a rotary phone :-), and second, no junk
calling machines are smart enough (yet) to enter the required DTMF
digit to "break through".

Remember, you do not have to have DTMF service to own a phone capable
of DTMF. In fact, are there any areas left that do not have DTMF
telephone service available? I mean, really, if Pac*Bell now considers
it to be part of standard telephone service ...


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

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

From: The Unknown User <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Picked Exchange Names?
Date: 11 Jan 92 09:46:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Faunt)
writes:

> Has anyone built a file of exchange names?  I din't see anything in
> the archives that was obviously that.

    I'd like to know WHY there were exchange names in the first place.

    Remembering a word (or the first two letters of it) and five
numbers seems harder to remember than seven numbers.

    Was the exchange concept the reason there are letters on the
numbers at all?

    Also, when did people switch to ###-#### instead? (The most recent
example in the media of exchanges I can think of is some movie I didn't see
called Transylvania 6-5000.)


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The exchange name concept is the only reason there
are letters on the dial. You may think it is harder to remember 2-L /
5-D than 7-D, but that's because of your age and the fact you don't
recall anything about the old way. When ANC (all number calling)
started getting phased in in the early sixties, people were outraged
at having to 'learn and remember' two more digits. A group called the
ADDL (Anti-Digit-Dialing League) in Berkeley, CA held several protest
demonstrations trying to convince telco to abandon ANC for the old
method.  There was no clean cutover. New prefixes as of about 1961-62
were ANC, with no significance to the numbers. New customers on
existing prefixes about the same time began getting assigned the ANC
version of the same number, ie, a new customer on the SHEldrake
exchange was told by the business office his new number would be
743-xxxx. For about fifteen years thereafter, the phone directories
had a mix of both 2-L / 5-D and 7-D. As old customers dropped out,
their listings went with them.  Finally about 1975 or so, remaining
numbers with letters in the book were converted to all numbers. Any
manual exchanges which were cut after about 1960-61 simply used ANC,
with no exchange name ever part of the scene. The change from 3-L /
4-D occurred here in 1948, but it was an abrupt switchover; one year
the phone books simply started showing 2-L and the numerical
equivilent of the third /L/.

The words made better sense originally since the words were neaalways
the community name, ie Transylvania.  Everyone knew where the
community was located when one said 'Transylvania'; 872 would have
been difficult for most people in those days to match with the place.
Why is my town known as 872 and your town is known as 763 when we
really know its name is Podunk?  But either the Podunk-ites or the
citizens of Rodneyville got to use their name, not both. Of course in
larger cities, 244 (CHIcago) would quickly run out, and it was the
need for a huge number of prefixes with a growing assortment of
unwieldy names which finally led the Bell System to kill that scheme
in lieu of 7-D, just as the more recent dearth of possible three digit
numbers with 0/1 in the middle led to the area code numbering plan
change we will have soon.  People also got confused, dialing 'HP' for
HYDe Park and "H0" (as in zero) for HOLlycourt, etc.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 03:22:50 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> it was written:

> Even better, we use active power control (something we can do because
> it's digital).  The mobile and cell channel elements transmit with
> only as much power they need.  If you're close to the cell, you don't
> need much power.  As you get farther away, it slowly boosts power.

Just the way AMPS works today.

> What it works out to is that while an analog phone transmits at three
> watts, and the cell-site power requirements are truly horrible, CDMA
> phones transmit in the milliwatt range, and the entire cell site
> transmits with only as much power as a couple of the radios in the
> analog cell.

Again, not always.  The remote AMPS transmits only at the necessary
level.  In fact, my handheld is always operating in the "milliwatt
range."

> In addition, we can divide the channel between different data sources,
> so you could send voice and data (from a modem, perhaps) on the same
> channel.  What we can do is limited only by the messages we can think
> up to send back and forth.

What advantage is this going to be to the individual subscriber?
Answer: the same advantage that individual subscribers get from ISDN:
nothing!  The carriers will undoubtedly price the data services at
outrageous prices.  Take a look at what 56/64Kbps data calls cost:
many times the cost of a "voice" call, with the only difference being
the way the call is tagged.  But of course the users with data
transmission needs will have even less choice than with ISDN, as the
traditional modems, etc., are unlikely to work well over the vocoder.
A user with a 2400 baud dialup or 9600 baud fax need will have to pay
whatever rate the carrier sets for these services, as they will not
operate properly over the voice channel.  And the user has to pay for
more-expensive equipment to do this, at least initially.

Now, if the carrier wishes to give me a new phone at no charge to me
(which in crowded markets such as LA and NYC would allow them to
quickly recover its cost by tripling their concurrent call capacity)
that has a serial port whose usage is charged for reasonably, I might
consider digital ...


Steve Forrette, [e-mail], I do not speak for my employer.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dell H. Ellison)
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 14:45:35 GMT


Bob Miller <[e-mail]> writes:

> Echo Valley Two Six Eight Oh Nine
> I used to call that number all the time

> Maybe someone can put a title and artist to the song.

Your favorite group:  The Partridge Family.


Dell H. Ellison     ...!uunet!mcdchg!motcid!ellisond    Motorola, Inc.

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

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 16:42:51 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits


I don't recall seeing this one yet (and my home machine has been down
today):

Don't Hang Up (by the Orlons?  c. 1963, and it might be from
Philadelphia.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #24
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24258;
          12 Jan 92 3:09 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01345
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Jan 1992 01:22:10 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06464
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Jan 1992 01:21:37 -0600
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 01:21:37 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #25

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Jan 92 01:21:21 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 25

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago (Andrew Klossner)
    Re: Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago (Jim Rees)
    Re: Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago (Paul W. Schleck)
    Re: Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Date: Thu,  9 Jan 92 10:33:21 PST
Subject: Re: Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


> [Moderator's Note: We had WU clock service for many years.
> Fortunatly, I was able to grab two clocks when they
> discontinued the service in the middle sixties; and I have both
> clocks running in my house, without the setting circuit, of
> course. I knew where there were a dozen more, but within days
> of WUTCO discontinuing the service the clocks were ripped off
> by collectors (like me!) ... (:  I'll mention more about this
> in a couple days if someone reminds me.   PAT]"

It's been a couple days.  Here's a reminder.  Sounds like a good story.

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


[Moderator's Note: See the final article in this issue.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 01:52:02 GMT


The story about Western Union clock service has prompted me to write
in.  I have one of those clocks too.  I also have in my home a couple
of Unix machines that are on the Internet.  Just for a hack, I ran a
line from DTR on a spare RS-232 port into a simple transistor switch
driving a relay, and ran the contacts of the relay to my Western Union
clock (which is normally synchronized by a pulse from a quartz clock
circuit I built).  Then I wrote a simple program to pulse DTR at the
top of the hour.

So I now have what I believe to be the only Western Union clock in the
world that is synchronized by time pulses directly traceable to the
Bureau of Standards.  The pulse comes from my Apollo dn330, which
derives its time via xntp from a Sun at the University of Michigan,
which gets its time from Merit, which gets its time from WWV (somehow,
although I'm not sure how).  Can anyone top this?

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 19:16:38 GMT


> dozen more, but within days of WUTCO discontinuing the service the
> clocks were ripped off by collectors (like me!) ... (:  I'll mention
> more about this in a couple days if someone reminds me.   PAT]

Please consider yourself reminded.  Happy Friday.  :-)


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

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

Date: 11 Jan 92 22:04:00 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan
Boritz) writes:

> I thought TELECOM Digest readers might like this entertaining piece
> about Western Union's time service, from the FidoNet FCC conference
> (not distributed as a newsgroup), submitted by Don Kimberlin.

               Alan Boritz
               [e-mail]

> <War Story mode OM; short form>

[excellent story about fighting bureaucratic idiocy at WU deleted]

> [Moderator's Note: We had WU clock service for many years. Fortunatly,
> I was able to grab two clocks when they discontinued the service in
> the middle sixties; and I have both clocks running in my house,
> without the setting circuit, of course. I knew where there were a
> dozen more, but within days of WUTCO discontinuing the service the
> clocks were ripped off by collectors (like me!) ... (:  I'll mention
> more about this in a couple days if someone reminds me.   PAT]

Please do, Pat.  I recall this thread being quite fascinating the last
time it came up (about a year ago).  As a matter of fact, I did some
research and hunted down a fairly good-looking brown square wall model
for myself at an Omaha antique store.  The dealer had two of them, the
other one still unsold after a year, despite my giving his phone
number out to several interested parties on the net.

If someone is interested, please send me E-mail and I will give you
his phone number.  A word of warning, however.  I would like to remain
on good terms with this dealer, so I would like to limit calls to him
to SERIOUS inquiries only.  He is unlikely to sell his remaining
example for less than $150, probably more if he has to package it up
and mail it to you, so don't waste his time if you don't intend to
fork over that much cash.

Would someone happen to have a schematic, or at least a good working
knowledge of the clock's innards?  I'm still poking around inside of
it figuring out how to wind the damn thing ... :-)


Paul W. Schleck    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 00:39:47 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Re: Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago


Actually, the Western Union clock service has been gone for more than
a quarter-century. It was unavailable to new subscribers after about
1963 and totally gone by about 1965. No one less than 30 years of age
would remember seeing them in operation. We've covered the way they
operated in past issues; look in the archives if you are interested in
more details. The idea was the Naval Observatory Master Clock in
Washington, DC sent out a pulse every day which jerked the hands on
the local master clock (the one in the telegraph office) around to the
correct time, and the local master clocks would in turn pulse every
hour on the hour to set the local clocks in buildings around town.
Sometimes they would synchronize a sub-master clock instead, which in
turn snyched the ones under it, etc.

The service -- like almost everything else of Western Union's -- was
great for the earlier years of this century. There was no such thing
as a digital clock with quartz accuracy until about twenty years ago.
Another consideration was the lack of AC power. Many towns, including
Chicago used direct current from Edison for many years. Electric
clocks do not run very well on direct current. They need alternating
current at sixty cycles to perform properly.  Even in our 'battery
operated' analog clocks today, the battery does not run the clock; it
simply runs the motor which winds the spring which pushes the
escapement.

In the 1900 - 1960 era, a city the size of Chicago had hundreds or
maybe thousands of Western Union clocks. They ran with long life
batteries which wound the mainspring once an hour or so, and the
setting circuit (telegraph pulse) kept them accurate. Every government
office, every radio station, every school had them. Generally in large
institutional settings (schools, government offices) a sub-master
clock was used to calibrate the individual clocks in each classroom.
Attachments to the clocks made it possible to ring bells at certain
times, etc.  Western Union charged $1 (ONE DOLLAR) per clock/month for
the service, and gave the clocks away free as part of the deal. You
returned the clock if you gave up the service or got the service cut
off for failure to pay the bill.

There were several models and styles of clocks, ranging from rather
plain brown metal cases with 10, 12 or 14 inch dials to clocks in
handsome wooden cases which did cost more to rent. Some had sweep-
second hands; others did not. The most ornate model was a very large
grandfather clock -- six feet tall with an attractive pendulum in a
very handsome oak case -- with Western Union works inside it. It was
not uncommon for shopkeepers to put a WU clock in the window as a
courtesy to passers-by; Bell Telephone switchboards used a special
version built into a timestamp machine to correctly stamp the time on
long distance toll tickets; and WGN radio in Chicago had a unique
application in their studio clock: instead of the red light which
flashed for a second once each hour as the clock got synched from the
master, they had a relay tied up there which sounded a little chirp
which went over the air every hour on the hour. The station used that
chirp with their station-ID for about forty years.

The Western Union headquarters building in Chicago had several dozen
clocks in the offices, as well as the lobby, the public telegraph
office on the first floor, etc.  One day WU announced the clock
service was being discontinued, but the memo said 'subscribers who
have the clocks are welcome to keep them ... but there will no longer
be a time signal sent out after <date in 1965?>'.  Poof! All of a
sudden the clocks disappeared in one fell swoop from the WU building
and new electric wall clocks were hanging in their place. The WU
executives no doubt ripped them all off and took them home, etc.
Elsewhere in town, the clocks were around, but growing fewer in
numbers for a few years, then eventually disappearing altogether.
Generally a clock enthusiast or antique dealer would see one and
convince the owner to sell it or if possible, talk him into giving it
away.  By 1970 or so, a WU clock in an office was a rare sight.

If you were a clock collector and you found a source that had not yet
been picked clean, you kept it to yourself, and arranged to get them
out as soon as you could before the next guy beat you to it. Of course
you had to wheel and deal with the owner the best you could. If you
found a place where they did not anticipate the future antique value
of the clock, you were in luck.

The Chicago Temple Building had six clocks if my memory is correct;
one in the lobby by the elevators with a fourteen inch dial that I
have operating in my living room today sans setting circuit of course;
two backstage in the auditorium (stage left where the organist could
see it and stage right by a room where program participants would wait
before entering the stage); one in the WNIB radio broadcasting booth
on the second floor of the auditorium; one in an office on the second
floor and a beautiful grandfather clock in what they called the Parlor
on the third floor where receptions were held, brunches, etc. As our
former President Carter said, I had lust in my heart for that one.

When the one in the lobby stopped running because the battery ran
down, I convinced the building manager 'it was probably broken' and if
he *gave* it to me I'd get him a new electric wall clock from a store
nearby. The deal was done that day and the $19.95 electric clock is
still hanging there today! A couple days later I was brousing around
backstage and in the organ pipe chambers thinking of a way to get the
two clocks back there (a step ladder was needed) but the manager told
me he caught hell from the Trustees for giving me the clock in the
lobby, so I couldn't have the ones backstage ... odd that he said
that, because two weeks later I was back there again and both of them
were gone! :) There were other clocks in the building, but they were
in the private offices and the answering service. I didn't have the
nerve to ask for the grandfather clock ... :) ... in fact I only saw
two of the grandfather clocks ever; in addition to the one in the
Chicago Temple third floor parlor, one was in the office at Telegraph
Federal Savings and Loan (the old WU telegraph employees credit union)
on Jackson Street, and some employee working there heisted that one
when the S & L merged with another bank sometime around 1969.

The Chicago Board of Education had bunches of clocks in their office
building on LaSalle Street. They all walked away with the exception of
the one in the Board of Ed cafeteria which I managed to get. It was a
wall clock in a large wooden case; someone had painted the case an
ugly institutional green and it took me a couple months to sand the
case and get the paint off, then restore the original finish. I am
using that clock today (again, less the setting circuit) on the wall
in front of me here at my terminal.

A friend of a friend who worked for WU for almost forty years -- in
the clock service yet! -- got me a couple more which were stashed in
the basement supply room at the Western Union HQ building, and he also
got me three spare sets of works without cases or dials to keep as
spares when/if mine broke down. Unfortunatly, I sold those clocks and
the spare works. I wish now I had kept them a few years.

There were four or five clocks at Orchestra Hall. I was told I could
have precisely *one* that was backstage by the dressing rooms if I
took it during the month the Hall was closed for repairs, but the day
I went down there, some guy from Illinois Bell was there working on a
circuit to radio station WFMT; he had already taken all the clocks
down and had them sitting in the back of his truck ... and he had the
nerve to tell me he *bought* them from the Symphony! :<  Sure he did! I
told my contact about it later on and he was flabbergasted. Luckily, I
had not 'paid' for mine yet ... and I won't say how payment was to
have been tendered, just that it hadn't been yet!

I got two other clocks from Pixley and Ehler's Cafeterias (Van Buren
Street and Wells/Madison) when they closed. P&E's was a chain of
restaurants as common in the 1950-75 period as McDonald's is today,
with five or six in the downtown area alone. I got the one in the
lobby of the Monroe Theatre (an 'adult' and 'art film' place) downtown
when the building was closed and torn down in 1968. But I cleaned them
all up and gave them away to friends, or sold them. Now I have only
two left, both running in my house.

The workmanship? The best ... both (in fact almost all WU clocks) were
manufactured by the "Self Winding Clock Company" of New York City.
Mine were manufactured in 1910 and 1917 ... both run very well, and
seldom need calibration even today.  When I took the one down from the
wall at the Chicago Temple a pencilled inscription on the wall behind
it said it had been installed by 'J. Brady' in (I think) May, 1930 ...
and 35-36 years later it was running perfectly, probably with little
or no maintainence over the years except for the batteries.

I have mine running from a DC three-volt, one amp power supply, and my
'setting circuit' is a nine-volt battery taped under my desk wired
through a doorbell button which I press on cue from the talking clock
every month or two when I happen to think about it and call the Naval
Observatory on 202-653-1800.

When WU offered clock service, sometimes subscribers would not pay the
bill, and a clock technician would go out to reclaim the instrument.
Sometimes the subscriber would refuse to give the clock up ... the
tech would go to the phone terminal box in the basement where the
setting circuit came into the building, and open the pair. Then he
would put a load on the circuit to the delinquent subscriber, and
leave it there for a few minutes. That tug-of-war between the setting
circuit and the clock escapement would soon cause the clock to stop
running completely ... and the tech would tell the subscriber 'you
might as well give me the clock back now because I've stopped it from
running at all ... :).  Of course *all* the clocks on that circuit
would stop running so the tech had to go around one by one and restart
the good subscribers while leaving the delinquent guy shut down.

Between the clocks, the public telegraph offices and their many other
services, Western Union was a grand part of the American heritage for
over a century ... their slow death in the past few years has been a
real pity to all of us who remember their heyday.

And the public telegraph offices were interesting places also, but
that is a story for another day.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #25
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25950;
          12 Jan 92 3:41 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20985
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Jan 1992 01:55:26 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16860
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Jan 1992 01:55:01 -0600
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 01:55:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #26

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Jan 92 01:54:50 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 26

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (John Nagle)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Jim Rees)
    Re: Data-Under-Voice Hardware Wanted (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? (Michael Gersten)
    Re: Cellular Prices Go Up (Steve Forrette)
    Re: PC Based PBX (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: International ANI is Here? (David G. Lewis)
    Re: International ANI is Here? (Bob Frankston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Date: 11 Jan 92 15:34:56 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Anindadeb
Vijaykumar Dasgupta) writes:

> I read somewhere that in most large cities cellular carriers are
> switching to digital systems due to saturation of existing cells.  I
> couldn't tell what the advantages of this would be:

There's a lot of confustion over this claim.  Right now, in most
cities, the analog cellular systems are being upgraded to use digital
switching and transmission within the cellular network.  This means
that time-division switching and multiplexing is being implemented
within the cell site and central office equipment.  They are still
analog narrow-band FM between the cell sites and the mobile telephone
sets.  The service-providers are talking about 'digital' but it's only
their internal network that sees it.

In the next few years, digital radio links between cell sites and
mobile phones will be introduced.  This will be phased in, so as not
to render obsolete the installed base of approximately six million
analog mobile telephones.  The first batch of digital mobile sets will
be 'dual-mode' sets, to remain compatible with the analog systems, but
take advantage of digital transmission as it becomes available.

What is gained by going digital on the 'air link'?

A time-division-multiple-access (TDMA) standard permits three
compressed digital voice channels to occupy the spectrum used by a
single FM analog voice channel.  The users of these channels will get
a better signal-to-noise ratio than users of analog FM channels under
impaired RF conditions.  Mobile and portable data devices will get far
lower data error rates.  (But high-speed analog modems won't work
correctly in the presence of the compression being used.)  Digital
control channels will permit more features -- sort of like 'ISDN to
the car'!

A little farther into the future, a code-division-multiple-access
(CDMA) standard will allow even greater spectrum efficiency, with the
same advantages gained by using digital speech coding.

> Are these carriers using source coding?  Won't that make
> the cellular phones more expensive/bulky?

It does add complexity to the mobile telephone.  But adding complexity
to electronics, these days, doesn't necessarily add bulk.  The
telephone set manufacturers are already developing chip sets that
implement digital voice coding and other functions, so the user
probably won't notice an increase in size or weight.  Price?  Too soon
to tell, I think.  The improvements in signal quality, and new
features can probably be 'sold' by someone whose market research
discovers how much the traffic will bear.


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] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 18:30:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> In the long term, digital phones should be cheaper and lighter,
> however, as VLSI components are employed.

       In the Motorola MicroTAC, the battery is over half the weight.
Further VLSI integration won't shrink the package that much.

       Actually, the coils and filters probably weigh more than the
semiconductors already.  Look at the Philips/Signetics chip set, for
example.  It's down to 12 shrink surface-mount packages.

       Progress will have to come from reducing power consumption.


John Nagle

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 22:05:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Ron Dippold) writes:

[ concerning the Qualcomm CDMA system... ]

> Even better, we use active power control (something we can do because
> it's digital).  The mobile and cell channel elements transmit with
> only as much power they need.

Analog systems do this too.  Maybe not as well, but they do.

> Finally, with digital we can (and do) use a variable rate vocoder.  In
> this way CDMA makes use of the Voice Activity Factor of conversation:
> either of the parties involved is not saying something about 60% of
> the time.

Analog phones are also capable of doing this, but it usually sounds
bad enough that most systems don't enable the feature.

> (Interestingly, even when we force the vocodoer to use a
> maximum rate of half its top rate, it still sounds better than my
> analog phone).

I understand the top rate is 9600 bps.  I find it hard to believe that
half of this sounds very good, and would like to hear a demo.

> In addition, we can divide the channel between different data sources,
> so you could send voice and data (from a modem, perhaps) on the same
> channel.

I hope you are making provisions for direct access to the bits,
although at 9600 bps it won't be very useful.  Certainly running an
analog modem over one of these is going to lose big.

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 17:09:58 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data-Under-Voice Hardware Wanted


Jean Renard Ward writes:

> Who is aware of hardware products (and related software products) that
> support simultaneous transmission of data and voice on either a
> dial-up telephone line, or on a low-data-rate (the lower the better)
> communications line that I could connect to the serial port on a PC?

Micom makes a multiplexor that they claim will multiplex voice, FAX,
LAN, and data at speeds from 9.6K to 56/64 Kbps. Other than getting
some product literature, I don't know anything about it, but it should
work on a switched digital line.

For info and a compressed voice demonstration call 1-800-642-6687
(1-800-932-DVNS in Canada) or [phone].


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Gersten)
Subject: Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival?
Organization: STB BBS, La, Ca, 310 397 3137
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 02:30:39 GMT


I have a question on ISDN.

As I understand it, a local loop under STM is a 192K line, divided by
time into two 64K channels, one 16K channel, and 48K of overhead. 8K
of this overhead is just timing to keep the bits straight.

Now, I also understand that ATM ISDN is based on 48 byte packets plus
five byte headers (53 bytes total). And that ATM is the way of the
future, i.e., all the telephone company equipment is working ATM, and
your STM calls turn into ATM on the way.

My question is: Why does the phone company only offer STM to the home,
which forces a line to be used (and payment made, hmm ... I think I
answered this one) even when nothing is being sent? Why not have the
home line just be a 192K ATM feed, and put a rate limiter of 64K on
it?


Michael Gersten        [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 02:32:14 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Prices Go Up
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> Bell Canada and Cantel will be raising their cellular rates soon.
> Bell has a "Lifeline" rate of
> $9.95 which will not be changed (though this might involve higher
> connect time charges).

Now let me get this straight: A "lifeline" rate for cellular?  Now
I've heard everything!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 19:16:20 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PC Based PBX
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Stephen Friedl) writes:

> Ken Jongsma reports the following from {Communications Week}:

>> Start-up PCBX Systems Inc. has developed what it is calling the first
>> PBX to run on a personal computer. The PCBX is a PC card that can give
>> any telephone set full PBX functionality, said the Woodland Hills,
>> California company.

> Directory assistance for Woodland Hills, CA (area code 818) doesn't
> know about these folks, so anybody knowing how to find them is
> encouraged to fill the rest of us in.

>Stephen Friedl   |  Software Consultant   |   Tustin, CA
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^
Not surprising; you should have tried closer to home, lost closer:

  PCBX Systems, Inc
  3730 S. Susan Street
  Santa Ana,  CA  92704

  800-755-PCBX
  TEL: [phone]
  FAX: [phone]

  BTW, I talked to them on Thursday and while I'm not knowledgeable
enough on telecom hardware issues in general and PBX systems in
particular, it was an interesting conversation and the engineer-type I
spoke to was very friendly and forthcoming.

  Without any real details, I got the impression it was not a
completely mature product in its present form. API documentation may
be sketchy.  Only POTS-type phones are supported (they are negotiating
for some feature phone [BLF, etc.]) add-ins and capabilities. He
couldn't (or wouldn't and couldn't say) give any information about
installed base.

  The card is an eight-bit long card (pictured in the promo material
they sent me) but they *strongly* recommend an AT-class computer in
order to provide the necessary perfomance to support some of the cards
features via the CPU - especially if you're planning to have the
cpmputer do anything else. I didn't get any info on multitasking or
Windows compatibility of the interfaces. It has a 50-pin connector
that a special cable is plugged into that mates with a 50-pin
(25-pair?)  connector on a type-66 block [I'm culling this from
memory, not notes, so please forgive any errors] for mating to trunk
and station lines.  The card itself supports four trunks and 12 sets.
The specs chart indicates 16 trunks total and 48 stations but I'm not
clear on how multiple cards are mated for that configuration. A
'future' line specifies 32 trunks and 96 stations, but that would
pretty max out any IBm chassis so I don't know if they are planning a
higher capacity card for that.

  A little drawing in the fact sheet shows (block diagram) FAX, voice
mail, auto-attendent, music, paging interfaces but the discussion led
me to believe that these are supported through external connections
via the 66 block (don't know if it occupies line positions or uses
'extra' pairs in the cable unused by the trunk and station sets). SMDR
is supported through software interfaces to the board. Trunk line
support currently for loop start only; specs indicate ground start in
the future.  There is a long list of PBX-type features which I won't
attempt to list here.

  The price is expensive for a key system replacement but seems
inexpensive for a PBX (I'm not a reseller or very knowledgeable about
the market as a whole so that's just impression). The have an
'Unauthorized Dealer' Evaluation/Demo Kit which is above twice the
Authorized Dealer wholesale price. [PAT, I hesitate to report the
prices, lest this look too much like an ad for them]. The cover letter
implies LAN support but I couldn't find anything specific in the fact
sheet and the rep didn't mention anything so I tend to think it's just
the fact that it can share the computer with a network interface that
provides an opportunity. There was no mention of packages software for
it that does this now. I mentioned the existance of 10baseT hub cards
that occupy AT chassis slots and he seemed interested in the
possibilities; maybe some cheap router/WAN applications?

  Finally, as I understand from the guy I talked to, it's not strictly
a 'start-up'. I'm a little vague remembering exactly what he said, but
I got the impression it was reorganized either financially,
technically, or both from a previous attempt that didn't make it
anywhere very fast.

  If anybody gets a more accurate impression or significant details
that I have overlooked, I would be interested myself in a further
followup.


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: International ANI is Here?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 15:47:52 GMT


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

>An article in today's {New York Times} said:

> "...a small start-up company, International Discount Telecomm-
> unications, has found a way to allow callers abroad to telephone the
> United States at the same low rates Americans pay to call overseas.
> When a customer calls the company, he lets the phone ring once and
> hangs up.  The black box is programmed to call back the customer's
> number and patch in the second American telephone line. The customer
> now has an American dial tone, ..."

> This implies that ANI can be delievered internationally, does it not?
> I never heard anything announced about this.  Are there CCITT specs
> for this?

I read the same article and tried to figure out the implementation; I
came up with the following hypotheses:

1.  The CCITT specification for SS7 (Integrated Services Digital
Network User Part, Q.761-766) does include Calling Party Number.  AT&T
offers INFO-2 service (billing number delivery over PRI) for
International 800 calls.  Theoretically, it is possible that the
callers are calling an I-800 number (using the national-specific
prefix for called-party-paid calls) and the billing number is getting
delivered to the called party.  I don't think that's the way it's
working, though.

2.  The brute force approach, which is what I am guessing is being
used, is that there are a large number of lines on the USA side of the
operation, each with an individual dialable number, and each overseas
customer dials a different number to access the service.  One "black
box" hangs off each line, and has programmed into it the dialback
number for that customer.

My reasoning that the second approach is being used is based on
several factors.  First, I don't know how widely supported delivery of
calling party number/billing number to I800 is (in terms of how many
countries support it).  Second, similar CPN/BN issues arise as have
been discussed here before -- is the BN a dialable number, and is it
the same as the CPN for a given customer?  For primarily business
customers, the answer would be "no" a disturbingly large proportion of
the time.  Third, the black box description implies to me a box
hanging off a single line, and if you were using a PRI, you'd have one
box with one or more T1 ports instead of many boxes, each hanging off
one line.

Note, however, that this is all my personal conjecture based on
limited information.  Don't go trying this at home ...

(I don't know what AT&T's policy with regard to this service is, so
don't go interpreting my conjectures as favorable/unfavorable views of
the service.  Technical clarifications (and of course, conjectures)
are all I'm willing to go into ...)


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

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International ANI is Here?
Date: Sat 11 Jan 1992 13:12 -0500


The article on this service explained that it is much less general
than it seems.  A ring on a given number activates equipment to
dialback to a predetermined number and then present it with dialtone
which could be used to call out to anywhere in the world.  Simple and
clever.  The PTT's probably consider it impolite (to put it mildly).
A good demonstration of the difficulties of local regulations in an
interconnected world.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #26
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02183;
          13 Jan 92 0:07 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20061
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Jan 1992 21:51:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20985
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Jan 1992 21:51:15 -0600
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 21:51:15 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #27

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Jan 92 21:51:13 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 27

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Drops The Ball? (John Higdon)
    Re: Who Picked Exchange Names? (David Lesher)
    Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? (David G. Lewis)
    Re: PC Based PBX (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Malcolm Slaney)
    Re: NWT Intercept Recordings in Eskimo Language (Michael Rosen)
    Re: NWT Intercept Recordings in Eskimo Language (Cliff Stoll)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home (Larry Rachman)
    Re: Problem with Procomm; Help Needed (Louie Crew)
    Re: Those Are REAL Phone Numbers! (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: Phone Company Humour (Giles D. Malet)
    I Got Cancer by Phone (was I Got Pregnant Through Phone Sex (John Stanley)
    Re: I Got Pregnant Through Phone Sex (was Phone Company Humor) (Jim Rees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 04:30 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T Drops The Ball?


Last week, I wrote about miserable sounding phone calls to the
Hawaiian Islands and that such had been reported to AT&T. On Friday, a
gentleman called "explaining" the reason for the connections sounding
the way they did (but not anything about fixing it). His explanation
was predictable: it is the nature of satelite connections. Why
satelite connections? Supposedly it is because AT&T runs out of fiber
circuits during peak periods.

I am going to tell you that this is the poorest "customer resolution"
that I have ever experienced from AT&T. First, what he said was
probably bunk. Second, his workaround was laughable. I indicated that
such connections were unacceptable and that another carrier would have
to be found. "Oh, that is not necessary. If you get on one of those
circuits [about 100% chance] simply hang up and dial '00' and ask for
credit and to be put through on a better circuit." Now if I can get my
Telebit to say, "Operator ..."

A much more plausable explanation (and one that actually explains what
I hear) was offered by a fellow Digest reader. Apparently, in order to
cram the most into the least (the way of the 1990's), AT&T is using a
form of data packet compression. Part of a packet can be deleted to
shed load during congestion and the packet is organized so that the
least significant bits of information on all voice samples can be
truncated. And, of course, packet data transmission introduces
end-to-end propagation delays that sound very much like satelite.

While the packet contains time information, allowing for a constant
delay, this can be upset if the load becomes very high. This would
cause the effect that I heard of a varying propagation delay during
the course of a call. And since AT&T would not want to waste any
precious bits denoting silence, it uses silence deletion (contrary to
the impression conveyed in its ads -- or do they only apply to
"continental USA"?) that makes some voicemail systems look good. While
AT&T is very proud of this whole system, they can drop it into the
Pacific Ocean for all I care.

So erase that question mark from the subject line. AT&T HAS dropped
the ball. Their service to the Islands is crummy and there are no
plans to do anything about it. After hearing this "frame-relay"
transmission technique, I am rather leary of squashed and mashed
digital anything.  And it certainly would be nice if AT&T gave the
straight poop to its customers (like it used to). But then, nothing is
what it used to be.  And given the way Sprint and MCI have been
hustling and performing on their dedicated T1 services as of late (as
opposed to AT&T -- some customers will be switching soon!), I guess it
is time to become open minded again and admit that there is more than
one long distance company.


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

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Picked Exchange Names?
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 9:32:10 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


Others said:

> I'd like to know WHY there were exchange names in the first place.

> [Moderator's Note: The exchange name concept is the only reason there
> are letters on the dial.

If there WERE letters. The "metropolitan" dial was used in cities, but
initially, many rural dials were all number.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 18:14:57 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael
Gersten) writes:

> I have a question on ISDN.

> As I understand it, a local loop under STM is a 192K line, divided by
> time into two 64K channels, one 16K channel, and 48K of overhead. 8K
> of this overhead is just timing to keep the bits straight.

Actually, ANSI-standard U-interface DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) is
160k -- 2 64k B channels, one 16k D channel, and 16k overhead.  AT&T
T-interface DSL is 192k; I'm not sure about anyone else's T-interface
(or if there's an NI-1 spec for T-interface).

> Now, I also understand that ATM ISDN is based on 48 byte packets plus
> five byte headers (53 bytes total). And that ATM is the way of the
> future, i.e., all the telephone company equipment is working ATM, and
> your STM calls turn into ATM on the way.

Whether it's the "way of the future" is still an object of
considerable discussion in the technical community; as to "all the
telephone company equipment working ATM", it's most certainly not.
The only ATM equipment deployed is some very limited lab and field
trials.  Emphasis on very limited.  The only thing turned into ATM is
ATM trial traffic.

> My question is: Why does the phone company only offer STM to the home,
> which forces a line to be used (and payment made, hmm ... I think I
> answered this one) even when nothing is being sent? Why not have the
> home line just be a 192K ATM feed, and put a rate limiter of 64K on
> it?

Because there is no ATM in deployment yet.

Furthermore, when an ISDN line is idle, the 160k is just idle signals
cooking back and forth between the switch and terminal/TA plus the
occasional maintenance message ("Hey, you still there?"  "Yep, sure
am.")  None of this is billed.

There's a large amount of discussion about if and when ATM will be
"ubiquitous".  The ambitious techie types like to talk about ATM
everywhere in the world out to the subscriber interface.  More
reality-drivin types tend to talk more about "hybrid networks", with
ATM switches, STM switches at various signal rates, and various
subscriber interfaces applied as appropriate.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: PC Based PBX
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 15:35:40 GMT


My question (as always) is: do they provide interface specs on the
card to you can write your own drivers, or do the "specs" consist of a
working MS-DOS program with no source?

When you buy a PC card, demand specs. Take it up as high as you can.
If they don't *have* specs available, get another card: they probably
developed the hardware and software together and it's a mass of
kludges.

Not directly telecom related, but doing my part to fight low-quality
hardware. Besides, you might want to interact with some other card to
provide an interface they never thought of.


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 16:33:25 -0800
From: Malcolm Slaney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA


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

> I am surprised that it has taken this long. Tone signaling is SO
> superior to rotary that it is nothing short of amazing that it has
> taken nearly twenty years to become the dominant dialing method.

Ummm ... one of the lessons that I've had to learn once I got out of
school and into the real world is that the Joe Average Consumer
doesn't necessarily beat a path to the most technologically wonderful
products.  I bet my grandparents never made more than a couple of
calls a day.  I'm sure they never thought it was worth the effort to
change their phones or switch their service with Illinois Bell.
(That's assuming that they even knew the difference that tone dialing
would make.)

I wonder what the average number of calls per day is for the average
residential phone?


Malcolm

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: NWT Intercept Recordings in Eskimo Language
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 23:44:27 GMT


It wasn't mentioned, but there *is* an English message right after the
Eskimo one.


Mike

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 17:12:13 -0800
From: [e-mail] (USENET Administrator)
Subject: Re: NWT Intercept Recordings in Eskimo Language
From: [e-mail] (Cliff Stoll)
Subject: Re: NWT Intercept Recordings in Eskimo Language
Date: 13 Jan 1992 01:12:12 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility


Doug Martin called Baker Lake, Northwest Territories, Canada and heard
an intercept recording in an Eskimo dialect.

Oh, I spent a couple weeks in Rankin Inlet, NWT -- not far from Baker
Lake.  Only way in or out of town was a weekly DC-3 airplane; only
communications was longwave radiotelephone.  Purpose of trip: the July
1972 eclipse.  Wonderful people.

Made several telephone calls over the years: it was always a delight
to talk over the radiotelephone from the south 48.  "Rankin go ahead,"
the operator would say whenever the half-duplex circuit was changed.
Alas, the Anik satellite has taken the thrill out of the phone calls;
it even works during solar minimum.

I have a copy of the telephone book to Rankin Inlet, circa 1972.  One
mimeographed page.  There were 350 people in the settlement ...


Cliff Stoll


[Moderator's Note: Many/most of the radiotelephone calls to that area
years ago were routed through a privately owned radio station in Alma,
Quebec under contract to the telcos.  PAT]

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

Date: 12 Jan 92 21:17:50 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home


In a recent issue of Telecom, John Higdon [e-mail] writes:

>> rotary dial telephone, please call back on a touchtone telephone.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I am surprised that it has taken this long. Tone signaling is SO
> superior to rotary that it is nothing short of amazing that it has
> taken nearly twenty years to become the dominant dialing method.

What holds it back is, in part, the premium charged. On this side of
the rock, we pay a buck and change for doing NYNEX the favor of
reducing their register holding time. I think its a bargain, but I
have friends who refuse to pay it on principle. (Of course, they also
have tone-to-rotary converting PBXs, so they are DTMF-capable). The
issue is also one of inertia. There are still many people who view the
phone as '... you pick it up and dial, and thats all I want to know
about it.'

> Since 1987, my personal answering machine has REQUIRED DTMF input to
> be of any service to the caller. First, I cannot imagine that I would
> want to talk to anyone using a rotary phone

I can only think of one person in my case, but I really can't leave
her out -- she's my mother! When I got my pager, I bought her a
switchable tone-rotary phone from Radio Shack, which was a tough thing
for an old Western Electric die-hard like myself to do. I've offered
to pay the fifteen bucks a year or so, but she's not interested -- her
rotary phones work just fine (And I'd have to buy her a bunch of tone
phones to make the change worthwhile.)

> telephone service available? I mean, really, if Pac*Bell now considers
> it to be part of standard telephone service ...

Were it that NYNEX felt the same way ... but then again, you guys just
got the extra charge for DTMF merged into your monthly rate anyway, as
I recall.

When NYNEX eventually makes the transition, my mother (and billions of
other mothers like her) will probably say something to the effect of
'That's nice, but my phones work just fine -- why would I want to
replace them.' They'll have to make rotary stop working altogether to
take care of the last stragglers. And where will that leave my 235G
three-slot rotary coin phone? I'll have to go shopping for a rotary-to-
tone converter!


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX     reply to [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Louie Crew)
Subject: Re: Problem with Procomm; Help Needed
Date: 11 Jan 92 15:44:18 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: H.R.H.Q. Lutibelle Enterprises


I experience a related problem when I try to use Alt-F6 to review the
material that PROCOMM has saved.  On most occasions, I see the
material again in the same format it had the first time I saw it.  But
in nn, as when reading the two messages posted currently in this
group, Alt-F6 garbles them with no indication of the line endings I
saw when I read the messages with nn itself.

Since I don't want to save every screen I see, is there a better
solution than a screen dump for this problem?  For example, might I
change the set up on our newsfeeder program, nn, so that it will
transmit the lf's that PROCOMM expects for the Alt-F6 function?

Thank you in advance.


Louie Crew, Assoc. Prof., Academic Foundations Dept., Rutgers U./NWK 07102
[e-mail]          201-485-4503

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 18:28:40 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Those Are REAL Phone Numbers!


818-954 is connected to a Burbank exchange.

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

From: shrdlu![e-mail] (Giles D Malet)
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humour
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 04:33:07 GMT
Reply-To: Giles D Malet <shrdlu![e-mail]>


While living in London (UK) a few years ago, I noticed an entry in the
'phone book for a certain "Zaphod Beeblebrox", complete with number
and residential address. He lives!

I never did get round to calling it ... I wonder if it's still there?


[e-mail]          Waterloo, Canada        [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Stanley)
Subject: I Got Cancer by Phone (was I Got Pregnant Through Phone Sex)
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 05:35:41 GMT


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

> ... but only if you had headlines like:

> Do Cellular Phones Cause Cancer?

This isn't really as phunny as it sounds. Here in Corvallis, the US
West Cellular people wanted to put cellular antennas on top of a water
tower on top of a hill in a certain neighborhood.

Some of the people in this neighborhood became quite active in
opposing these antennas, for fear of the effects of radiation on them
and their offspring. They even canvassed the surrounding neighborhood
getting petitions signed. When they showed up at my door, I had a hard
time keeping myself from asking this guy if he had electrical power in
his cave.

The city had two votes on it. The first was a vote to determine if
this was an appropriate usage and fell within certain planning
guidelines (it did). The second was a vote to allow US West to put the
antennas up (they can't).

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: I Got Pregnant Through Phone Sex (was: Phone Company Humor)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 20:38:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael
Nolan) writes:

> ... but only if you had headlines like:
> I Got Pregnant Through Phone Sex

My favorite tabloid, the {Weekly World News}, is full of ads for phone
fortune-telling services.  The most enterprising don't even use human
operators, they have a touch-tone driven machine that tells you
"... WHAT YOUR NAME TELLS ME.  The letters in your name have vibrations
and reflected progressions.  The _first_letter_ of your name ... the
_last_letter_ ... the _vowels_ ... _consonants_ ... THEY ALL HAVE
MEANING AND TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT YOURSELF."  Only $120 per hour.
Caller must be 18 years old.


[Moderator's Note: {Weekly World News} is my favorite newspaper also.
Do you like reading Ed Anger's column and Dear Dottie?   :)    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #27
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04893;
          13 Jan 92 1:45 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22153
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Jan 1992 23:37:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21608
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Jan 1992 23:36:57 -0600
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 23:36:57 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #28

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Jan 92 23:36:53 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 28

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (John Higdon)
    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (Andrew M. Dunn)
    Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low (David Niebuhr)
    Re: I Wasn't Billed For USA Today 800 Call, Were You? (Ken Jongsma)
    Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival (Russ Nelson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 16:54:38 GMT


I would just like to qualify some points in the recent articles
explaining Caller*ID (tm?) and ANI.

[e-mail] (24411-sohl) writes:

> Caller ID requires ANI (Automatic Number Identification) to be able to
> deliver the calling party's number to the called party's display
> device.

Not exactly.  More properly, Caller ID requires end-to-end SS7
connectivity between the originating end office and the terminating
end office, to enable the Calling Party Number to be carried between
the two offices.  It also requires the Calling Party Number Deliver
feature to be activated in the terminating end office, globally and
for the called line.

> Automatic Number Identification is the inclusion of the calling
> party's telephone number in the routing and call setup messaging which
> takes place in order for the call to be established.

ANI is the function of an Equal Access End Office (EAEO) or Access
Tandem (AT) delivering the Billing Number of the originating line to
an Interexchange Carrier switch via FGC or FGD trunks.  (It is also
the function of sending the BN to a CAMA system, OSPS, or E911 PSAP,
but that's not relevant to this discussion ... nor is the fact that
ANI is "Automatic" Number Identification as opposed to ONI, or
"Operator" Number Identification.  More trivia for the telecom edition
of Trivial Pursuit ...)

The inclusion of the calling party's number in the routing and call
setup messaging is a function of the SS7 ISUP protocol.  (Calling
Party Number is an optional parameter of the ISUP Initial Address
Message (IAM).)

> If a "caller ID blocking" is invoked by the calling party, then (I
> believe) the calling party's number (using ANI) is still sent,

Correct that CPN is sent; not using ANI, though -- using SS7.  ANI is
always used to deliver Billing Number to the IXC, regardless of any
per-line or per-call blocking requested by the caller.

> but the additional info that the calling party does NOT want his/her
> number displayed to the called party is also included in the call
> setup messageing.

Specifically, the Calling Party Number parameter in the IAM has the
Presentation Indicator field set to "Presentation Restricted".  But
you probably don't care.

> The end office (the telephone switching office) of the called party
> then recognizes that caller ID blocking is in effect for that call and
> the calling party's number is NOT then displayed to the called party.

> I'm not 100% certain, but I belive that call blocking is ONLY involved
> in Intra-LATA (possibly Intra-State) calls.  That is because (In my
> understanding) that state regulations of caller ID services do NOT
> apply to Interstate nor possibly Intra-state (but Inter-LATA) calls.
> Those situations (tariffs) are controlled by the FCC which I belive
> has not prohibited any aspect of caller ID.

Blocking is currently only supported on intra-LATA calls because
Caller ID is currently only supported on intra-LATA calls.

The FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding a
proposed regulation that per-call blocking must be supported for all
interstate calls.  This would imply that all LECs would have to
recognize *67 and pass the CPN Presentation Restricted indicator to
the IXCs (one SS7 Network Interconnect is deployed), that all IXCs
would have to honor the Presentation Restricted indicator (not deliver
CPN to directly connected egress customers, carry the indicator
through the IXC network, and deliver it to the terminating LEC), and
that all LECs would have to honor the Presentation Restricted
indicator, at least for interstate traffic.

> If either the originating or the terminating office does NOT
> have (SS7) capability, then there is no way for the ANI information to
> be passed from the originating end to the terminating end.

Add any intermediate tandem offices; in addition, even if all
*offices* support SS7, if any particular *trunk* a call traverses is
not SS7 signaled, the information will not get passed to the
terminating office.  This is why Caller ID is not currently supported
inter-LATA; even though the big three IXCs are at or close to 100%
SS7, and some LECs are at or close to 100% SS7, the network
interconnection is not yet deployed.

(I'm only going to include comments of Lars' that I'm going to comment
on; everything else he said I agree with ...)

[e-mail] (Lars Poulsen) writes:

> ANI, as used in this context, refers to the delivery of the billing
> number associated with a call passed from an LEC to an InterExchange
> Carrier (IEC or "Long Distance Carrier"). This number is sometimes
> provided in-band using MF ("touch tone") signalling, but usually
> passed out-of-band on the common carrier signalling system (SS#6 or
> SS#7).

Currently, all LEC-IXC signaling uses Equal Access MF (EAMF)
signaling.  SS7 Network Interconnect is only in trials.  The big three
IXCs all use SS7; I think the only place CCIS6 is used is as a backup
signaling network in AT&T.

> As the subscriber interfaces go digital, I would expect PBXs to
> increasingly be attached to ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network)
> Primary Rate Interface (PRI -- the ISDN version of "T1" lines carry 23
> voice channels and one X25-like data channel) which will allow the PBX
> to identify the actual calling station in the directory number field
> of the call request record.

Just a side note; I belive ISDN PRI is part of Bellcore's National
ISDN 2.  I think sending Station ID to the network is part of NI-2; if
it's not, it should be (sorry, had to inject one opinion -- all AT&T
products support SID to the network ...)

> It is conceivable that an interstate call might be delivered to a
> state that does not allow or require blocking, and the number might be
> displayed despite the blocking request. The fact that this is
> unresolved is one of the reasons that C-ID currently may not be
> delivered across LATA boundaries.

See my comment above on the FCC NPR.  (Side note -- wasn't there
someone a while ago posting "this week at the FCC" summaries?
Whatever happened to that?)

> It is fairly certain that any CO that offers "custom calling
> features" can be configured to deliver both numbers.

Different LECs refer to different packages as "custom calling
features".  The "original" custom calling features were call
forwarding, call waiting, and three-way calling.  The "new" package
(referred to as CLASS (SM) by Bellcore) are Caller ID, Return Call,
Call Trace, and the other services that use calling number ID in one
way or another.  If a CO supports CLASS, it generally can support the
entire package.


David G Lewis                        !att!houxa!deej
AT&T Bell Laboratories              Switching and ISDN Implementation

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 01:56 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI


[e-mail] (Joe Konstan) writes:

> Our Moderator consistently maintains that 800-number customers have a
> right to this information since they are paying for the call.

> The argument is even less compelling for 900-number customers who
> generally do not pay for the call.

But 900 service providers DO pay for the call. If you call a 900
number, the cost of the transport of the call is deducted from any
remittance passed to the provider. If you wiggle out of the charges
("the devel made me do it", etc.), the IP is still stuck for the
transport charges incurred by your call. In a previous article, I
mentioned that AT&T claimed to one provider that his calls for the
month were one hundred percent uncollectable. What I did not mention
was that as a result, AT&T presented this outfit with a horrendous
bill -- the cost of transporting all of the 900 calls for the month.

When you call a 900 number, the service provider is extending you
credit for the cost of the call itself plus the program charge. The
sum of these two charges makes up the advertised cost of the service.
If the 900 service provider is extending you credit, he certainly has
the right to know who you are. A number of 900 providers actually
block calls from specific numbers that have proven time and time again
to be deadbeats from which charges are uncollectable.

I agree with Pat on this one: if you have some reason that you do not
want someone at the other end of an 800 or 900 number call to know
your number -- don't call. It is the customer of the 800 service (or
even 900 service) that is paying for the call and he has a right to
know who is running up his bill.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 22:26:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) writes:

> Nominally, this is to allow the IXC to bill you for the
> calls.  Many (all?) long distance carriers sell this information (in
> real-time or delayed in billing statements) to their 800 and 900
> customers.

> Our Moderator consistently maintains that 800-number customers have a
> right to this information since they are paying for the call.

I agree with our esteemed Moderator.  Consider the fact that the 800
number exists to answer your call whenever you call it, and that the
company owning it pays a time-measured rate for the call.

Consider somebody who abuses the number.  Perhaps they call
consistently and hold the line, or do something else to run up massive
charges.

And consider that, in your scenario, this is completely anonymous.
What would you, as the company with the 800 number, do?  You'd have to
cancel your 800 service.

Remember the case reported here in the Digest (I think) last week
where somebody tried to get revenge on a company by faxing them long
faxes and tying up their phones?  What if they really were anonymous.

You could cost somebody thousands (even tens of thousands) of dollars,
and they couldn't even _identify_ you!

> Personally, I don't see that as being the case -- indeed when other
> companies pay for you to get information about their product (either
> with business reply mail, free shuttle busses, etc.) they are not
> provided with any specific information about you unless you provide
> it.

It's much easier to handle abuse with business reply mail.  AND it
usually costs far less to the business.  The 'cost terrorist' in the
scenario above would have to send thousands of business reply cards
(IF he could get his hands on them, which, since they're a printed and
distributed entity, is unlikely) to cost the company much money.

> The argument is even less compelling for 900-number customers who
> generally do not pay for the call.

Here I agree.

> The only time you can prevent ANI is if you are on a
> service without direct distance dialing (i.e., all long distance calls
> must be made by going through operators) and I don't think we have to
> worry about that.

No, because in those scenarios, all long distance calls through an
operator prompt them to ask 'Your number please?' which they key in,
and the ANI proceeds from that point onwards.

But _local_ calls don't have ANI in this scenario.


Andy Dunn ([e-mail])  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn)


[Moderator's Note: However Andy, I would refer you to John Higdon's
message in this issue. 900 operators *do* pay for the call in the
sense they are extending credit to you, the caller until you pay your
phone bill and telco in turn remits to them. As someone who provides
an extension of credit, they are also entitled to know who you are.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 08:28:59 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (david
niebuhr) I wrote:

> The ad set a scenario of a group of doctors in Upstate New York
> operating on a little child for a rare blood disease.  The doctors
> were supervised by a physician in New York City, over a hundred miles
> away.

> The thrust was for letting the Baby Bells and USTA into the
> information providing services and that lives could be lost if they
> aren't allowed to enter that arena.

PAT asks:

> [Moderator's Note: Is the United States Telephone Association the same
> as (or what used to be called) the United States Independent Telephone
> Association?  (Sometimes known as USITA).        ^^^^^^^^^^^    PAT]

The sponsors were the RBOCs and the United States Telephone
Association, representing over 1,100 local telcos.  I have no idea as
to whether or not USTA and USITA are the same.  Anyone have ideas?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: Re: I Wasn't Billed For USA Today 800 Call, Were You?
Organization: Consultants Connection
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 03:29:54 GMT


Two calls I made to the {USA Today} 800 number in October showed up on
my January Michigan Bell bill. Although the amounts weren't large, I
wanted to follow up on it.

I first called Michigan Bell and asked the business office rep if she
had copies of the actual CAMA tapes for October. She said that all she
had were the billing records, and wasn't sure she could get the CAMA
records. When I explained why I wanted them, she said that AT&T
received the CAMA tapes and then sent Michigan Bell a tape with
billing data on it. So, the changing of the billing records from an
800 call to what showed up was most likely on the AT&T side.

I then called AT&T. After explaining that I was knew the difference
800 and 900 calls, I asked why the billing records showed 900 when I
knew I dialed 800. She asked if I had reached a live person and been
put on hold. I said no, and asked what difference that would have
made.  She said that there was a way for 800 calls to be reversed
billed as a 900 call!

I said that that most certainly did not happen, she gave up and said
that AT&T would waive 900 billing the first time and I let it go at
that.

I really would like to know more about this reverse 900 business
though.


Ken Jongsma                [e-mail]
Smiths Industries          [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan     73115,[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival?
Organization: Crynwr Software, guest account at Clarkson
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 03:32:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael
Gersten) writes:

> As I understand it, a local loop under STM is a 192K line, divided by
> time into two 64K channels, one 16K channel, and 48K of overhead. 8K
> of this overhead is just timing to keep the bits straight.

You don't understand it.  The local loop is 160 Kbps (80 Kbaud).
That's 2*64K B-channels + 16K D-channel + 4K M-channel + 12K framing.
The B-channels can be either circuit-switched aka stream (like a TCP
connection), or packet-switched (like a UDP connetion).  The D channel
is always packet-switched.  It is used for call connect/disconnect/etc,
and optionally for data.  The M-channel carries status information and
commands between the switch (LT) and the NT-1.  It is not available
for any other purpose (although you could do some way cool things with
it vis-a-vis network management, but we'll have to wait for the 5E12
release for anything *that* neat).


russ <[e-mail]>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #28
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07970;
          13 Jan 92 2:40 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19127
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 13 Jan 1992 00:14:25 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23791
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 13 Jan 1992 00:14:09 -0600
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 00:14:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #29

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 Jan 92 00:14:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 29

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit? (Bob Ackley)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Wilson Mohr)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Bernard Rupe)
    Re: Information Age Media Bites (Mike Butts)
    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (Ronald T. Crocker)
    Re: Cellular Prices Go Up (Andrew M. Dunn)
    Re: Cellular Prices Go Up (Toby Nixon)
    Re: International ANI is Here? (Toby Nixon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 92 01:16:29 cst
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ackley)
Subject: Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In a message of <03 Jan 92 17:05:34>, Gary Deol (11:30102/2) writes:

> Does anybody know why the middle number in a area-code is always a
> zero or one? Things that make you say Hmmmmmmmm :^)

   I believe it's to differentiate the area code numbers from the
exchange prefixes (none of which contain a zero or one as the second
digit).

   My dad retired from Pacific Bell in 1976.  Way back when direct
dial long distance first came around (late fifties?), in our area
(Oakland CA) one did not have to dial '1' before the area code to get
long distance.  The equipment would recognize a 0/1 in the second
position as an area code and automatically handle the call as long
distance.  I think that's the way dad explained it to me, of course
that was 30+ years ago and memory fades.


msged 1.99S ZTC
Bob's Soapbox, Plattsmouth Ne  (1:285/2.7)

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

From: [e-mail] (Wilson Mohr)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 18:25:35 GMT


[e-mail] (Anindadeb Vijaykumar Dasgupta) writes:

> I read somewhere that in most large cities cellular carriers are
> switching to digital systems due to saturation of existing cells.  I
> couldn't tell what the advantages of this would be:

> With analog transmission, each equipment would need 4 KHz.

Yes, but it is transmitted via FM requiring at *least* 8Khz of
bandwidth.  In reality, with guardbands, channel spacing is 30Khz.
This is to accomodate overhead information. (i.e channel, power,
signal strength readings, etc.)  It is actually designed for a peak
deviation of 12Khz and 3Khz guardbands.

Let me babble. Analog transmissions require more bandwidth to transmit
in order to maintain integrity of the intelligence signal. If this is
allowed to "splash" adjacent frequencies, the combined result will be
degrade the intelligence signal. There is no way to recover from this
except by retransmission (What? I can't hear you!). The beauty of
digital is to be able to do this at a lower level than the user and
faster. (CRC, and various other forms of data transmission error
recovery schemes.)

Couple this with data encryption and compression techniques and the
required bandwidth drops *significantly*. As required bandwidth drops
per intelligence signal, the system capacity increases! However, as
you point out, this requires more technology in the subscriber unit
and this unit needs to be analog capable just in case you want to go
to Timbuktu which hasn't installed a digital infrastructure. So, yes
the size and power requirements of the new phones will increase by a
factor yet unknown.

No problem.


Wilson Mohr - Motorola CIG    !uunet!motcid!mohr

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

From: [e-mail] (Bernard Rupe)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 15:10:04 GMT


[e-mail] (Anindadeb Vijaykumar Dasgupta) writes:

> I read somewhere that in most large cities cellular carriers are
> switching to digital systems due to saturation of existing cells.  I
> couldn't tell what the advantages of this would be:

No carriers in the US have a digital system up yet.  In fact, the
standard is still up in the air, with both TDMA (time division) and
CDMA (code division) being talked about.  A standard on TDMA is
essentially complete.  There is, however, a NAMPS (narrow band AMPS)
system in operation in Las Vegas.  NAMPS uses compression to squeeze
three voice channels (10KHz each) into the band one used to occupy
(30KHz).  This system was developed by Motorola to provide a bridge
between current technology and the digital technology of the future
(it also costs much less).

> With analog transmission, each equipment would need 4 KHz. while with
> 8 bit PCM, 64 Kbps would be needed, which would surely translate to a
> higher frequency than 8 KHz.  This definitely does not free up any
> bandwidth.  Are these carriers using source coding?  Won't that make
> the cellular phones more expensive/bulky?

In AMPS (current system) each channel uses FM and 30 KHz.  TDMA uses
digital compression so that three (or possibly more) channels fit into
the 30 KHz.  CDMA uses a spread spectrum technique to expand capacity
10 or even 20 times current.  Trials with both are going on as you
read this.  The price of the new phones may very well go up.  In the
case of NAMPS, the phones don't have to be more bulky.  Motorola's new
MicroTac Lite (7.7 oz) has the added NAMPS capability.  In the case of
the digital technologies, the answer is yes the phones need to be much
more bulky.  This is another reason why Motorola introduced NAMPS.

> I am not a telecom person and maybe I am missing the point here.
> Could someone explain the advantages of digital over analog (other
> than improvement in voice quality, if any) in cellular systems?

The voice quality should be about the same.  The main advantage is
that digital signals are much more resistant to noise, so greater
range can be obtained and interference can be minimized.


Bernie Rupe                 1501 W. Shure Drive  Room 1315
Motorola, Inc.                  Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Cellular Infrastructure Group    [phone]
              [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Butts)
Subject: Re: Information Age Media Bites
Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 18:37:57 GMT


You definitely want to look at the film "The President's Analyst",
from about 1967.  It is in video, though only at the stores with the
more obscure titles.  It's a satire on 60's spy movies, where spies
from CIA, KGB and MI5 all end up pursuing the same mysterious enemy,
who plans to take over the world, and turns out to be 'TPC' (The Phone
Company).  They end up defending the world by playing on everyone's
hate of the phone company.  I won't spoil the rest, but the send-ups
are done in perfect 60's Bell System style.


Mike Butts, Research Engineer    503-685-1302(fax:7985)
[e-mail]    KC7IT  ...!uunet!mntgfx!mike_butts
 Mentor Graphics Corporation, 8005 SW Boeckman Road, Wilsonville, Oregon 97070
Any opinions are my own, and aren't necessarily shared by Mentor Graphics Corp.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ronald T. Crocker)
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 17:23:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kurt
Guntheroth) writes:

> I now understand that ANI is not Caller ID, and that 'blocking' caller
> ID may not have the desired effect when you call a business.

> Would someone in the know please concisely explain:

> What, exactly, is "Caller ID", as technical people describe it?

Caller ID is a signal, send by the class 5 office to your phone, that
contains some information vis a vis the party calling you. This
information is sent between the first and second power ringing bursts
for normal analog loops. (The behavior is slightly different for
ISDN). If the calling party blocks the delivery of their number, then
you won't see it. The delivery of this signal is dependent on your
line being provisioned to deliver the signal. It is an agreement
between the service provider (LEC) and the consumer of the service,
much like call waiting or 3-way calling.

> * What, exactly, is ANI?

ANI stands for Automatic Number Identification. This is part of the
internal signalling among switches in the phone network. Currently,
this number is passed from the originating switch to the terminating
switch via intermediate switches. Consider Feature Group D (FG D)
signalling, used between a LEC and IEC. In this signalling, both the
dialed number (the destination) and the ANI for the calling number
(sometimes referred to as the billing number) are passed to the IEC.
In any case, since ANI is used for internal telephone business, you
can't block it when you call.

In the SS7 network, the STP can use ANI for Global Title Translation,
basically a database lookup to determine the best place to route a
call. In the AT&T 800 services, the ANI can be used as decision data
for call routing. In addition, AT&T 800 subscribers are offered the
opportunity to have the ANI of the caller delivered to them. Earlier
discussions in this group have discussed the use of ANI by American
Express.

> What are the differences between these two things that determine whether
> or not a properly equipped receiver can get your phone number, especially
> in places that (1) don't currently offer Caller ID (2) offer blocking of
> one kind or another?

The answer depends on what type of service you have. If you have a
"network" service (e.g. 800), you probably will be able to get ANI
delivery. You have no control over this as a caller.

For caller ID, if you have entered the appropriate service agreement
with the service provider, then CID numbers will be delivered. I'm not
exactly sure what happens when you call from a non-CID area to a CID
area. My understanding of the service is that ANI is converted to CID
by the end office, and sent down your loop if you have the service.
Since ANI is sent by all (ok, almost all) offices, your number will
probably show up on a CID box if you don't (or can't) block the
delivery. Your mileage may vary. Call the service provider for better
information, unless someone from NTI or AT&T can give specifics for
their switches.

> Does the answer vary depending on exchange, and is there a way I can
> find out how my exchange is configured?

I would call the service provider in your area to find this out. In
Illinois, IBT has just started offering CID, and has a 800 hotline for
finding out when your exchange will offer CID (side note: this service
uses the ANI of the calling line to determine which switch the call is
from and approximately when it will have the CID service).


Ron Crocker
Motorola Radio-Telephone Systems Group, Cellular Infrastructure Group
[phone] [FAX: [phone]]   [e-mail] or uunet!motcid!crocker

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

From: mongrel![e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Cellular Prices Go Up
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 02:23:46 GMT


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

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

>> Bell Canada and Cantel will be raising their cellular rates soon.
>> Bell has a "Lifeline" rate of

> Now let me get this straight: A "lifeline" rate for cellular?  Now
> I've heard everything!

What's wrong with that?  The idea is that you can have very basic
cellular service in your car, for emergencies/accidents/attacks or
anything else that might otherwise require you to leave your car and
walk ten miles to the nearest farmhouse.

The territory Bell Cellular covers includes a lot of isolated roads
and highways which are especially desolate and treacherous in the
winter.  So having emergency contact via cellular makes perfect sense
to me.


Andy Dunn ([e-mail])  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn)

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Prices Go Up
Date: 12 Jan 92 23:56:39 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

>> Bell Canada and Cantel will be raising their cellular rates soon.
>> Bell has a "Lifeline" rate of
>> $9.95 which will not be changed (though this might involve higher
>> connect time charges).

> Now let me get this straight: A "lifeline" rate for cellular?  Now
> I've heard everything!

Hey, if it was available here, I'd get it for both my wife's and my
cellular phones.  We have them only for "emergency" use -- in case we
break down on the highway, or need to let the babysitter know we're
going to be delayed (and don't want to stop and use a payphone).  At
most, I use 5-10 minutes of airtime per month on my phone, and most
months she has NONE on hers.  We're paying about $22 per month for
that (which is on Hayes' corporate discount; it _had_ ben $36), plus
$0.36 per minute.  I'd gladly pay $0.60 or more per minute, in
exchange for only having to pay $10 per month.

In this day and age, with so many criminals on the road, I definitely
believe that a cellular phone is a MUST for anyone that does an
appreciable amount of driving, particularly for women travelling
alone.  There are just too many nuts out there to flag down a motorist
or walk for help if you break down.  I feel a lot more comfortable
with my wife driving on the interstates around Atlanta knowing that if
the van breaks down she can just sit there with the doors locked until
the police come.

[Now, if I can just get to the point where I trust the police ...]


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: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International ANI is Here?
Date: 12 Jan 92 23:35:19 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Peter Clitherow) writes:

> ...a small start-up company, International Discount Telecomm-
> unications, has found a way to allow callers abroad to telephone the
> United States at the same low rates Americans pay to call overseas.
> When a customer calls the company, he lets the phone ring once and
> hangs up.  The black box is programmed to call back the customer's
> number and patch in the second American telephone line. The customer
> now has an American dial tone, ...

> This implies that ANI can be delievered internationally, does it not?
> I never heard anything announced about this.  Are there CCITT specs
> for this?

It doesn't necessarily imply international ANI.  If you assume that
the service requires pre-subscription, it could very well be
implemented with DID trunks, like a voicemail or paging system. Each
subscriber would be given their own number to dial for access into the
system, instead of their being one number that everybody calls.  The
system would know who called when it got the DID information from the
central office.  What's REALLY tricky about this is that the service
gets the DID information (which numbers was dialed) BEFORE going off
hook -- there is no answer supervision, so the overseas party is NOT
charged for the call. All the services does is look up the DID number
in a database, and call back at the stored number for that subscriber,
similar to call-back security systems.

One problem I can see is people accidentally (or intentionally, for
that matter!) calling these DID circuits. The subscriber is going to
get a "call-back" and a US dial tone, even though THEY didn't place
the call.  That could get pretty expensive pretty fast!


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #29
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09308;
          13 Jan 92 3:04 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24822
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 13 Jan 1992 01:17:57 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28521
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 13 Jan 1992 01:17:41 -0600
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 01:17:41 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #30

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 Jan 92 01:17:33 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 30

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    International Discount Telecommunications (Charlie Mingo)
    Telephone Service and Power Failures (Dave Levenson)
    Whose Idea Was it to Charge For 800-555-5555? (John R. Levine)
    AT&T Calling-Card Advertisement (Carl Moore)
    I Want a Device That Can Detect Customized Ringing (Cameron Elliot)
    Answering Machine Belts (John R. Hall)
    Global Paging at Hand? (Dave Leibold)
    MCI Card With Voice Features (Dave Leibold)
    Multiple Calls on One Access to Sprint 800 877 8000 (Steve Elias)
    Panasonic Answering Machine (Where Has My Cuckoo Flown Away To?)
    Question - Pause Lengths For Fax/Modem Credit Card Calls? (tony)
    Help Needed With ACS Headset (Roger Clark Swann)
    Zip + 6? (Bob Frankston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 10 Jan 92  14:19:26
Subject: International Discount Telecommunications


There already has been some mention of this in the Digest, but I
thought a fuller account might be interesting.]

REVERSING RATES FOR OVERSEAS CALLERS (IF NOT THE ACTUAL CHARGES)

By Anthony Ramirez, {The New York Times}, January 9, 1992 at D1

    International Discount Telecommunications, based in a former
funeral parlor in the Bronx, is a tiny start up company that hopes it
has a very big idea: allowing callers abroad to telephone the United
States at the same low rates Americans pay to call overseas.

    The company's 35-year-old founder, Howard Jonas, is as
straightforward as the company's name. An energetic entrepreneur who
also runs a larger company that publishes brochures for hotels, Mr.
Jonas believes he has stumbled on a kind of telecommunications
jujitsu, using the weight and strength of the phone companies against
them.

    Calls from foreign countries into the United States are far
more expensive -- often double or triple the price -- than calls from
this country to foreign lands. That is mainly because nearly all the
world's telephone companies are state-owned monopolies, charging
prices for international calls that are far higher than the actual
costs.

    Take, for example, a call from the United States -- where AT&T
competes against MCI and US Sprint -- to Italy, with only one state
carrier. The link to Italy might cost $5; the same call in the
opposite direction, Italy to the United States, would cost more than
$18.

    Mr. Jonas has found a way to give overseas callers an American
phone line, letting them make the $18 call at the $5 American rate.

    "We are hoping that if this service takes off," says Mr.
Jonas, "that our company will be responsible for breaking up the
monopoly that national carriers have on international calls and in the
process save people billions and billions of dollars."

    At present, the year-and-a-half-old International Discount
Telecommunications has less than $300,000 in annual revenue and only
150 customers. But some of them are Fortune 500 companies. And while
little known in this country, the company has elicited coverage in
newspapers and on television in Europe, where long distance rates are
especially high.

    The company's method would be familiar to any college student
phoning long distance to his parents: the student rings once, hangs up
and then has the parents call back on their nickel.

    For $250 a month, International Discount Telecommunications'
customers buy access to two telephone lines and a black box of
electronics. The box contains an automatic dialer and a device that
makes conference calls possible.

    When a customer in, say, Bonn calls the company, he lets the
ring once and hangs up. The black box is programmed to call back the
customer's number in Germany and patch in the second American
telephone line. The German customer now has an American dial tone, a
circuit he can use to call anywhere in the United States or, indeed,
the world.  Through International Discount, the customer pays AT&T or
another carrier the usual long-distance charges.

A Savings of $10.42

    On a 10-minute call, during peak American business hours, the
company calculates that a German customer would pay $7.18 to an
American long distance carrier instead of $17.60 to Deutsche
Bundespost Telekom, the state-run German phone carrier.

    The American Telephone and Telegraph Company and other
American carriers offer international discount plans for their
customers travelling abroad. AT&T customers can dial operators in the
United States, who then complete their calls. But the discounts are
relatively modest compared with the 75 percent, or more, available
through International Discount.

    The success of Mr. Jonas' company depends, of course, on
foreign long distance rates' remaining high. Some major European phone
companies, like those of France and Germany, have recently trimmed
their charges, although their rates are still higher than those from
the United States.  And even though Mr. Jonas has a patent pending for
his black box, others could presumable build something similar.

    The Federal Communications Commission, which has jurisdiction
over long-distance phone calls, does not have any specific comment on
International Discount Telecommunications. "What they are doing has
not been ruled on here," said William J. Kirsch, the FCC's deputy
assistant bureau chief for international policy.

An $8,000 Shock

    Mr Jonas got the discount-telephone idea when he sent his
hotel-brochure sales staff to open an office in Israel. They needed to
keep in touch with American customers. Mr. Jonas, figuring that the
typical salesman's phone bill might triple to about $1,000 a month,
was shocked when the bill came back in the $8,000 range.

    One day, in the autumn of 1989, Mr. Jonas realized that if he could
figure out a way to always call from the cheaper America-to-Europe
direction, he could cut his bills.

    At first he hired a special secretary to answer the phones and
patch together a conference call, placing several callers on the same
line.  Then a computer-literate friend of Mr. Jonas said he could do
the same thing with a $50 automatic telephone dialler and some other
equipment.  After a few months of tinkering, Mr. Jonas came up with a
working device the size of a small telephone directory which cost him
about $1,200.

Covert Clientele

    Perhaps not surprisingly, International Discount
Telecommunications has had a difficult time recruiting customers.
Potential foreign users are fearful of offending their national phone
companies, because they presumably could cut off their service or
otherwise make life difficult.

    Even current customers are quite wary. One telecommunications
manager at a major corporation with overseas branches, insisting on
anonymity, said he feared that the national phone company would learn
about his arrangement with International Discount Telecommunications.

    "You gotta understand my position," the executive said, The
national phone company "would be very angry."

[I was wondering if a US company with overseas branches could do this
"in house" using PBX's on both ends?]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Telephone Service and Power Failures
Date: 10 Jan 92 02:08:06 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


For most of my life, I have been aware of the reliability of telephone
service.  When the power failed, and all the lights went out, we could
still place and receive telephone calls.  Sometimes we dialed by
candle light!

More recently, we have gone to multi-line equipment that required
local power to operate.  Even though our familiar tip and ring
interface continued to work, the local instruments, behind the
electronic key telephone system, were either dead, or hard-wired to
one CO line for the duration of the power outage.

Last weekend, the local power failed for four hours.  No weather, no
obvious explanation, just quiet darkness.  The UPS on the computer
system shut down after 45 minutes.  The other UPS on the telephone
system shut down after two hours.  Two telephone sets continued to
operate; they were connected by the power-fail transfer relay in the
key telephone system to the first two CO lines.

But after three hours, we had a new and different experience: No dial
tone!  No battery.  Just an apparent open circuit on tip and ring --
on four of the six CO lines here.  (The other two continued to work
normally.)  The two lines that continued to work are the two that have
metallic facillities (loaded loops) all the way to the CO.  The other
four lines come from the SLC-something buried under the street a
couple of blocks away.  Apparently the remote terminal of the
multiplexer system requires local power, and had about three hours of
battery available.  I would have expected that a metallic circuit
would feed CO battery to the remote terminal.  There are a bunch of T1
circuits to the CO, so why now a few power pairs?

I asked a friend who works on subscriber loop multiplexer equipment at
Bell Labs.  She claims that eight-hour batteries are offered with the
remote terminal equipment, but that the telcos sometimes buy cheaper
power equipment with less capacity.  Apparently NJ Bell did this in
our case.

I suppose I needn't bother equipping the CPE here with more than a few
hours of battery backup, right?


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

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

Subject: Whose Idea Was it to Charge For 800-555-5555?
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 11:25:39 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


While poking through the archives the other day, I found this quote from
our esteemed, nay, infallible Moderator from Oct 12th:

> Regarding the {USA Today} news/entertainment line on 800-555-5555, I
> spoke two days ago with Mr. Blake in the newspaper's corporate offices
> in Virginia. ... He did stress that people calling the number would not
> be charged for using the service, and asked that the 800 number not be
> 'abused'.  PAT

Has anyone told {USA Today} about the enormous ill-will that AT&T is
generating on their behalf?  Even though I have no reason to believe
that the paper has done anything the least bit inappropriate, I'd be
reluctant to deal with them if their suppliers or sobcontractors are
this far out of control.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 12:51:09 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Calling-Card Advertisement


I just saw this posted above an AT&T coin phone:

No charge for AT&T calling card, and you don't need a home phone or
credit card to have one.  Call 800-551-3131 ext. 968.

Sample credit card displayed; the only comment I have is that I see a
non-areacode where the cards from the Baby Bells have had home phone
number + four digit number.  The number displayed is 836-000-6780-1111,
the name shown is T. Brown, and it also says International Number
891253-836-000-6780-3, Auth Code 50.  (And I am NOT suggesting that
anyone test this number!)

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

From: [e-mail] (Cameron Elliot)
Subject: I Want a Device That Can Detect Customized Ringing
Date: 9 Jan 92 20:50:07 GMT
Organization: Cellular Technical Services, Seattle, WA


I want to be able to route incoming calls at home to multiple devices,
ie a modem, a fax, a dialogic, my answering machine.  By using
US-Wests Custom Ringing(TM) feature.  I need a box that can output
RS-232 codes, and my system can respond, or a box that has multiple
RJ-45 jacks, and each distinct ring could be passed through to a
certain jack.  Any information is appreciated.  Thanks.


Cameron Elliott 206-860-1521     [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu,  9 Jan 92 14:03:00 EST
From: [e-mail] (John R Hall)
Subject: Answering Machine Belts
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I'm looking for a place where I can buy an answering machine belt.
The specific model is an AT&T 2100, but I'm more than willing to sort
through assorted sizes of belts.


Thanks,

John R. Hall [e-mail]

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

Date: hu, 09 Jan 92 18:46:44 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Global Paging at Hand?


A picture from the Associated Press shows a new "Message Card"
developed by SkyTel Corp. It is a credit-card style pager (not quite
that thin, but rather small) that can be signalled with numeric
readout. Coverage is said to be all of North America and parts of
Asia.

NEC was also part of the development of the Message Card.

Almost the first page heard around the world ...

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

Date: Thu, 09 Jan 92 18:33:35 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: MCI Card With Voice Features


Reuters reports that MCI has a new calling card which also allows for
access to various recorded message features (weather, news, voice
mail).  This is accessed via a toll-free number then a security code.
Cost for the voice services is USD$0.49/minute, with conference
calling and messaging at an additional charge.

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

Subject: Multiple Calls on One Access to Sprint 800 877 8000
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 92 16:59:37 PST
From: [e-mail]


On my latest Sprint bill, they charged me an access charge for every
call I made during a single connect to their 800 number.  I could
swear that it used to be billed such that only one access charge was
charged per call to the 800, when one used the # sign to start a new
call.

Did their billing method change?

Still waiting for my Metromedia/ITT calling card ...


eli

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 01:26:26 PST
From: Nigel Roberts  10-Jan-1992 1020 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panasonic Answering Machine (Where Has My Cuckoo Flown Away To?)


I've a couple of questions about my Panasonic answering machine
(KX-2445BE).

There's an undocumented command (prog #22) which enable two-way
recording without the tell-tale beep. I've been using this for some
time. There's another undocumented command (prog #11 /prog #12) which
I discovered, and I can't for the life of me see what it does. The
only thing it _appears_ to do is to display an "A" in the LCD when #11
is pressed and a "b" when #22 is pressed. (Default state is "A"). This
is driving me up the wall wondering what it does. Any ideas?

Finally, the synthesised voice and cuckoo quit working recently. It's
probably a hardware failure of the voice synthesiser chip, but just in
case, before I take the machine in for repair, does any one know how
to do a reset of the microprocessor? (I tried powering the machine off
for a few hours, and the machine reset to defaults, but neither the
woman's voice nor the cuckoo came back).


Nigel Roberts   [phone] / [phone]   FAX [phone]

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

From: disk![e-mail] (tony)
Subject: Question - Pause Lengths for Fax/Modem Credit Card Calls?
Organization: Digital Information Systems of KY
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 08:04:28 GMT


I sometimes need to bill fax or modem calls to a credit card.  The
pause length between the phone number and the tone requesting your
credit card number seems to vary a lot.  Sometimes the call goes
through okay, other times I can hear an operator's voice through my
fax or PC speaker.  How many seconds are you supposed to have your
machines wait before you enter the credit card number?  Any help you
can be will probably please a lot of phone operators (as I don't even
hear them half the time if I have a radio on or if I'm talking to
someone in the room).


[e-mail]   uunet!Coplex.Com!disk!Tony.Safina

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

From: bcsaic!ssc-vax![e-mail] (Roger Clark Swann)
Subject: Help Needed With ACS Headset
Date: 9 Jan 92 04:52:59 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


I just acquired an ACS Communications, Inc. brand headset, Modular
model MP. However, no manuals. I see that there are banks of dip
switches, on the under side of the unit.  What are these for? How
should they be set?


    Roger Swann               |   email:  [e-mail]
         @                    |     fax:  [phone]
The Boeing Company            |   voice:  206-773-5491

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Zip + 6?
Date: Fri 10 Jan 1992 09:41 -0500


As addresses creep up to 11 digits, has the Post Office heard about
checksums or other techniques to reduce errors?


[Moderator's Note: Have you really heard something saying the present
zip code (five digits plus four optional) is being increased by two
more optional digits?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #30
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12700;
          13 Jan 92 4:26 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29029
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 13 Jan 1992 02:03:21 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26385
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 13 Jan 1992 02:02:49 -0600
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 02:02:49 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #31

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 Jan 92 02:02:43 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 31

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    State of Ohio Feature Group B and D (Bill Warner)
    Phone Calls to Hawaii (Was AT&T Drops The Ball?) (Joel Upchurch)
    Radio Links for Rural Telephone (Paul Cook)
    Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM (Colin Tuttle)
    What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (David Rabson)
    Determining if a Call Was Answered (Malcolm Dunnett)
    Phone Device Wanted Which Lights Up When Extension in Use (Suzy Mercer)
    Country Code 809? (Jim Rees)
    Not Yet in Service Message (Carl Moore)
    Phone Number Verification (Steven A. Rubin)
    AT&T Mail in Canada Delays Minimum Monthly Charge (Dave Leibold)
    FAQ List Update Forthcoming (Dave Leibold)
    Radio Shack Two Line Box With Conference Wanted (Al Berg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: State of Ohio Feature Group B and D
Date: 10 Jan 92 13:08:13 EST
Organization: The Ohio Data Network


Speaking of Feature Group D access (10OHI) to carriers, here at the
State of Ohio we are considering providing free dialing to many State
Agencies throughout the State using Feature Group D.

We have done something similiar with Feature Group B access
(950-1OHI).  In this case we use it to connect the Lottery ticket
agencies' hand held scanner box they use to track instant ticket
inventories back to their central computer.  (This is in the
neighborhood of three million minutes of long distance a month.)
Usually this is because the agent will connect to the computer scan a
ticket or two and then wait on a customer and get back to scanning
tickets after a delay.  This has saved the State of Ohio a significant
amount of money versus using an 800 number.  The box is programmed to
automatically dial the number so the "unusualness" of the number is no
problem.  It dials: 950-1OHI waits for the Ohio switch "Bong" and then
dials the extension to call.  (Only two extensions in the State
support this, so there really is no reason to try it!  Thanks.)

We considered allowing general access to State of Ohio network this
way.  But there is a big disadvantage.  Once you have dialed 950-1OHI
you are switched to our long distance switch.  This is fine if you are
using tones to dial.  You just dial the extension you desire. But
there are still a lot of pulse only phones in the world and to provide
them access would require some sort of operator or voice recognition
system.  This would greatly increase the cost and complexity of the
service.

But if you use Feature Group D (10OHI) access, the person dialing the
number just dials 10OHI followed by the number.  This is detected at
the local switch.  Then the number the person dials is sent to the
long distance switch from the local switch.  So it doesn't matter if
the phone sent the number to the local switch with tones or pulses.

To contact a state agency someone would dial: 10OHI <five digit
extension number>.  (644 is our carrier code.)  One of the exchanges
we have is 466, and our extension numbers are last five digits of the
number, so numbers could be 10OHIOVAXS# or 10OHIOPUCO# if an agency
desired.  These calls would not cost the caller anything; the
receiving agency would pay for the call.

The biggest difficulty might be getting the general (non telecom)
public to use such a "weird" phone number.  If enough agencies sign on
to such a system we might be able to publicize this as a "Call Ohio"
numbering scheme or something.

It might be best for a user interface reasons to require the caller to
enter the full long distance number including area code (even though
we would ignore it.)


William "Bill" Warner, III (N8HJP)    [e-mail]
Ohio Data Network                     WARNER@OHSTPY (Bitnet)
65 E State St, Suite 810              [phone] (Voice)
Columbus, OH  43215                   [phone] (FAX)

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel Upchurch)
Subject: Phone Calls to Hawaii (Was AT&T Drops The Ball?)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 20:05:49 GMT
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL


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

> Early today I complained to AT&T about the abysmal connections to the
> Hawaiian islands. As has been discussed here before, there is a delay
> that is variable even during the same call; there are varying levels
> of background hiss; the audio is distorted; and below a certain
> threshold, the audio is actually chopped off.

> What finally set me off was that I happened to have occasion to use a
> client's ComSystems (it never occurred to me to use my own for calls
> to the islands!) service. Each and every call of about ten was clear,
> noiseless, without annoying transmission delays, etc., etc. Sure
> enough, using my own account with ComSystems, the calls are perfect.

I call Hawaii a lot from here in Florida. I'm talking about several
hours a month. The voice quality usually doesn't bother me, but the
delay because of the satellite relay is very annoying. Does anyone
know if a long distance service that would give me a surface
connection from Florida to Hawaii? And how would their rates compare
to AT&T's Reach Out America Plan rates?


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

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 23:38 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Links for Rural Telephone


I received a brochure on a new product from Connect Systems Inc, a
manufacturer of radio/telephone interface boxes.  They make a popular
line of simplex autopatches, which allow you to access a phone line
from a two-way VHF radio.

The new product is the model RT8 Rural Telephone System.  It consists
of two boxes.  One hooks between a telephone line and the mic/speaker
connections on two-way VHF radios, and the other box for the remote
end (also hooked to radios) supplies battery and ringing to a
telephone.  The idea is that instead of using a conventional phone
patch with a radio to make calls, this system uses radio to provide
the link between a phone line and anything at the remote end that
would normally hook to a phone line (PBX, key system, fax machine,
etc).

What I can't figure out is, would this be legal in the USA, and how
would it be licensed?  I know that the FCC authorizes the BETRS
service which uses UHF radio to provide phone service to remote areas.
Several lines are multiplexed, and low power point-to-point UHF radios
make the connection.  I think it is used on telco frequencies only in
very sparsely populated areas.  But would it really be legal to
provide telephone service in a rural area using conventional Land
Mobile or Public Safety radio channels and these devices?

I called the manufacturer (Connect Systems Inc, #113, 2064 Eastman
Ave, Ventura, CA 93003 - 800-545-1349/805-642-7184) and they didn't
seem to know anything about regulatory requirements. Someone there
suggested that this was being made for third world markets.


Paul Cook                     206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates          MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.             fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317       [e-mail]

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

Subject: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM
Date: 10 Jan 92 22:09:31 CST (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (Colin Tuttle)


I have a curious problem with my telephone every night at 12:02 A.M.
I know it is at 12:02 A.M. because the phone next to the bed is a
Magnavox clock radio/telephone combination.

Anyway back to the problem.  Every morning at 12:02 I get a little
chirp, or a belltap on the phone.  The phone has the "added feature"
of belltap so you do hear when someone hangs up the phone.  Some might
call it a bug, but I'm sure the Magnavox engineers put this on the
phone as a convenience item, and a reason to buy their model rather
than Sony's.

Now my question is why does the phone do this every night at 12:02
A.M.?  Is the phone company testing the line in some way, and is my
phone detecting the changes in voltage?  Does the phone company do
routine testing nightly and does the computer check phones at the same
time each night?

I've never had any problems if I am on the phone at 12:02 A.M ... the
call continues ... I imagine if it is a test by the phone company it
doesn't perform the test if the line is in use.


It's not been a problem, and it's not annoying, it is just more of a
curiosity than anything.  Does anyone have any other solution to this?

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 11:59:35 GMT
From: davidra <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person?


Esteemed Moderator!

Have you ever wondered what the purpose is of the person-to-person
call?  Some years ago, when operators placed all long-distance calls,
which in any case were moderately expensive, it may have made sense
when trying to call a particularly hard-to-reach person.  Now that one
can dial a coast-to-coast call one's self in the U.S. and be out no
more than 15c or 16c for reaching the wrong person, it seems a little
antiquated.  It is also open to abuse if a caller makes a person-to-
person collect call for a code-name (who won't ever be in) in order
to pass on a message.

British Telecom also apparently wondered what the use was of
person-to-person calls.  The set-up charge for a person-to-person call
outside Europe is about #5.80 (US $10.45), which they will charge the
calling party whether or not the call goes through (according to their
rates book).  I think the figure is about two pounds for
person-to-person calls within the U.K.  I can only speculate that they
hope to make a few quid off those ignorant of the charges.

Home (Canada) Direct charges all collect calls at person-to-person
rates, but I think that has to do with accounting.

Can you discern any continuing reason for the person-to-person
service, outside, perhaps, of non-dialable countries and exchanges?


Yours faithfully,

David Rabson   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It is just a historical artifact here; a thing
which was a useful service at one point but has no useful purpose now
except to enhance fraud calls as you pointed out. I'm surprised the
telcos still keep offering the service.   PAT]

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

From: Malcolm Dunnett <[e-mail]>
Subject: Determining if a Call Was Answered
Date: 11 Jan 92 09:56:56 -0800
Organization: Malaspina College


We have a Northern Telecom SL/1 switch. I'm using the Call Detail
Recorder port to record outgoing call information, which we use for
internal accounting. There is a problem with this, in that the switch
can't determine exactly when a call is answered, or if it's answered
at all, therefore the length of calls on our reports often varies from
that reported on the bills, and we log calls that aren't answered at
all (since we can't tell we just assume that any call that was "off
hook" for more than x seconds got through). In the overall scheme of
things these errors are trivial, but I find it annoying that in this
age of ANI and other high tech "miracles" the equipment can't even
tell if the call was answered. The central office obviously knows
since we don't get billed for calls that aren't completed.

Are there any PBXs which can do this? Is the problem in our equipment?
The central office? Our lines? (I believe we just have a number of
analog trunks, would a digital trunk help?) or should I just resign
myself to the fact that an "educated guess" is the best we'll ever do.


Malcolm Dunnett        <[e-mail]>
Malaspina College      900 Fifth Street
Nanaimo, B.C. CANADA   Tel: [phone]
V9R 5S5

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

From: [e-mail] (Suzy Mercer)
Subject: Phone Device Wanted Which Lights Up When Extension in Use
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 11:48:04 GMT


Can someone help me? I seem to recall seeing in some electronics
catalog a device one can place on a telephone that would light up (or
something) when someone else on the line had picked up an extension.
(Basically, I need to know if, when *I* am on the phone, someone else
picks up an extension to listen to my conversation. I am divorced and
have a teenager in the family -- see my problem?)

I know Radio Shack sells a device, but that needs to be placed on the
extension (where it can be seen and disabled -- not an option in this
case).

Can anyone steer me in the right direction?


Suzy


[Moderator's Note: We've covered this many times in the past, and
perhaps one or more readers will send you the several reply messages
and schematics, etc.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Country Code 809?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 16:26:22 GMT


I just noticed that my local (Ann Arbor, Mi) phone book lists the
country code for "Caribbean Islands" in the international section as
809.  I think they're confused.

For Cuba, it says, "see Guantanamo Bay."

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 15:36:15 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Not Yet in Service Message


I got an intercept message saying the number I reached had been
changed, and that the new number might not be in service yet?

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven A Rubin)
Subject: Phone Number Verification
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 21:45:06 GMT


A while ago someone posted the possible numbers to call that would
connect you to a computer generated voice that would read back the
phone number from which you are calling.

811 used to work here, but has been stripped out of most of the CO's
in and around Baltimore.  I recall trying a suggested number that was
a 1+ area code which did indeed work, but can't seem to find it.

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 01:59:03 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T Mail in Canada Delays Minimum Monthly Charge


It looks like the proposed monthly minimum for Canadian AT&T Mail
subscribers will be delayed a bit as the accompanying notice
indicates. Again, this will not affect subscribers in other countries.

<text of announcement follows...>

 Date: Wed Jan  8 10:42:39 GMT 1992
 From: CUSTOMER  ASSISTANCE <!cndahelp>
 Phone: [phone]
 Fax-Phone: [phone]
 Subject: Minimum Monthly Fee
 To: David  Leibold <!dleibold1>
 Content-Length: 481


Dear Valued Customer,


AT&T EasyLink Services - Canada would like to make the transition to
our new AT&T Mail price structure as smooth and as simple as possible.
Therefore, the minimum monthly fee of $29.00 per invoice will not be
implemented until April 1, 1992 at the earliest.

If you have questions regarding any AT&T EasyLink service, please call
your Account Executive or the Canadian Customer Assistance Centre at
1-800-567-4671 or send a free message to !cndahelp.

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 01:50:14 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FAQ List Update Forthcoming


A new version of TELECOM Digest's Frequently Asked Questions list is
ready. A substantial amount of upgrading was done to the list,
including a summary of questions used, new questions, upgrading
answers to existing ones, and a more international approach to
subjects.


[Moderator's Note: Look for this in the Telecom Archives later this
week as time permits. Watch the directory there to see the file with a
new date instead of the older 'frequent.asked.questions'.    PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 15:17:46 -0500
From: "Albert M. Berg" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NETLAN Inc.
Subject: Radio Shack Two Line Box With Conference Wanted


I have been trying to locate one of RS's two line controllers with the
conference feature as well.  They have disappeared from the catalog
and the store personnel seem to have had the memory of this device
electronically removed from their minds.  Any information on a similar
device available elsewhere would be appreciated.


Al Berg - NETLAN - NYC

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #31
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08010;
          14 Jan 92 2:22 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03582
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 14 Jan 1992 00:31:02 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24125
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 14 Jan 1992 00:30:31 -0600
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 00:30:31 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #32

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Jan 92 00:30:28 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 32

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    US West Blows It (Sort Of) (David W. Barts)
    T1 on Fiber Revisited (Darwei Kung)
    Mu-law, A-law (Charles Hoequist)
    Cellular and Caller ID and Answering Machines (David E. Sheafer)
    Caller ID in (x) USSR (Kirill V. Tchashchin)
    Caller ID Now Operational in Northern Illinois (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 13:03:52 -0800
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: US West Blows It (Sort Of)


Early this morning, as of 1:55 AM, LD calls dialed within western
Washington were still going through when dialed as 1 + 7 digits from
the EMerson CO in north Seattle.  By 1:59 AM, calls dialed as 1 + 7D
resulted in reorder and it was necessary to dial 1 + 206 + 7D in order
to get connected.

However, the error recording that one gets when an intra-NPA LD call
attempt is made by just dialing the seven digits (with no 1 or 1 +
206) is still unchanged as of ten minutes ago (it is now 12:45 PM on
Sunday): "<beep> We're sorry, you must first dial a 1 when calling
this number.  Please hang up, and try your call again."  The <beep> in
the quote is just a single beep, not the normal tri-tone that most
error recordings are preceded with.  As permissive dialing has worked
officially for about six months and unofficially for several months
longer than that, one would think that this recording would have been
replaced with one instructing the caller to use 1 + 206 dialing many
months ago.

As of 12:35 on Sunday, 1 + 7D call attempts still resulted in reorder.
One would think that US West could (and would) have caused 1 + 7D to
route to a recording telling the caller to dial 1 + 206 instead, as
the first N0X/N1X exchange code is not due to be assigned until
sometime this spring.

All of this gives me the impression that US West's sloppiness is going
to result in a lot of unnecessary service calls that could have been
avoided if they had planned the cutover a little better.

 ... < five hours later > ...

Well, it is five hours after I composed the first part of this message
to the Digest about US West "blowing it", and I guess I'm going to
have to partially retract what I said.

Dialing either 7D or 1 + 7D now gets one routed to the same recording:
"<SIT> I'm sorry ... if you are making a Long Distance or Operator
Assisted call, you must first dial a 1 or 0, plus the area code and
then the number.  Please try your call again."

But this is not the end of the weirdness.  Before one gets connected
to the recorded message, one hears a ringing tone (usually for two or
three rings).  The first time I got the recording, I definitely heard
a radio or TV in the background before the recording "answered" the
call.  The next time, I heard the click of a receiver being picked up
(even though the ringing continued).  So I said "Hello?!?", and a
surprised voice answered through the ringing "Hello?".  At that point
the recording came on, the background noise went away, and I was
unable to speak to the other party anymore.

Now, it is far from unusual to hear a ring signal for a few rings
before being connected to an error recording, but this is the first
time I have ever been aware of other parties on the line with me while
the ring signal is present.  I have two theories at this point:

1.  US West is still getting bugs worked out after the cutover, and
    this is one of them.

2.  The feature has always been there, its just that it usually doesn't
    manifest itself because the chance of two callers causing the same
    message to invoked at the same time is small.  However, it is happening
    often right now because there are lots of misdialed LD calls
    today.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: T1 on Fiber Revisited
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 21:57:58 GMT


Putting a single T1 on fiber is a very costly venture.  Usually, fiber
hubbing requires at least five to ten T1 circuits before it becomes
cost effective to think about migrating from copper spans to fiber
spans.  For POTS (plain old telephone services), more likely, the
fiber terminates at a digital MUX and then feed into a subscriber loop
carrier system, which may require three to five T1 spans to support
anywhere from one to several hundred voice circuits.

In any case, the break even cost for such configuration will require a
large number of voice circuit subscribers to switch at the same time.
To justify a installation of an T1 to T3 fiber MUX in a subscriber
loop with only one projected POTS line is not easy even within the
telco.  High Cap Digital Data service (T1 or T3 rates) is a much
better reason to put a mux in a local loop.  Power issue is a very
interesting factor in operations.

Most battery back up systems will last up to four or six hours.  What
if the power can't be restored in time?  Well, most telco provide
trucks with diesel generators to keep certain locations alive.  But
the number of available mobile power plants is limited.  Downtime is
unavoidable during a major disaster. 99.999% availablity guarentee
holds only for small metropolitan based telephone company.  Any telco
with large area of coverage will have to confront the power issue with
fiber based services.


Darwei Kung

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

Date: 12 Jan 92 12:59:00 EST
From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mu-law, A-law


Several queries about aspects of mu-law and A-law coding have come in
recent issues of the Digest, so I thought I'd throw in some general
information:

As has been pointed out, mu-law coding is used in Japan and the USA,
A-law in Europe (don't ask me how this distribution came about; I have
heard the claim that mu-law was foisted on Japan after WWII, but I
frankly doubt that digital coding schemes were on anyone's list of
reforms for Japan in 1945 :) ).

Why have mu/A - law at all?

For voice signals, it is not feasible to predict amplitude
distributions across sources (talkers). Therefore, coding schemes want
(among other goals) to have relatively constant ratios of full-load
sinewave power to quantizing-distortion power (S/D ratios). The best
bet for this is logarithmic compression:

F(x) = log(x), x being the digitized sample value.

Problem: log x diverges for low-amplitude values of x. A-law and
mu-law are both modifications of straight logarithmic transformations
to keep low-level signals honest.

mu-law is defined as:

F(x) = x ((ln(1 + mu(|x|)) / ln(1 + mu) ), -1 =< x =< 1

A-law is:

F(x) = x ( A|x| / (1 + lnA ) ), 0 =< |x| =< 1/A
F(x) = x ( (1 + lnA|x|) / (1 + ln A) ), 1/A =< |x| =< 1

Unreadable ASCII equations aside, this means that A-law is actually
logarithmic for |x| > 1/A, and linear for |x| < 1/A.  mu-law, on the
other hand, warps the entire range of the transformation, approaching
a linear function for small x, and approaching a log function for
large x. Thus, A-law has a flatter S/D value for |x| between 1/A and
and 1 but is worse on low-level signals.

In implementation, both are done by piece-wise approximations.  For
mu-law (the only one I'm familiar with), the coding range is broken
into 16 distinguishable segments (with those on each side of 0 being
the same, so there are only 15 different segments). The usual way of
coding an eight-bit value is one sign bit, three bits for the segment,
and four bits for the 'step' within the segment.

What gets tricky is that the implementation does _not_ prescribe
segment size (= what input signal range gets coded into a given
segment) or even whether segments are symmetric around 0, among other
things.  It is therefore not feasible to send anyone 'the' table for
converting digitized values to mu-law, though the overwhelming
majority of applications do go with one set of defaults (segments are
centered on zero, segment ranges are powers of two).

There. Doubtless the right balance of length (too much) and
comprehensibility (too little) ;)


Charles Hoequist   |Internet: [e-mail]
BNR Inc.           | 919-991-8642
PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478

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

From: David E. Sheafer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Cellular and Caller ID and Answering Machines
Date: 11 Jan 92 16:11:01 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


On my cellular telephone (model Nynex-832plus made by audiovax) there
is a "data" jack for using a fax or modem.

This jack is the same standard as a phone jack, and my question is
could either a Caller-ID box or an answering machine work sucessfully
(sic) with this jack.

I am curious as to whether the information needed for Caller-ID is
sent over cellular networks, and the second problem is that the
answering machine or Caller-ID box would have to be battery operated
or use the power from the jack.

Any thoughts or information would be appreciated.


David E. Sheafer
internet:  [e-mail]   or  uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER             Cleveland Freenet:    ap345

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

From: [e-mail] (Kirill V. Tchashchin)
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 23:33:28 +0200 (MSK)
Organization: Newsbytes News Network / Moscow Bureau
Subject: Caller ID in (x) USSR


Is there anybody interested in knowing the fact that Caller-ID devices
are well known and used in those telecom woods called the +7 phone area
(formerly called USSR)?

Most of phone exchanges here do support the feature. They were
developed by the KGB specs (it's not exactly true :) and Caller-ID is
available to anyone who cares to spend 3000 rubles (ca US$30 now) to
buy a full digital phone from anyone of a BIG number of private
producers or do-it-yourself for 300-500 roubles (US$3-5).

And nobody cares yet about all those privacy issues here.

And phone exchanges are reportedly overloaded by those Caller-ID
users. They have those abilities but not enough to satisfy the
demand  :-) :-).

The CLID phones are popular stuff in big cities and almost not used in
smaller ones.

And (I'm also not sure) those weird phone exchanges do support the
features like call blocking as well.

And Soviet, Russian and whatever legislators may come here, all of
them do not even know the problem.

So you all Caller-ID fans must know that even rotary-only dialed
twenty year old exchanges do the trick here.

That's how we live here, in Moscow, Russia.


Remaining yours sincerely,

Kirill Tchashchin,      Moscow bureau,
Newsbytes News Network  GEnie: NB.MOW

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Now Operational in Northern Illinois
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 14:59:51 CST


Caller ID became available throughout northern Illinois via our three
telephone companies Illinois Bell, Centel and GTE as of January 1,
1992.  About 75 percent of northern Illinois (a higher percentage of
312/708 and a somewhat lower percentage of 815) is now identifiable to
called parties in the same area.

About 10,000 orders had been received by Illinois Bell as of January
9, the day my service was activated. The only people who actually got
turned on the first week in January were those whose orders were in
the system by mid-December, at which point 2800 subscribers were
already signed up. I called in my order the day after Christmas and
the backlog at that point was about two weeks in filling orders, with
the earliest possible date for me being January 9, which was in fact
the day my caller-ID started working. Apparently Illinois Bell did not
realize the large number of interested people who would sign up,
because they only had a couple people entering orders at first. They
have started to catch up on the backlog now and subscribers are
getting turned on within about a week of ordering caller-ID.

Centel has a smaller subscriber base (just a couple of suburban towns
and a small area of Chicago's northwest side) than Illinois Bell, but
they report the same land-office type response to caller-ID, with new
users going on line daily.

Display boxes are in very short supply here. Montgomery Ward ran a
full page ad in the papers on Thursday offering the AT&T display unit
(no phone, just display holding ten numbers) for $74.99. They also
offered a telephone with display unit from Bell South for $89.99 and a
much fancier phone with display unit from AT&T for $129.99. I had held
off getting a display unit until I saw one I liked at a nice price;
but by late afternoon Thursday *every unit* was sold out in the local
Ward's store on Addison Street. We finally found a Ward's in Niles, IL
(a nearby suburb) with a couple of the Bell South and AT&T phones. The
display only units were long gone. Supposedly each Wards' store got a
dozen of the $74.99 display units ...

The Bell South phone with caller-ID display also has a 30 number speed
dial thing built in, plus the ability to call back whatever number is
on the display screen. This unit stores 30 incoming calls with the
time of day and date on each. It also has a neat feature which
displays the word 'message' on the screen with the number *if* you
have telco voicemail on your line and *if* the calling party stayed on
line at least through connection with voicemail.

The unit has to be 'programmed' with your own area code when you first
plug it in (the phone line -- the display runs on batteries which were
included and last over a year in normal use). This causes the unit to
give a seven digit display on home area code numbers and a ten digit
display on calls from other areas.  Here in Chicago, we get caller-ID
from 312 and 708, plus the portions of 815 which are within this LATA.
The unit displays the word 'outside' for calls from other areas, and
the word 'private' in the cases where the caller has blocked ID. It
prints the word 'error' if the number was transmitted by the sending
phone office but somehow lost in transit. It prints 'duplicate' for
more than one call from the same number before the memory is cleared.
The time and date are sent from the telco.

Our system uses the standard *67 + number for blocking on a call by
call basis as desired. In addition, the subscriber to caller-ID can
turn off reception of numbers if desired with *85, and turn on the
reception with *65, although I cannot imagine why the person paying to
receive the information would want to turn off delivery. Callers to
911, 800/900 numbers or telco administrative lines (business office,
repair service, directory enquiries, etc) cannot block delivery of
their number.

I had caller-ID installed on both my lines; but I get by with only one
display unit by using a Radio Shack Automatic Two-Line Controller on
the front end. The first ring wakes up the controller and switches the
display unit to the ringing line in time to get the transmission which
is sent about a half-second after the first ring ends.

When caller-ID is combined with automatic call-back of last call
received (*66) and call screening (*60), the subscriber is able to
gain almost total control over the use of their phone ... imagine what
a novel idea: being able to choose who will call you, who you will
speak with, and when!  Caller-ID also works just fine with my special
distinctive ringing number (which comes in on my first line), although
it does not display the number of people calling my 800 number, even
though I get that information on the bill each month.

And contrary to the recent article in Telecom Privacy which stated
that 'only drug dealers and police will subscribe to caller-ID, (other
than evil old big-business, of course), I am not a dealer or a police
officer -- just someone who appreciates having my privacy and my right
to use the phone at my convenience.

One of the reasons caller-ID may be getting such a favorable response
from the public here (based on the number of subscribers during the
first month and the difficulty in obtaining display boxes) may be due
to the favorable review of caller-ID by both of the major papers here.
The Triibune and the Sun-Times both editorialized on how useful the
service would be, and the positive influence it would have on
restoring privacy and control of phone calls to the called party.  I
agree.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #32
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10728;
          14 Jan 92 3:24 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13726
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 14 Jan 1992 01:31:54 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05177
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 14 Jan 1992 01:31:26 -0600
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 01:31:26 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #33

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Jan 92 01:31:22 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 33

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    SWBell vs. Squirrels (Will Martin)
    Modeling IN Architectures (Anders Lundkvist)
    More on No-Surcharge Calling Cards (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Open Mouth (A) Insert Foot (B) (Jon Cereghino)
    Footers on Intercept Recordings (Jon Cereghino)
    Less Service From the BOC (Doctor Math)
    PICs From RBOC Payphones (Doctor Math)
    Device to Call In on One Line and Dial Out on Another ([e-mail])
    Two Wires Become Four; GTE Won't Explain (Andrew Klossner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 8:14:58 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: SWBell vs. Squirrels


A strange telephonic event happened this past weekend and I thought
I'd write it up for Telecom:

The telephone had been operating normally, and I received a
[telemarketing] call on it Saturday morning about 11 AM. When we next
picked up the phone in the afternoon, there was no dial tone. Instead
there was a strange hollow sound, a bit of hum, and the vague
indications of crosstalk -- faint sounds of dial pulses, the overtones
of voices, etc. The neighbors reported no problems with their phones.
When they called us, they heard ring indication, but we heard nothing.
We had no voltage to give sidetone either; when we picked up two
different phones on that line on different floors, we could not talk
to each other over the connection.

So I then began to disconnect various phones to see if the trouble was
one of them being broken and off-hook or otherwise at fault. Nothing I
did changed the situation. I left the hardwired rotaries in place and
went next door to call repair service. Luckily they had touch-tone
service and I was able to wade thru the menus and leave a report. (No
human ever came on the line; this was Saturday evening.)

Then, late Saturday night, we had dial tone again. We called time and
temp to verify that it was working, and it was. It was too late to ask
anyone to call us and I don't know the current ringback (anybody out
there know what ringback is for 314-351-xxxx?). I re-plugged in the
modulars I had disconnected. Sunday morning, no dial tone again. Then,
the phone rang!  It was a lady from Repair. While we conversed, the
line went dead. I held on and she reappeared. She said she had "reset
our line" a couple times (I'm not sure just what that meant -- any
explanations?) and eventually wrote up a ticket and dispatched a
repair person. She took line measurements with my modular phones
plugged in and disconnected, and recommended that I unhook those while
the repair was in progress.

We had dial tone again at that time, and my wife called her mother and
was conversing when the line went dead again.  Now here is the most
interesting aspect: based on my previous experience with the earlier
call, my wife did not hang up but just held on the handset and
listened.  After a minute or so, her mother reappeared on the line.
She had hung up and *re-dialed* and gotten thru, while my wife held
the phone off-hook!

The repair person with truck showed up and climbed the pole in the
alley and rang us from there. He then examined the line between the
pole and the house; he never came in to check from the demarc (we have
the old carbon block type buried up in the joists in the basement
ceiling behind some wretched nailed-on ceiling tiles). He noticed some
suspicious points in the aerial-drop cable and decided to replace it.
When he cut it down, he found the bad section -- the squirrels had
chewed away the insulation on a four-inch section and it was bare to
the weather, with a break in one side of the line that made and broke
when it flexed in the wind! We talked -- he lived only a few blocks
away and had grown up playing in the yard next door. He strung cable,
I chopped some branches from interfering bushes and trees with a pole
pruner to free snags.

He replaced two old taped splices with new plastic-block splice
devices, and all our phone service was restored to normal.  What I
suspect happened when that call came in when my wife held the phone
off-hook was that the then-open line registered in the CO as being
on-hook; the ringing voltage was enough to bridge the gap and restore
the connection, maybe thru water instead of copper [it was damp at the
time].  So that acted like the phone being picked up, and to the CO is
was as if the handset had been picked up immediately.  Then that
continuity would hold up until the cable swayed again and the
connection parted.  That seem logical?

I suspect the sounds I heard during the no-dial-tone periods were
caused by stray currents between the one continuous side and ground,
picking up hum and crosstalk by induction.

What is amazing to me is that this happened during good weather over
the weekend and didn't wait until the snow and ice that is being
predicted for today and tonight here in St. Louis!

I salvaged the old cable sections -- that stuff is *tough*. I couldn't
cut it with tinsnips except half-way at a time, and then flexing it to
break the reinforcing wire. I expect the squirrels had good sharp
teeth after working them on that stuff for a while. I wonder if it
happened to ring while one was gnawing away and gave him a mouthful of
90 Volts...? :-)


Regards,

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

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 13:49:52 +0100
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Modeling IN Architectures


Within Telia Research, the research company of the Swedish PTT,
Televerket, we are about to initiate some work items on modeling and
simulation of IN architectures. The core question is:

    How is an IN architecture description best transformed into
    an executable model suitable for simulation where different
    properties of an IN architecture can be studied?

Related issues and topics to cover could be:

    - Given the chosen transformation methodology, how easy is it to
      transform a specification into a model?

    - How expensive is it to execute the model?

    - Which properties of an architecture specification can be
      studied in the model? (Performance, signaling levels, blocking,...)

    - How well does the model correspond to the specification?

    - To what extent is the behaviour of the model the same as the
      behaviour of a "real" implementation of the specification?


We would like to get in contact with people, projects and companies
with ongoing activities within this area.

If you are working with this or you know of someone else doing so,
please respond to:


Telia Research
Anders Lundkvist    e-mail : [e-mail]
Aurorum 6    S-951 75  LULEA    SWEDEN
Phone : + 46 920 754 00  Direct: + 46 920 754 75  Fax   : + 46 920 754 90

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

Date: 13-JAN-1992 00:43:04.31
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: More on No-Surcharge Calling Cards


About a month or two ago, I posted a request for any information on LD
companies which offer a "no-surcharge" calling card as an alternative
to my AT&T card, which chages $.80 per call in addition to toll.
(Although the surcharge is waived for Reach Out America customers in
many areas who subscribe to the "Calling Card" option.)

I was told to investigate Comm*Systems and Cable & Wireless, yet both
initially told me they offered no such feature.

After checking with them in greater detail, this is what I found:

 - Comm*Systems has a 950 access, but it is only to be used from ONE
location (yeah, right! ;) ), and will only be offered to their "1+"
customers. It is only available in Western states, to wit: California,
Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and perhaps New Mexico, Arizona (can't
recall the chart they sent me). So it only makes sense if you will use
the 950 number out west (which I would), AND if you have 1+ from them,
which I don't, so Comm*Systems won't work for me.

 - Cable & Wireless has a nationwide 950 number (available in most
major markets nationwide, I believe it is 950-0223), yet in order to
be able to use it without a surcharge you must subscribe to their WATS
package for outbound dialing.  We have four 800 (inbound) numbers with
them, but this is not "good enough", and they require that you use
their out-WATS to get the special card.

 They also have a "standard" travel service, but the rates a quite
high for this, and after a few minutes it is cheaper to pay the
surcharge with AT&T, Sprint, MCI, et. al ...

Allnet also has a "no fee" calling card, but they charge a lot per
minute (something like $.37 or so), so again, its not much of a money
saver.

So are there any other services out there I should investigate?

(If anyone wants more specific details about the info C&W or
Comm*Systems sent to me, let me know, and I'll quote rates,
qualifications, etc.)


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

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 00:15:16 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jon Cereghino)
Subject: Open Mouth (A) Insert Foot (B)


Re: Party lines

I have received several thoughtful notes about how the Bell System DID
NOT use frequency-selective ringing on party lines. I stand corrected.
Some telcos outside of the Bell System did use this method.


Jon Cereghino       Internet: [e-mail]
Post Office Box 1132, Mountain View, CA 94042-1132
or C-Message Weighting BBS [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 00:36:25 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jon Cereghino)
Subject: Footers on Intercept Recordings


Many of the intercept recordings that I reach have footers that
include an area code and some other digits.  For example:

The number you have dialed cannot be reached from your calling area
408 2T Your call cannot be completed as dialed.  Please check the
number and dial again or call your attendant to help you. 213 2C M

I suppose this tells someone how far the call progressed before being
connected to the remnant-of-an-intercept-operator.  Can any of you
offer more specifics?


Jon Cereghino       Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 01:02:00 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Subject: Less Service From the BOC


Effective December 31st, 1991, my BOC closed their downtown Payment
Center, claming it was part of an effort to "make paying your bill
more convenient". Apparently a survey has shown that "the majority" of
customers would rather pay their bills at their local area bank, so
the telco now has arrangements with four banks here in the area so
that bills may be paid through these banks.

But there's a catch: If you don't bank with any of these four banks,
you will be required to pay a "transaction fee" of $0.50. Not to
mention that a record of the payment may take days to be entered into
the BOC billing system. Somehow I don't think that having to go
farther and pay extra for something to get done more slowly is "more
convenient". There is no reasonable argument to suggest that their
payment center was underutilized; I sometimes had to wait in line 20
or 30 minutes to pay my bill. Another side effect is that there is no
longer a lobby for the stacks of local phone books free for the
taking, nor is there any access to the out-of-area directories that
used to be free for the browsing (yes, I know, the Library is across
the street). Needless to say, I am not impressed ... but since I'm not
one of "the majority", the BOC could care less. If this sounds like
whining, that's because it is; I somehow keep getting charged more for
less service.

The month before they announced they were going to close the Payment
Center, I got bill inserts telling me how convenient it would be for
them to EFT my payments right out of my bank account. Uhh, convenient
for me, that is, since I would "Never Write Another Check!"

I think not.

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

Subject: PICs From RBOC Payphones
From: [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 00:36:11 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department


I have found that local RBOC payphones (Indiana Bell here) don't
respond properly to any of the various 10XXX codes. That is, dialing
10XXX +1 + 700-555-4141 always results in the message, "You have
reached the AT&T Long Distance Network. Thank you for using AT&T. This
message will not be repeated." I have verified this on phones in more
than one CO.  I also found it to be the case in the next RBOC to the
south (Cincinnati Bell) whilst on Christmas vacation. I have tried on
more than one occasion to explain the situation to repair and various
supervisory Operator positions to no avail.

So my question is: Exactly how does this violate Equal Access and/or
the MFJ, and where can I get the text so that it can be quoted in my
letters to the FCC, FTC, and the aforementioned RBOCs? Such letter
will also point out that it would be unwise to let the RBOCs provide
information services given their track record, citing this situation
as a specific example.

Thanks, all. I've been meaning to get on this one for awhile.


[Moderator's Note: It does NOT violate Equal Access. The catch is your
1+ dialing ... at this time the only companies with the ability to
collect or refund coins deposited in the phone are the local telco and
AT&T. *All* long distance calls from payphones requiring coin deposit
are sent to AT&T. Now had you zero-plussed your call, implying you
would need operator assistance (credit card, collect, third number
type call) then your 10xxx instructions would have been observed, even
if it did result in some OCCs responding with re-order or intercept to
your attempt to call their (non-existent) operator service. That is
provided of course the 10xxx you chose was providing service to the
exchange you were calling from. Not every 10xxx serves every place.
So save your letter writing. The RBOC is doing nothing wrong.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 17:28:29 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Device to Call In on One Line and Dial Out on Another
Organization: Flex Plus BBS -- Honolulu, Hawaii


I wish to create a device that will connect to both of the phone lines
in my house and allow me to call in on one of the lines and then dial
out on another from a remote location.

I would rather purchase the device if it's available somewhere, but I
have yet to find it.

Radio Shack's divertor device, which allows you to call forward a call
using two lines, seems to be very close to what I want and could be
inexpensively modified to do what I want.  Would anyone have some
ideas on how to change this device to suit my needs?

Thanks for any help.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Responders, please share the mods with all of us.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain
Date: 13 Jan 92 18:11:35 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


I'm building a new house and it's time for me to plan my signal
wiring.  I'm served by GTE Northwest in Tigard Oregon, exchange
503-620.  I called them and was sent their booklet "Customer Installed
Premises Wiring Guide."  There's a picture of how to wire the
"customer provided wire junction," where the four conductors in my
internal wiring attach to four screws.  I'm no expert on telecom
wiring and I thought, once and for all, to find out why I'm supposed
to run four wires when the telco puts only two into my house.

One phone call and several transfers later, I found out that GTE has
no mechanism for answering this sort of question.  Their policy is
that my choices are to do it myself or hire them to wire my house.
They have no staff to answer questions for people who aren't paying
money to the repair profit center.

I talked to a supervisor who explained all this to me, but I
persisted, and she agreed to dig up a repair person to give me a call.
He called, answered my question, and told me "Don't hesitate to call
if you have any other questions."  But he wasn't allowed to give me a
direct-dial number to him.  I explained my problem, and he suggested
that I follow the same procedure each time I had a question.  Sigh.

The social issue: this seems penny wise and pound foolish.  The
reliability of the network decreases if people like me can't get
technical answers and have to wire based on "best guess."

The technical issue: the answer I got boils down to redundancy -- if
one of the two signal conductors breaks in my internal cable, I can
repair it by selecting one of the two spares.  But, if this is the
case, why are all four connectors brought out to the RJ11 jack?  I'd
be grateful for a technical answer.


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


[Moderator's Note: All four are brought there because some subscribers
might want to have two lines from the beginning. eg 2 X 2 = 4.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #33
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21368;
          14 Jan 92 23:21 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11383
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 14 Jan 1992 21:23:53 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18162
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 14 Jan 1992 21:23:15 -0600
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 21:23:15 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #34

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Jan 92 21:23:11 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 34

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    History of the Telephone Show on TV (Jonathan Welch)
    Hayes V-Series Smartmodem 9600 For Sale, X.25 (David E Levinson)
    Automatic FMR Test Between Linx and Nynex (Seng-Poh Lee)
    "Call Me" Cards and International Calling (Michael Ho)
    Cellular Phone For Quadriplegic (Ken Weaverling)
    NT Vantage System Question (David Leibold)
    Metro One Has Follow-Me w/o Their Knowing It (Gabe M. Wiener)
    Where Can One *Buy* The White Pages? (Gil Kloepfer Jr.)
    Addition to SWBT 411 Service (Bob Izenberg)
    Working Assets Long Distance Company (Glenn F. Leavell)
    Motorola Cellular Phone Test Mode Commands (John R. Covert)
    ISDN Article in {Infoworld} (Robert L. McMillin)
    NT Meridian v. Norstar (C. Kenny Lin)
    Eastern Caribbean Cellular (John R. Levine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jonathan_Welch <[e-mail]>
Subject: History of the Telephone Show on TV
Date: 13 Jan 92 19:03:08 GMT


I just saw a little blurb that a show about the history of the
telephone will be on The Discovery Channel on Tuesday, 9:30 pm EST.


[Moderator's Note: I am sorry this message arrived to late to be
included at least a day earlier. Perhaps people who see the show will
be so kind to send reviews.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David E Levinson)
Subject: Hayes V-Series Smartmodem 9600 For Sale, X.25
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 02:33:34 GMT


For sale: Hayes V-Series Smartmodem 9600.  Has X.25 packet switching,
V.42 and MNP-5.  Best offer.

Hayes to Mac (DIN-8) cable, new. $10 if you buy the modem.


David E. Levinson
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
internet: [e-mail] BITNET:AXPBDEL@UICVMC

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Automatic FMR Test between Linx and Nynex
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 22:00:45 EST


With the recent cellular link up between Linx (Connecticut B carrier)
and Nynex in NYC, I decided to try their automatic FMR while in the
City recently. This new arrangement was supposed to allow me to roam
in the NY Metro area and receive calls dialed to my CT number
automatically, with no action on my part.

So, while I was in NYC, I dialed my handheld direct from my car phone.
After one ring, I heard a recording that said 'Locating Linx
customer'.  After a short pause, ringing continued and my phone rang.
I didn't pick up, but I wonder if I was charged for the call.

Evidently, my home service knew I was in an adjoining area, but still
needed to locate me. Thats strange as Linx only has automatic FMR with
the Metro NY area. I could understand it if they also had an
arrangement with the Boston area. Normally, if I call my phone and
it's off, I get about four rings and then get the standard 'user has
left vehicle' message.

When I got home, I tried calling the roaming port in NYC, and entered
my phone number again. Despite my phone being on, it couldn't find me
in CT. I suppose if I was a Nynex customer and was in CT, that would
have worked, but it didn't work this way. Strange arrangement ...


Seng-Poh Lee    <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: "Call Me" Cards and International Calling
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 03:57:29 GMT


Do those billed-number-only "Call Me" telephone cards work from
outside the U.S., and if so, does the dialed-number restriction still
hold?

The one I have lists no "International Number" as most cards do, but
it's issued by a local telco.  I will soon be moving into Pac*Bell
territory, at which time I can get a genuine AT&T "Call Me" card ...
will that change the situation?


Michael Ho | UNTIL JAN. 20, sysmgrs willing: Internet:[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Weaverling)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 23:29:58 EST
Subject: Cellular Phone For Quadriplegic


My girl friend is a quadriplegic. She has very limited use of her
hands, and needs a wheelchair to get around. Despite all of this, she
is able to drive in an adapted van.

She would like to get a cellular phone for emergency purposes. There
have been times when her van has broken down, or gotten a flat, and
she gets stranded. One time, it was even life threatening. Her entire
electrical system failed, so she couldn't operate the automatic door
to get out and had a close call due to the heat buildup in an enclosed
vehicle on a hot summer day.

We went to a few local cellular phone stores, and didn't get very
encouraging information.  All the phones have push buttons that take a
bit of effort to push, which is impossible for her to do.  I seem to
remember reading about a "voice activated" phone, but no one around
here knows about them, and I wonder if it is more of a gimmick than it
is useful.  (For instance, if you have to push a button to "activate"
the phone, she is out of luck.)

Ideally, she needs a phone that is battery operated, so it won't fail
if her van's electrical system dies.  It should also have buttons that
are very easy to push else something that is truly voice activated.

If possible, it would be ideal if a portable phone could be hooked up
to her motorized wheelchair.  If that is possible, would the phone
still be able to operate from within an enclosed vehicle? (I would
attach the aerial somewhere on her wheelchair.)

And finally, if anyone can think of a way for us to get her insurance
to pay for the phone, we'd both be very grateful. Luckily, she had
extended disability insurance at the time of her auto accident several
years ago. They generally will pay for things needed for medical
purposes, though I admit getting a car phone is pushing it (we already
asked, but haven't pushed the issue yet).

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 00:02:06 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NT Vantage System Question


I've played around with a Vantage key-type PBX system a bit. They have
a port for SMDR, but it doesn't seem to be able to send data in a
reliable stream. That is, it will tend to shut off and go into
something of a command mode. Only flipping a couple of DIP switches
simultaneously will get the SMDR rolling again with call data.

Any ideas on how to keep the SMDR rolling merrily along, or is this
tendency going to remain a built-in feature? Keeping a constant SMDR
would be helpful in call accounting applications.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Metro One Has Follow-Me w/o Their Knowing It
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 05:42:13 GMT


Here's an odd one.  The other day I was sitting on an Amtrak train
passing through Springfield, MA when my portable phone rang.  I
answered it, and it was someone calling my NEW YORK number.  Metro One
(they're calling themselves Cellular One this week) has never
announced Follow Me beyond the NYC tri-state area, and when I called
customer service they flatly denied that Follow Me was installed, yet
two people managed to reach me in Springfield by dialing my NY number.

Any thoughts, folks?


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.  [e-mail]
N2GPZ in ham radio circles    72355,1226 on CI$

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

From: [e-mail] (Gil Kloepfer Jr.)
Subject: Where Can One *Buy* the White Pages?
Organization: Southwest Systems Development Labs, Houston, TX
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 22:47:29 GMT


If this is in some kind of an archive, please direct me there.

My neighbor is looking to find a source for the entire US white pages
directory in machine-readable form.  I'd like to know if there is a
single-source for such information, or does one have to go to each
RBOC and private phone company to get the info.  She says that money
is no object ... (wish I had those problems :-)

Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.


Gil Kloepfer, Jr.   [e-mail]     ...!ames!limbic!gil


[Moderator's Note: You might mention to her that Compuserve offers an
on line national white pages directory which allows cross-reference
and wild-card searching. It carries a surcharge.  GO PHONES on CIS. I
suppose that would be adequate for some users, maybe in her case also,
depending on the volume of usage anticipated.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: Addition to SWBT 411 Service
Organization: The Fortress of Ultimate Dorkiness
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 19:01:28 GMT


Now hear this recording after getting the phone number:

"This number can be automatically dialed for an additional charge of
30 cents."


Bob

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn F. Leavell)
Subject: Working Assets Long Distance Company
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 20:40:29 GMT


Has anyone had any experience with (or heard of) Working Assets long
distance?  I recently saw an ad for their services in the magazine
{Utne Reader}.  They claim to donate 1% of your phone bill to such
special interest groups as Amnesty International, the ACLU, and
Planned Parenthood.  Also, the ad states that calls to corporate and
political leaders are free of charge.

Any information would be appreciated.


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


[Moderator's Note: We've touched on it here a few times with mixed
responses from readers.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 13:23:29 PST
From: John R. Covert  14-Jan-1992 1552 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Motorola Cellular Phone Test Mode Commands


Most Motorola Cellular telephones have a "Test Mode" which is entered
in various ways.  Most commonly, it involves shorting some contacts
while the phone is being powered up.

When this is done, the phone initially comes up in normal operating mode
but with a status display showing current channel (the control channel
until a call is in progress and then the voice channel), received signal
strength (as a three digit number) and then various other status bits.

Pressing a "#" while in status display mode terminates normal
operation and puts the phone into test mode, in which there are a
number of commands as documented in the test manual.  These are
usually two digit commands, occasionally with an argument.

The list of test commands is prefaced by the note that "all commands
are not documented".  One command that was documented in older
versions of the manual, "67", is no longer documented, although it may
still work in most phones.  The "67" command displays a three digit
number representing the current battery level in those phones still
supporting it.

Does anyone have a list of other potentially useful undocumented
commands?

A particularly useful command would be a command to display the
contents of various RAM locations.  That command, coupled with
knowledge of which RAM location is assigned to the "Received System
ID" would be most useful when trying to figure out what system you
have just roamed into.

Obviously, if you know the system IDs of all systems in the area you
can guess which one you are currently in by setting the phone to
"Preferred System ID" mode and trying each possible system ID -- but
if you enter an unfamiliar area it would be nice to be able to find
out the system ID without trying all the possibilities.

Please copy me when/if you reply to the list -- I've not been able to
keep up with the high volume of information on this unDigest of late.


john


[Moderator's Note: The way I always tell what system I have roamed
into is by dialing *711 or *611 and asking. Those calls are free.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 18:11:06 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: ISDN Article in {Infoworld}


This week's issue of {Infoworld} contains a special section on ISDN
entitled "ISDN: Under construction".  The article mainly says that
while ISDN has promised a lot, few of these promises have been kept
because of disagreements on standards, the lack of a 'killer
application' that would make ISDN necessary, poor innovation on the
part of the carriers, connectivity problems (ISDN is rarely installed
outside of major metropolitan areas), and regulatory problems that
include a lack of direction from the FCC.  Other reasons cited for
ISDN's poor acceptance are the political battles fought between
telephone and data bureaucracies who often have dissimilar attitudes
and goals, poor cost/benefit calculations that fail to find
"intangible costs such as organizational savings and traditional
return on investment", poor technical understanding of the services
offered, and inadequate planning.

Sidebars in the article discuss ISDN use at the State of Delaware, at
Garban, Ltd., and at the Wentworth Co., Inc.  Also in a sidebar is an
article discussing US West's ISDN deployment plans -- which include
dropping the moniker "ISDN" in favor of "PC Phone Service", and
providing widely available, affordable (at $97/month?) ISDN services.


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

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 16:49:36 -0500 (EST)
From: "C. Kenny Lin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NT Meridian v. Norstar


I've been assigned by my company to look for a new phone system to
replace our old key system (a Panasonic, that was piggybacked via a
tangled web of wires).  These are some of my requirements:

> 300 system-wide speed dial codes.
Support for voice mail and automated attendents.

I thought I wasn't asking for much until I started shopping and had
salespeople visiting, etc.  Appearently, almost all key systems can't
handle > 200 speed dial codes, a REAL surprise.  I then turned to the
PBX marketplace, where I found Northern Telecom's Meridian 1 Option 11
fit the bill.  Then, I was introduced to a Northern Telecom Norstar
hybrid/key system that can do the job via an add-on software package
(with a dedicated PC).

I guess what I'm asking for is general comments from y'all about your
experiences (good and bad) with these two systems or Northern Telecom
in general.  Pointers to other or sources would help.  Please E-mail
to me directly.  I'll post a summary if the volume warrants.

Much thanks.


C. Kenny Lin    [e-mail]
(this is not for the school -- I'm away on some contract work).

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

Subject: Eastern Caribbean Cellular
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 20:56:57 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


I had Eastern Caribbean Cellular fax me their rate card.  They are
apparently both the A and B carrier for the Netherlands Antilles.
There are two rates, the K rates for permanent customers, and the L
rates for roamers.  The K rate is $25 setup, $27/month plus calls, the
L rate is $5/day that you use it plus calls.  To be set up as a
roamer, either dial "0" when you get there or call ahead to +599 5
24100, their cellular operator.  Have your Amex, Discover, Master
Card, or Visa handy.

For incoming calls to phones without a local number, one calls the
roamer port, +599 5 7ROAM, then at the tone the local ten digit
number.

They are the A and B system in St. Maarten/St. Martin.  Other
"boatphone" locations are the A system in Antigua, Grenada, St. Kitts,
St. Lucia, St. Thomas, and Tortola, and the B system in Martinique and
Guadeloupe.  Visitors to French islands including St. Martin may also
request a French number from France Telecom.  I am amazed that the
French seem to use the AMPS system in the French Antilles, I'd expect
them to use whatever they use in France.

Sample rates, per minute in dollars follow.  No charge for busy or no
answer, call forwarding and three-way no extra charge.

                K rate    L rate
St. Martin/St. Maarten        1.00    1.50
St Barts, Saba, Aruba, Curacao    1.60    2.00
Continental U.S.        3.00    4.00
Canada                3.50    4.50
W. Europe, Bermuda, Bahamas    6.00    7.00
E. Europe, S. America        7.25    8.00

Incoming calls            1.00    1.60
Incoming collect        6.40    9.00
USA Direct (dial 872)        1.40    1.60

Calls to 0, 611 (customer service), 911 (police), 155 (Saba marine
operator) are free.

I didn't realize it was possible to assign a number to an AMPS phone
that isn't in the 10-digit NANP format, but evidently it is, because
these people's numbers are all +599 5 XXXXX.

For more info, call 617-566-8613 or [phone].


Regards,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #34
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24128;
          15 Jan 92 0:25 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04906
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 14 Jan 1992 22:31:14 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14646
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 14 Jan 1992 22:30:13 -0600
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 22:30:13 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #35

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Jan 92 22:30:12 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 35

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Hacking the CFS-200 to Connect Two Lines (Greg Darnell)
    Device to Call in on One Line and Dial Out on Another (Tad Cook)
    Report: 8th Chaos Computer Congress (Klaus Brunnstein via Eric Florack)
    CCITT Standards and Recommendations (Will Wong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 12:15 MST
From: [e-mail] (Greg Darnell)
Subject: Hacking the CFS-200 to Connect Two Lines


I bought the Radio Shack CFS-200 call forwarding system recently
because the closeout price ($30) was too good to pass up.  I had a use
for it that it could handle, although not exactly in an elegant way.
It is intended to be programmed with a forwarding number so that when
line one rings, it picks up line two, dials the forwarding number,
then connects the calls if line two gets an answer.  What I wanted to
do was remotely take advantage of a line with cheaper outgoing calling
rates; this can be done by calling line two to reprogram the
forwarding number, then calling line one, but for each call this gets
awkward, for multiple users it is not practical, and you almost need a
dedicated line one that nobody else calls to keep other people from
getting forwarded to the number you wanted to call.

What I really wanted was to be able to call the box, enter a password,
and have it pick up the other line and give me just the dial tone on
that line.  I didn't want to design my own box because I'm not
comfortable enough with the analog electronics involved, so I decided
to hack the CFS-200, where everything is converted nicely to a digital
signal I can understand.  My objective was to do this with a minimum
amount of added hardware and also allow return of the CFS-200 to its
original working condition without too much trouble.

WARNING: the following modifications will render the original
forwarding function of the CFS-200 inoperative, void your warranty,
and maybe not even work!  I take no responsibility for any
consequences of your using this information.

Theory: when you call in on line two to reprogram the forwarding
number, if line one subsequently rings then the calls will be
connected if the password has been entered correctly.  I decided to
take advantage of this mode for the hack by creating a new ring detect
signal which is active when line two is off-hook and line one is
on-hook.  Line one ring detect can't simply be tied active or the
CFS-200 will always be trying to forward.  Pins 22 and 21 of IC5 (the
microprocessor) control the relays to pick up line one and two,
respectively.  Using a 4x2-input nand gate 74LS00, I invert the signal
from pin 22 and then AND it with pin 21's signal to give us the active
low RING1 signal.  This is connected to pin 16 of IC5 and the trace to
the original logic must be cut.  (You could probably add additional
logic here to OR the signals together and allow the original CFS-200
function to work).

With these modifications, now when you call line two and enter the
password, the box will give an extra three beeps and connect you to
line one.  Unfortunately, if the number you are to dial contains a 0,
you will be immediately be disconnected since the CFS-200 uses 0 to
mean disconnect.  To get around this, I decided to invert the
low-order output bit of the touch-tone decoder, which will then map 0
to * and vice-versa (among others) so you can now dial the number.
This causes the password entered via the keypad to be permuted to a
different number via telephone, but the mapping is trivial.  Again I
use a NAND gate to invert the output of IC4 pin 11, cut the trace from
IC4 pin 11 to diode D9, and connect the output of the NAND gate to D9.
A more elegant solution that wouldn't interfere with the mapping so
much would be to XOR that bit with (line one AND line two active) but
I wanted to keep the hardware to a minimum.

  To summarize, with the following being the pins of the 74LS00:

1 & 2 -> IC4-pin11            14       -> IC7-pin14 (+5V)
3     -> D9                   13 &12   -> IC5-pin22 (relay 1 control)
4,5,6 -> unused               11       -> pin10 of this chip
7     -> IC7-pin7 (ground)     9       -> IC5-pin21 (relay 2 control)
                               8    -> IC5-pin16 (line 1 ring, active low)

and cut traces near IC5-pin 16 and IC4-pin 11.

You must also remember to remap your passwords as follows:

    CFS keypad : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 * #
    via phone :  D 3 2 5 4 7 6 9 8 * 0 A  (A & D found on few phones)

so that the password 207 entered via keypad would be entered as 3*6
via telephone.  Also, during a call longer than the timeout period (3
or 10 minutes), you now hit 0 to prolong the call rather than *; and
when a call is completed you may hit * rather than 0 to hang up both
lines immediately.  Remember, though, that this remapping has NO
effect on the number you dial through the box, since it's the exchange
that is decoding that, not the CFS-200 (although you will get a beep
for each 0 in the number you dial).

I hope that this modification might be useful to someone else, or be
the catalyst for other fun modifications based on this box.  I would
be happy to discuss further details, ideas and options if anyone is
interested.


Greg Darnell    Amdahl Corporation       INTERNET: [e-mail]
UUCP:{ames,decwrl,sun,uunet}!amdahl!tetons!gnd          [phone]

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

Subject: Device to Call In On One Line and Dial Out on Another
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 14 Jan 92 17:53:15 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> I wish to create a device that will connect to both of the phone lines
> in my house and allow me to call in on one of the lines and then dial
> out on another from a remote location.

You should be careful that whatever device you use offers some
security.  Otherwise anyone stumbling across this could help
themselves to your wonderful Free Long Distance service.

Proctor & Associates has a new product, the 46300 Secured System
Access Line (SSAL) that can do this.  After it answers the incoming
line, it requires that you dial a security code, programmable by the
user, up to 14 digits long.  Different security codes can be assigned
to perform different functions.  Then the SSAL will either cut you
through to the outgoing line, or it can hang up and dial you back (at
different dial-back numbers for different security codes), or it can
ring into another device that requires ringing voltage, such as a
modem or maintenance port on a PBX.  When performing dial-back, it can
do that on the incoming line, or on a separate outgoing line to
prevent various hacker games.  It is available with an optional voice
repeater amplifier, and has "hacker alarms" to let you know when
someone is playing with it.

Here is their address:

Proctor and Associates
15050 NE 36th St.
Redmond, WA  98052-5317
Ph:  206-881-7000
Fax: [phone]
net: [e-mail]


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: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 06:33:50 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Report: 8th Chaos Computer Congress


The following message was copied from RISKS-L.  Of particular interest
to TELECOM reader will be where the writer speaks of HACKTIC. That
such gatherings are becoming more sparsely populated is a positive
step.  But is it, perhaps, time for people such as the UN , or perhaps
the ITU, to invoke sanctions against countries that allow such groups
to thrive? ( Comments are my own ... I don't expect anyone else to
have the guts to agree with me.) (Grin)

                       -=-=-=--=-=-=

 Date: 9  Jan 92 16:37 +0100
 From: Klaus Brunnstein <[e-mail]>
 Subject: Chaos Congress 91 Report

                 Report: 8th Chaos Computer Congress

On occasion of the 10th anniversary of its foundation, Chaos Computer
Club (CCC) organised its 8th Congress in Hamburg (Dec.27-29, 1991). To
more than 400 participants (largest participation ever, with growing
number of students rather than teen-age scholars), a rich diversity of
PC and network related themes was offered, with significantly less
sessions than before devoted to critical themes, such as phreaking,
hacking or malware construction.  Changes in the European hacker scene
became evident as only few people from Netherlands (see: Hacktick) and
Italy had come to this former hackers' Mecca.  Consequently, Congress
news are only documented in German.  As CCC's founding members develop
in age and experience, reflection of CCC's role and growing diversity
(and sometimes visible alienity between leading members) of opinions
indicates that teen-age CCC may produce less spectacular events than
ever before.

This year's dominating theme covered presentations of communication
techniques for PCs, Ataris, Amigas and Unix, the development of a
local net (mousenet.txt: 6.9 kByte) as well as description of regional
(e.g.  CCC's ZERBERUS; zerberus.txt: 3.9 kByte) and international
networks (internet.txt: 5.4 kBytes), including a survey (netzwerk.txt:
53.9 kByte).  In comparison, CCC'90 documents are more detailed on
architectures while sessions and demonstrations in CCC'91 (in "Hacker
Center" and other rooms) were more concerned with practical navigation
in such nets.

Phreaking was covered by the Dutch group HACKTIC which updated its
CCC'90 presentation of how to "minimize expenditures for telephone
conversations" by using "blue" boxes (simulating specific sounds used
in phone systems to transmit switching commands) and "red" boxes
(using telecom-internal commands for testing purposes), and describing
available software and recent events.  Detailed information on
phreaking methods in specific countries and bugs in some telecom
systems were discussed (phreaking.txt: 7.3 kByte). More information
(in Dutch) was available, including charts of electronic circuits, in
several volumes of Dutch "HACKTIC: Tidschrift voor Techno-Anarchisten"
(=news for techno-anarchists).

     Remark #1: recent events (e.g. "Gulf hacks") and material presen-
ted on Chaos Congress '91 indicate that Netherland emerges as a new
European center of malicious attacks on systems and networks.  Among
other potentially harmful information, HACKTIC #14/15 publishes code
of computer viruses (a BAT-virus which does not work properly;
"world's shortest virus" of 110 bytes, a primitive non-resident virus
significantly longer than the shortest resident Bulgarian virus: 94
Bytes).  While many errors in the analysis show that the authors lack
deeper insigth into malware technologies (which may change), their
criminal energy in publishing such code evidently is related to the
fact that Netherland has no adequate computer crime legislation.  In
contrast, the advent of German computer crime legislation (1989) may
be one reason for CCC's less devotion to potentially harmful themes.

    Remark #2: While few Netherland universities devote research and
teaching to in/security, Delft university at least offers introductory
courses into data protection (an issue of large public interest in NL)
and security.  Professors Herschberg and Aalders also analyse the
"robustness" of networks and systems, in the sense that students may
try to access connected systems if the adressed organisations agree.
According to Prof. Aalders (in a recent telephone conversation), they
never encourage students to attack systems but they also do not punish
students who report on such attacks which they undertook on their own.
(Herschberg and Alpers deliberately have no email connection.)

Different from recent years, a seminar on Computer viruses (presented
by Morton Swimmer of Virus Test Center, Univ. Hamburg) as deliberately
devoted to disseminate non-destructive information (avoiding any
presentation of virus programming).  A survey of legal aspects of
inadequate software quality (including viruses and program errors) was
presented by lawyer Freiherr von Gravenreuth (fehlvir.txt: 5.6 kByte).

Some public attention was drawn to the fact that the "city-call"
telephone system radio-transmits information essentially as ASCII.  A
demonstration proved that such transmitted texts may easily be
intercepted, analysed and even manipulated on a PC.  CCC publicly
warned that "profiles" of such texts (and those adressed) may easily
be collected, and asked Telecom to inform users about this insecurity
(radioarm.txt: 1.6 kByte); German Telecom did not follow this advice.

Besides discussions of emerging voice mailboxes (voicebox.txt: 2.8
kBytes), an interesting session presented a C64-based chipcard
analysis systems (chipcard.txt: 3.3 kBytes).  Two students have built
a simple mechanism to analyse (from systematic IO analysis) the
protocol of a German telephone card communicating with the public
telephone box; they described, in some detail (including an
elctronmicroscopic photo) the architecture and the system behaviour,
including 100 bytes of communication data stored (for each call, for
80 days!)  in a central German Telecom computer. Asked for legal
implications of their work, they argued that they just wanted to
understand this technology, and they were not aware of any legal
constraint.  They have not analysed possibilities to reload the
telephone account (which is generally possible, due to the
architecture), and they didnot analyse architectures or procedures of
other chipcards (bank cards etc).

Following CCC's (10-year old charta), essential discussions were
devoted to social themes.  The "Feminine computer handling" workshop
deliberately excluded men (about 25 women participating), to avoid
last year's experience of male dominancy in related discussions
(femin.txt: 4.2 kBytes).  A session (mainly attended by informatics
students) was devoted to "Informatics and Ethics" (ethik.txt: 3.7
kByte), introducing the international state-of-discussion, and
discussing the value of professional standards in the German case.

A discussion about "techno-terrorism" became somewhat symptomatic for
CCC's actual state.  While external participants (von Gravenreuth,
Brunnstein) were invited to this theme, CCC-internal controversies
presented the panel discussion under the technical title "definition
questions".  While one fraction (Wernery, Wieckmann/terror.txt: 7.2
kByte) wanted to discuss possibilities, examples and dangers of
techno-terrorism openly, others (CCC "ol'man" Wau Holland) wanted to
generally define "terrorism" somehow academically, and some undertook
to describe "government repression" as some sort of terrorism.  In the
controversial debate (wau_ter.txt: 9.7 kByte), few examples of
technoterrorism (WANK worm, development of virus techniques for
economic competition and warfare) were given.

More texts are available on: new German games in Multi-User
Domain/Cyberspace (mud.txt: 3.8 kByte), and Wernery's "Btx
documentation" (btx.txt: 6.2 kByte); not all topics have been
reported.  All German texts are available from the author (in
self-extracting file: ccc91.exe, about 90 kByte), or from CCC (e-mail:
[e-mail], fax: [phone]).

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

From: [e-mail] (Will Wong)
Subject: CCITT Standards and Recommendations
Organization: BC News and Mail
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 21:28:37 GMT


I would like to get ahold of the CCITT standards and recommendations
(either through purchasing the books, borrowing, begging, etc.)  Does
anyone have any idea where I can go?

Thanks in advance!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #35
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02533;
          15 Jan 92 1:11 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24428
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 14 Jan 1992 23:23:56 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14871
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 14 Jan 1992 23:23:26 -0600
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 23:23:26 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #36

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Jan 92 23:23:10 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 36

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (David Niebuhr)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Steve Thornton)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (John Rice)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Jim Rees)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Gabe M. Wiener)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Roy Smith)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Jack Decker)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM (David W. Barts)
    Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM (John Rice)
    Re: Voice Under Data Modem (Larry Rachman)
    Re: Problem With Procomm; Help Needed (Ed Greenberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 07:35:08 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Malcolm Slaney)
writes:

> I wonder what the average number of calls per day is for the average
> residential phone?

My average is about two or three calls per day.  Adding in the kids,
it goes up to about six.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 14:44:07 GMT


[e-mail] (Larry Rachman) writes:

> And where will that leave my 235G three-slot rotary coin phone? I'll
> have to go shopping for a rotary-to-tone converter!

You will probably be able to buy them as surplus from the phone
company by then, if you're willing to provide the undoubtedly weird
electrical environment they expect.


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 10:11:06 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!


> I wonder what the average number of calls per day is for the average
> residential phone?

I make about five calls per week max, sometimes none at all. Of
course, some of those calls are hour-and-a-half modem calls! I imagine
there are a lot more infrequent callers out there than is normally
imagined here, though not many of us subscribe to this Digest.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 16:41:50 GMT


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

> Larry Rachman <[e-mail]> writes:

> Remember, you do not have to have DTMF service to own a phone capable
> of DTMF. In fact, are there any areas left that do not have DTMF
> telephone service available? I mean, really, if Pac*Bell now considers
> it to be part of standard telephone service ...

Pac*Bell may consider DTMF to be "part of standard telephone service",
but *AMERITECH* (and others) still consider it to be a "premium"
service and charge accordingly. Since any switch manufactured in the
last ten years was built with DTMF integrated, the hardware costs to
provide DTMF over ROTARY are insignificant (especially with customers
now providing their own instruments). Makes you wonder, doesn't it.


John Rice  K9IJ    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 23:20:12 GMT


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

> I am surprised that it has taken this long. Tone signaling is SO
> superior to rotary that it is nothing short of amazing that it has
> taken nearly twenty years to become the dominant dialing method.

I don't find it surprising at all.  Our local phone company charges a
premium of about 25% for tone service.  If they didn't charge the
premium, rotary phones would have disappeared long ago.

I happen to like rotary phones.  Only one of my phone lines has tone
service on it, and of the nine phones I have on-line, only two are
even equipped to produce tones.  There is just something satisfying
about the quiet whir of a well-oiled rotary dial.  All my phones were
manufactured by either Western Electric or Automatic Electric, of
course (although I'd love to get a nice Kellogg some time).

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

From: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 05:12:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Larry Rachman <74066.2004@
CompuServe.COM> writes:

> "Thank you for calling the Casio Referral Hotline. If you are calling
> from a touchtone telephone, press one now. If you are calling from a
> rotary dial telephone, please call back on a touchtone telephone.

If they were smart, they'd say "if you are calling from a rotary dial
telephone, please hold the line," and then transfer you to product
information about the Casio Data-Bank watch with the built-in DTMF
telephone dialer!


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.  [e-mail]
N2GPZ in ham radio circles    72355,1226 on CI$

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 10:47:59 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!
Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York)


John Higdon writes:

> I am surprised that it has taken this long. Tone signaling is SO
> superior to rotary that it is nothing short of amazing that it has
> taken nearly twenty years to become the dominant dialing method.

    In my own case, there are two reasons why I still have pulse
dialing in my home.  First, I'll be damned if I'm going to pay telco
one blessed cent for touch tone service.  Maybe I'm being pig-headed,
but that's the way it is.  I can twirl a dial just fine, thank you,
and I don't make so many phone calls that the few extra seconds per
call are such a problem.  The most common calls I make are via modem,
and then my auto-dialer does the twirling for me.

    Second, I've got (that I can count offhand) 6 telephone
instruments (connected to three different lines, and that doesn't
count the ones burried in a closet, or the modem).  Most of them are
$12 pieces of junk.  OK, one's a $100 Panasonic piece of junk that has
an answering machine built in.  But, one is a good old Western
Electric dial phone.  I paid good money for that phone, and I expect
it to outlast me, all the electronic gizmos I own, the building I live
in, and probably the switch that serves my exchange.  Why should I
throw it out just because it clicks instead of beeps?

    And, before you protest that my Panasonic is a quality
instrument and not a piece of junk, ask youself it if meets the true
tests of telephone quality.  If you knock it off the table, does the
floor sustain more damage than the telephone?  Will it still be in
essentially good working condition when your grandchildren are grown
up?  Does it ring, or does it make some pathetic chirp/warble/feeping
noise?


[e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 16:26:23 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!


In a message dated 10 Jan 92 17:46:00 GMT, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> I am surprised that it has taken this long. Tone signaling is SO
> superior to rotary that it is nothing short of amazing that it has
> taken nearly twenty years to become the dominant dialing method.
> Consider that the CD has been around for about eight years and has all
> but decimated the LP, which was king for the previous thirty-five years.

The reason is VERY simple, John.  In many areas of the country they
still charge extra for Touch Tone.  In Michigan Bell territory, the
charge is $2.43 per month for a residence, and $2.50 per month for a
business.  I refuse on principle to pay the phone company $2.43 per
month to obtain a service that costs them LESS money to provide.  What
I do have on my line is a tone-to-pulse converter, which lets me use
"real" Touch-Tone phones, but unfortunately is not smart enough to
recognize that post-dialed digits (digits dialed after the phone
number) should be left alone (that is, NOT converted to pulse).
However, for those rare situations where I actually need to send REAL
Touch-Tones, I have ONE phone that has a tone-pulse switch that is not
connected to the converter.

When I think of what I have to go through just because my phone
company and state legislature aren't enlightened enough to offer free
touch tone, it angers me ... but I feel better knowing that I am saving
nearly $30 per year by NOT having Touch Tone.  Since the converter
cost me only $8.00 at an electronics swap meet (actually it was a ham
radio affair, but I'm not a ham, I just went to look for electronic
and computer goodies), I feel a lot better.

> Remember, you do not have to have DTMF service to own a phone
> capable of DTMF. In fact, are there any areas left that do not have
> DTMF telephone serviceavailable? I mean, really, if Pac*Bell now
> considers it to be part of standard telephone service ...

There are MANY exchanges in Upper Michigan that still use the old
Step-by-Step switches (primarily Michigan Bell areas ... it appears
many of the independents have converted to digital already!).  And
Michigan Bell never, ever offers Touch-Tone on a Step-by-Step exchange
(which is only fair, I think, since you really don't gain any dialing
speed if the phone company is doing a tone-to-pulse conversion).


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


[Moderator's Note: Regretfully some of Jack's message was lost or
damaged in the mail to me. The truncated version above is what I was
able to recover from the mess which arrived.  Sorry, Jack.   PAT]


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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 14:37:58 GMT


[e-mail] (Malcolm Slaney) writes:

> Ummm ... one of the lessons that I've had to learn once I got out of
> school and into the real world is that the Joe Average Consumer
> doesn't necessarily beat a path to the most technologically wonderful
> products.

This is true, but in this case tone signalling is cheaper for TPC as
well.  The point is: (1) why does TPC continue to charge extra for
tone? Which leads to (2) why so many people have pulse-only phones (or
aren't technically sophisticated enough to know they chan switch their
tone/pulse phones to tone after placing the call).

> I bet my grandparents never made more than a couple of calls a day.

Apart from calls I make in my line of work (system support), I only
make a couple of calls a day ... at most.

> I'm sure they never thought it was worth the effort to
> change their phones or switch their service with Illinois Bell.

They shouldn't have *had* to switch their service: Illinois Bell should
be extending tone to everyone simply because it's cheaper for them to do
so ... and eventually charging extra for pulse.


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 09:28:52 -0800
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM


[e-mail] (Colin Tuttle) writes:

> ... Every morning at 12:02 I get a little chirp, or a belltap on the
> phone.  The phone has the "added feature" of belltap so you do hear
> when someone hangs up the phone.  Some might call it a bug, but I'm
> sure the Magnavox engineers put this on the phone as a convenience
> item, and a reason to buy their model rather than Sony's.

Alas, this is not the case.  Bell tap is a bug, not a feature.  The
Magnavox engineers left this "feature" in to minimize cost.  Actually,
they probably weren't Magnavox engineers at all but engineers at the
(probably Taiwanese or S. Korean) firm that manufactured the set for
Magnavox.

Properly-built ringers only sound in the presence of a true AC ring
signal, but certain cheaply-built electronic ringers will give brief
false rings on the leading edge of a DC voltage.

> Now my question is why does the phone do this every night at 12:02
> A.M.?  Is the phone company testing the line in some way, and is my
> phone detecting the changes in voltage?  Does the phone company do
> routine testing nightly and does the computer check phones at the same
> time each night?

This is known as an ALIT (Automatic Line Insulation Test), performed
by the phone company in the wee hours of the morning to detect faults
in the twisted pair serving your home.  ALIT involves placing a DC
voltage of about 100v across the pair and measuring the leakage
current.  This subject has been discussed in this Digest extensively
in the past.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 17:09:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Colin
Tuttle) writes:

> I have a curious problem with my telephone every night at 12:02 A.M.
> I know it is at 12:02 A.M. because the phone next to the bed is a
> Magnavox clock radio/telephone combination.

> Anyway back to the problem.  Every morning at 12:02 I get a little
> chirp, or a belltap on the phone.  The phone has the "added feature"
> of belltap so you do hear when someone hangs up the phone.  Some might
> call it a bug, but I'm sure the Magnavox engineers put this on the
> phone as a convenience item, and a reason to buy their model rather
> than Sony's.

This is most likely the result of Automated Subscriber Loop testing
conducted by the TELCO. This is done as a preventative maintainence
routine, to locate cable problems before they deteriorate to the point
of causing subscriber troble.

In performing the test, the line is disconnected from the switch and
connected to a measurement head. When the test is completed (about 1
second), the line is re-connected to the switch. When the
re-connection takes place, the initial -48v battery connection can
cause some phones to belltap.


John Rice    K9IJ    [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Jan 92 11:21:46 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Under Data Modem


In a recent issue, [e-mail] writes:

> Who is aware of hardware products (and related software products) that
> support simultaneous transmission of data and voice on either a

Contact Coherent Communications, in Hauppauge, New York. They make at
least two version of what you're looking for. One is a 300 baud
full-duplex unit, and another is 1200 baud half duplex (I think.) The
product was discussed in a recent issue of QST magazine, in an article
about remote operation of amateur radio stations.


Lawrence Rachman, WA2BUX     reply to [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 21:15:53 PST
From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Problem with Procomm; Help Needed
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


I believe that NN is sending cursor addressing commands, rather than
carriage returns and linefeeds.  Procomm doesn't know what to do with
such codes later, so displays the text, but no formatting information.

Call it a bug or a feature, but you will have to reread the info again
from the newsreader.


Ed Greenberg         | Home: [phone] | [e-mail]
P. O. Box 28618        | Work: [phone] | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95159    | Fax:  [phone] | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)

------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V12 #36
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06047;
          15 Jan 92 1:57 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03847
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 15 Jan 1992 00:10:18 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30227
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 15 Jan 1992 00:09:55 -0600
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 00:09:55 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #37

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 15 Jan 92 00:09:51 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 37

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (David Ash)
    Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (Carl Moore)
    Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (Joel B. Levin)
    Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? ([e-mail])
    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (Nancy J. Airey)
    Re: Phone Humor (Steven Leikeim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person?
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 14:16:37 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I use Person-to-Person about once a month.  It is really handy in
certain circumstances.  Imagine having to call a stateside
corporation's main switchboard, asking for a person or people who work
in a far-flung location (in my case an oil platform) to which the
switchboard will connect you, then once onto the oil rig's phone you
have to wait a minute or two until the individual can make it to the
office where the cellular (or is it some other kind?) phone is.

No matter when you call, you must go through this time-consuming
(about five minutes, usually) process.  Calling schedules don't work
in this application, I have found, because the phone is sometimes busy
at the rig.

That's why _I_ use person-to-person.  It works out to be cheaper.
Once in a while, if it looks like the conversation will be any length
of time at all, one of us will hang up and call the other right back
at direct dialed rates.  That's often a pain in the neck to do,
though.

Bottom line: If you have to reach someone via long distance and that
individual is usually "away" but available to come to a phone when
they know they have a call or if that call has to be switched manually
to Helenback, then Person-to-Person might be the best way to go.

Aside question: I'm guessing that oil rigs (at least in the Gulf of
Mexico) use cellular primarily.  Is that so?  If not, what do they use
 -- radio telephone?  I think the switchboard tries radio first and if
that doesn't work they ring through on cellular.  Sometimes the
switchboard puts me on hold for what seems like quite a while,
apparently while they make the connection (and the IXC operator stays
with me -- (s)he's nice like that :-).  Do any Digest/c.d.t readers
call to rigs a lot?  That might make for a nice submission here -- Oil
Rig Telecommunications.  In any event, my connections have always been
full duplex; that's why I suspect cellular is the method used.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (David Ash)
Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 21:05:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> davidra%dionysos.thphys@
prg.oxford.ac.uk (davidra) writes:

> Can you discern any continuing reason for the person-to-person
> service, outside, perhaps, of non-dialable countries and exchanges?

Two possible purposes for person-to-person:

1. It serves a useful purpose in concert with a collect call.  If the
person who will be answering the phone is not someone you know (and
therefore is likely to refuse the charges) person-to-person will force
the operator to get the person you want to talk to before asking
whether to accept the charges.

2. It may slightly increase the importance with which the called
party, if it's a business, deals with the call.  I worked for a
company where person-to-person calls were announced on the intercom
as "David Ash, long distance, line 1".  Whether the person paged in
this manner was more likely to actually take the call is debatable,
but it might have made a bit of difference.

Obviously (2) is questionable grounds in itself for maintaining the
service, but (1) is a legitimate use for person-to-person that I still
find useful from time to time.  I hope the telcos don't abandon the
service.


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

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 20:06:39 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person?
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> Have you ever wondered what the purpose is of the person-to-person
> call?

> [Moderator's Note: It is just a historical artifact here; a thing
> which was a useful service at one point but has no useful purpose now
> except to enhance fraud calls as you pointed out. I'm surprised the
> telcos still keep offering the service.   PAT]

Here are a few more for the antiquated list:

Time-and-charges: This service allows you to receive the length and
cost of a call immediately after call termination via an operator
callback.  The surcharge is currently $2.50.  For the call I just
priced, the per-minute evening rate is $.15, so it would cost almost
17 minutes of talk time just for this service.  Since you can quite
easily time the call yourself and get the rate quickly from the
operator (that is, if you are using AT&T), this seems quite silly (or
"really stupid", to use the operator's words!)

Here's something that may be of interest to others: The direct-dial
evening rate from 206 to 213 quoted by AT&T is 14 cents for the first
minute, and 15 cents for additional minutes.  So, here's the proof of
the "first minute lower than additional minutes" myth that was going
around last month.

Last year, a semi-telephony-interested friend and I were fooling
around, and we were discussing days of Mother past.  (His father and
uncle have worked for RBOCs for many years each, so he grew up
listening to long stories of technical telco issues from an insider's
point of view.  Every time I visit with him at his parent's or uncle's
house, he rolls his eyes when I start up a telco conversation.  But I
really enjoy being able to have technical discussions with folks that
really know what's going on.  His father even refers to the voice part
of a call as "the message".)

Anyway, we decided to place our first time-and-charges call.  The
amusement we got from it was well worth the cost: We placed it with
0+, and got "AT&T, your billing?"  Our response was concise: "Time and
charges please".  There was a delay that was slightly longer than
usual, then an almost angry "Thank you for using AT&T" from the
operator.  My friend conjectured that she had to spend time to locate
the key on the terminal, whose position was one of the few not known
by heart.  It was really funny that she seemed angry for us wanting to
do this.

After the call completed, we got a prompt callback from a different
operator.  She identified herself as an AT&T operator and said she was
calling back for a time-and-charges call.  Her tone of voice was
terribly unsure and insecure: She really sounded like she believed
this to be a mistake, and that she had reached a party that would know
nothing of the call.  I assured her that she had reached the right
person, and got the report.  Sprint and MCI don't offer this service
(of course), and ComSystems had never heard of it (my experience has
shown that their operators have also never heard of Equal Access or
10XXX dialing -- so much for training! :-( )

Another antiquated service is third-number billing, although this one
is still used quite a bit.  There are a lot of people who just cannot
deal with a "newfangled" calling card, and will always place
occasional away-from-home calls in this manner.  Telco will have to
continue to provide this service despite the fraud that results.
Another person I know got several third-number billing calls on their
bill.  When they disputed, the originating number turned out to be
from a residential line in the same city.  Talk about stupid people!
So, they ended up paying for the calls anyway, and at operator-
assisted rates.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 12:53:58 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person?


I am not sure what abuse you are talking about.  I read long ago that
the person-to-person rate will apply even if you agree to talk to an
alternate person or extension.


[Moderator's Note: *IF* you agree to talk. Unfortunatly there is much
fraud by people who call person-to-person to (in an example) "Clark
Wilson, Extension 830" in order to deliver a free message to the other
end saying 'meet me at Clark and Wilson St. at 8:30 PM'. The called
party refuses the charges (why not? the message has been delivered
 ...)  and the caller refuses to speak with anyone else ... both
parties then disconnect and the unwitting operator was the vehicle for
the fraud. And with the new automated system where you record your
'name' on request and it is played out automatically to the called
party, the phreaks stealing service in this way don't even bother with
a thin veil of cow manure: They just say whatever they want to say in
the few seconds alloted for 'recording their name'.  It gets played to
the called party who refuses charges or claims the called person is
not there.  Petty theft by petty people.   PAT]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person?
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 09:04:51 EST


davidra <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Can you discern any continuing reason for the person-to-person
> service, outside, perhaps, of non-dialable countries and exchanges?

> [Moderator's Note: It is just a historical artifact here; a thing
> which was a useful service at one point but has no useful purpose now
> except to enhance fraud calls as you pointed out. I'm surprised the
> telcos still keep offering the service.   PAT]

I believe it still allows one to leave a message of the form "Please
call operator 32 in Boston" so that when the person returns the call
can be completed at the caller's expense.


JBL
nets: [e-mail]    |    BBN Communications
  or: ...!bbn!levin    |    M/S  20/7A
POTS: [phone]  |    150 Cambridge Park Drive
FAX:  [phone]  |    Cambridge, MA  02140

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 15:24:33 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person?


Not so! Person-to-person still does have a use. Yesterday I got a
call:

"AT&T calling Person-to-Person for JOHN SMITH of MIKE COMPANY."

I said "This is John Smith, but I don't recognize that company" to
wit, the calling party chimed in with "Mike Company in Viet Nam." I
said "Sorry wrong number" and hung up. Cost to calling party: $0.00!

If they had dialed direct, it would have been billed. (Incidentally, I
got the exact same call two minutes later on my modem's line! He must
have been calling every J. Smith in our book!)


73

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 14:45:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ronald
T. Crocker) writes:

> Caller ID is a signal, send by the class 5 office to your phone, that
> contains some information vis a vis the party calling you. This
> information is sent between the first and second power ringing bursts
> for normal analog loops. (The behavior is slightly different for
> ISDN).

With this statement, I nominate Mr. Crocker for the Understatement of
the Year award ;-)

> ANI stands for Automatic Number Identification. This is part of the
> internal signalling among switches in the phone network. Currently,
> this number is passed from the originating switch to the terminating
> switch via intermediate switches.

Not exactly.  Where an end office has local AMA capability, ANI is not
used at all for direct-dialed non-911 intra-LATA calls.  When ANI is
used, it generally is only used to pass the Billing Number from point
A directly to point B, where point B is an IXC switch, OSPS, E911
PSAP, or CAMA switch.  ANI is not used for end-to-end delivery of a
Billing Number.

> For caller ID, if you have entered the appropriate service agreement
> with the service provider, then CID numbers will be delivered. I'm not
> exactly sure what happens when you call from a non-CID area to a CID
> area. My understanding of the service is that ANI is converted to CID
> by the end office, and sent down your loop if you have the service.

Nope.  Calling Party Number Delivery uses *only* the Calling Party
Number parameter from the SS7 IAM.  There is no interworking with ANI.
And since ANI is not used to send BN to the terminating switch, it
wouldn't add much hit rate to the service anyway.

IXC number-delivery services such as AT&T's INFO-2 (TM) do interwork
Billing Number and Calling Party Number delivery; provisioning options
can be set so that if one is unavailable, the other is sent.

> Since ANI is sent by all (ok, almost all) offices, your number will
> probably show up on a CID box if you don't (or can't) block the
> delivery.

Your number will only show up on a CID box if the call is signaled SS7
all the way; currently (1/13/92) that means an intra-LATA call with
the trunk from the originating office to the terminating office, and
to and from any intermediate tandem offices, are SS7 signaled.  How
will you know if this is the case?  Good question ...


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

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 10:34:03 EST
From: [e-mail] (Nancy J Airey)
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(24411-sohl,william h) writes:

> Caller ID requires ANI (Automatic Number Identification) to be able to
> deliver the calling party's number to the called party's display
> device.

Not true.

>> * What, exactly, is ANI?

> Automatic Number Identification is the inclusion of the calling
> party's telephone number in the routing and call setup messaging which
> takes place in order for the call to be established.

Not true.

ANI passes the BTN (Billing telephone number) using in-band signaling
 -- the "old" CAMA (Centralized Automatic Message Accounting)
signaling.  In most cases the ANI (BTN) is the same as the DN
(Directory Number) but not always.  You cannot "block" ANI.  You must
have network connections using CAMA trunks to pass ANI.  Note: E911
uses ANI, not CLID (Caller Line Identification).

CLID requires SS7 connections between offices.

CLID is always passed between offices when the SS7 connections are in
place, the function of display relates to the blocking feature.  Even
if the number is blocked, if you have certain features (such as
Automatic recall -- or call back, whichever your company calls it) or
other CLASS features such as Screen List Editing -- you can call the
number back, or put it on a "special" list.  If you ask for your list
to "playback" you are not told the number, but simply that that list
position is a "private" number.

Hope this helps.


att!hrcca!jean

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven Leikeim)
Subject: Re: Telecom Humor
Organization: ECE Department, U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 05:27:24 GMT


Seen in the comics section, {Calgary Herald}, 11 Jan 92.

The comic strip is "Dilbert". Distributed by United Feature Syndicate,
Inc.

First pane:

    Phone rings

Second pane:

    Dilbert listening on phone.

    Caller: "Hello! This is a long distance company with vague promises
        of unverifiable savings if you switch to us."

Third pane:

    Caller: "Is this an inconvenient time for you?"

    Dilbert: "No."

    Caller: "Oh, then we'll call back later."


Steven Leikeim    University of Calgary
Department of Electrical Engineering
Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #37
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10948;
          15 Jan 92 2:52 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28092
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 15 Jan 1992 01:08:56 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01270
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 15 Jan 1992 01:08:33 -0600
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 01:08:33 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #38

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 15 Jan 92 01:08:13 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 38

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Zip + 6? (Mitt Simpson)
    Re: Zip + 6? (Jiro Nakamura)
    Re: Zip + 6? (Bob Frankston)
    Re: Zip + 6? (Linc Madison)
    Re: Zip + 6? ([e-mail])
    Re: Zip + 6? (S. Spencer Sun)
    Re: Zip + 6? (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: Zip + 6? (Gary Morris)
    Re: Zip + 6? ([e-mail])
    Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit? (James Barrett)
    Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Tim Gorman)
    Re: International Discount Telecommunications (Peter da Silva)
    Re: I Got Cancer by Phone (was I Got Pregnant Through Phone Sex) (C Moore)
    Re: Dialed as 800, Billed For 900 (Carl Moore)
    Re: Radio Links for Rural Telephone ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 09:51:22 EST
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Zip + 6?


There has been some discussion about adding two more digits to the zip
code, and whether the Postal Service has considered adding checksums.
My understanding, from meetings with the university mail service folks
here, is that the Postal Service intends, in the near future, to add
the last two digits of the street number to the bar-coded zip code.
They do not plan to require the customer to print an 11-digit zip code
on the envelope. The extra two digits will be only in the bar-code.
Those customers that do their own bar-coding to save a few cents per
envelope will probably be offered an additional incentive to bar-code
the extra two digits.

I assume it will be left up to their software designers whether to
expand the zip-code field in their databases to 11 digits, or whether
to simply extract the extra two digits from the address field.
Considering checksums, the current bar-code format for five and
nine-digit zip-codes does include a check digit. The bar-code on an
envelope contains six or ten characters (of five bars each), plus a
start and stop bar, making 52 bars for a nine-digit zip code. Since
this extra digit is not part of the zip code as assigned by the
post-office, its value is somewhat limited. I assume it is used to
detect scan errors when the bar code is being read. But it doesn't
prevent data-entry errors entering a zip-code into a data-base, as it
would if it was a permanent part of the zip-code. Apparently the
Postal Service's solution to this problem is to provide additional
incentives to large mailers to "clean up" their data bases; to be
eligible for certain discounts, you must have processed your data base
with "certified" software which uses databases provide by the Postal
Service to eliminate erroneous addresses.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jiro Nakamura)
Subject: Re: Zip + 6?
Organization: Shaman Consulting
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 15:21:30 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Bob_Frankston@frankston.
std.com writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Have you really heard something saying the present
> zip code (five digits plus four optional) is being increased by two
> more optional digits?  PAT]

    Oh yeah. I read about this one. Apparently what they want to
do is to not only specify the general area of the receiver, but the
*exact* location. Zip + 4 + 2 would let them do that.

    What the USPS would like to do in the long run is to have just
a single number for everyone. They'd punch it into their database and
come up with your current address. Hey! It'd be like in The Cuckoo's
Egg:

    Jiro Nakamura
    Zip 14850-4947-23-93-3492

    Wouldn't that be convenient? :-)

I *would* like a universal phone number though. ;-!


Jiro Nakamura        [e-mail]
The Shaman Group    [phone] Voice/Fax/Data

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Zip + 6?
Date: Mon 13 Jan 1992 13:02 -0500


Oops -- the Moderator was appropriately puzzled by this message.  It
was a followup to a discussion in the Risks Digest.  Autoreply
capabilities in email and/or phone systems are often more powerful
than one expects -- the eyes might focus on one window while the
system is on another.

To be honest, I'm too fluent in typing and my brain is too trusting --
it will send a message to my fingers and then go on to the next task.
So this isn't as much a risk of technology as a risk in any open loop
system.


[Moderator's Note: Honestly, this is the first time I've ever gotten
such a volume of replies (you are seeing a sampling of them in this
issue) as a result of someone's group selection error!   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 03:20:01 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Zip + 6?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Bob_Frankston@frankston.
std.com writes:

> As addresses creep up to 11 digits, has the Post Office heard about
> checksums or other techniques to reduce errors?

> [Moderator's Note: Have you really heard something saying the present
> zip code (five digits plus four optional) is being increased by two
> more optional digits?  PAT]

Well, to answer both your questions:

(1) All POSTNET barcodes have checksums, whether you're using five,
nine or eleven-digit, ZIP Codes.  It's a simple 10's complement.  Note
that all POSTNET barcodes begin and end with a throwaway "tall" bar.

(2) Yes, 11-digit ZIP Codes are already in use.  The extra two digits
on top of your existing nine digits identify the specific MAILBOX to
deliver to.  Many nine-digit ZIPs are specific, like my very own
94701-2811, but most cover an enormous geographic territory -- the
entirety of one side of one block of a street in many instances!  (
;-P ) In those cases, the additional two digits sort the mail into the
order of the delivery route.  So if you get any mail with 62 bars
across the bottom instead of the usual 52 or 32, now you know why.
Expect to see it only on VERY large volume mailers, though.

Of course, the Postal Service will have to make do with 11 digits or
risk exceeding the CCITT recommendation for national numbers ... ;->

(My source for the info on ZIP + 6 is SYNEX Software in Brooklyn, NY
11215-4502 (sorry, they don't list the ZIP + 6) who are at MacWorld
Expo this week.  They make a product for the Mac that does not only
POSTNET but also UPC, ISBN, CODE 39, CODE 25, and various other
barcodes I've never even heard of.  They also make a product just for
doing envelopes and mailing labels.)

By the way, just in the last few months, the USPS relaxed the rules on
placement of the barcodes on the envelope, so you'll start seeing more
of them with the barcodes in the address block itself instead of in
the lower right corner.


Linc Madison  ==  94701-2811@USPS  ==  [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 08:03 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Zip + 6?
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand


> As addresses creep up to 11 digits, has the Post Office
> heard about checksums or other techniques to reduce errors?

Yes, though perhaps not as strong as you would like.  On bar codes,
besides the expected five, nine, or eleven digits, a trailing digit is
added as a check digit.  Value is 10 - (sum of other digits % 10),
with the special case that 10 is of course 0.

> [Moderator's Note: Have you really heard something saying the present
> zip code (five digits plus four optional) is being increased by two
> more optional digits?  PAT]

Not exactly.  There will be two more digits, but they won't be exactly
optional.  The last two digits are intended to be included in
bar-codes only, and are the last two digits of the house number.

These digits probably won't be required for cases where the zip + 4 is
unique.  My home PO box is unique, for instance, in zip + 4.

The post office says that they anticipate requiring the added digits
(and bar-codes) for maximum discount no sooner than late 1993.

And, yes, I'm the one who gets to be sure that our church software can
generate the bar-codes on the mailing labels.  I should be most
interested in hearing what other folks are doing about the fact that
the most common printers can't generate a bar that is quite long
enough in a single print pass.  Are you just firing all eight pins and
hoping no one will notice the missing thousandths of an inch, or are
you making two passes?  If the latter, how is the alignment?


{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Zip + 6?
Organization: Princeton Class of '94
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 19:40:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>,  Bob_Frankston@frankston.
std.com writes:

> As addresses creep up to 11 digits, has the Post Office heard about
> checksums or other techniques to reduce errors?

> [Moderator's Note: Have you really heard something saying the present
> zip code (five digits plus four optional) is being increased by two
> more optional digits?  PAT]

In a {USA Today} study, in which 1000 letters were sent, ZIP + 4
letters actually took LONGER to arrive (the percentage of five-digit
coded letters arriving on time was larger than the percentage of
nine-digit coded letters arriving on time, where "on time" means the
number of days promised by USPS -- one day locally, two days within
600 miles, three days outside of 600 miles in the continental US.)

I think 75% arrived on time, 20% one day late and the rest more than
that.  (Some got lost) ... the study included purposely misaddressed
letters, house numbers that were off by one, ZIP codes that were off
by one, etc.


S. Spencer Sun - WWIVnet #1 @6913 - 609-258-8647 - USR DS v.32bis

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

From: Rich Greenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Zip + 6?
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 22:17:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Bob_Frankston@frankston.
std.com writes:

> As addresses creep up to 11 digits, has the Post Office heard about
> checksums or other techniques to reduce errors?

When the zip + 4 number is bar-coded on the envelope, there is an
extra digit which is a modulo-10 checksum.


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: telesoft![e-mail] (Gary Morris)
Subject: Re: Zip + 6?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 00:05:30 GMT


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

> As addresses creep up to 11 digits, has the Post Office heard about
> checksums or other techniques to reduce errors?

The optical scanners also check that the city/state goes with the zip
code.  When mail is barcoded there is a check digit in the barcode.

> [Moderator's Note: Have you really heard something saying the present
> zip code (five digits plus four optional) is being increased by two
> more optional digits?  PAT]

Yes, and I just confirmed that Zip + 6 is being worked on with my
commericial account rep at the USPS.  They're going to try to get more
information on it.


GaryM -- Gary Morris
Internet: [e-mail] KK6YB  UUCP: ucsd!telesoft!garym
TeleSoft, San Diego, CA   Phone: [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 00:32:31 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Zip + 6?


USPS DOES use checksums in ZIP+4. Add up all of the digits and subtract
from the next highest multiple of ten (or use 0 if the sum is a multiple
of ten). The "remainder"/checksum is the last digit in the POSTNET
bar-code (the 1/4"Hx2 or 3"W one at the bottom right of the envelope).
The ZIP+4 itself does not, though, carry any intrinsic checksum or error
detection/correction, to my knowledge.

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

From: [e-mail] (James Barrett)
Subject: Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit?
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 12:38:31 GMT


[e-mail] (Bob Ackley) writes:

> In a message of <03 Jan 92 17:05:34>, Gary Deol (11:30102/2) writes:

>> Does anybody know why the middle number in a area-code is always a
>> zero or one? Things that make you say Hmmmmmmmm :^)

> I believe it's to differentiate the area code numbers from the
> exchange prefixes (none of which contain a zero or one as the second
> digit).

Since this is no longer true (my phone number is (404) 814-xxxx), is
there any movement towards allowing more area codes?


James C. Barrett ([e-mail])
Georgia Tech College of Computing


[Moderator's Note: Yes there is. By 1995 (maybe 1994) new area codes
will look like prefixes used to look; that is, they will NOT have zero
or one as the second digit.   PAT]

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

Date: 13 Jan 92 08:55:30 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered


Malcolm Dunnett <[e-mail]> writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #31:

> In the overall scheme of things these errors are trivial, but I find it
> annoying that in this age of ANI and other high tech "miracles" the
> equipment can't even tell if the call was answered. The central office
> obviously knows since we don't get billed for calls that aren't completed.

> Are there any PBXs which can do this? Is the problem in our equipment?

I suspect the problem is that although you have what are called "PBX
trunks", they are really a line side service on the central office
switch.  Answer supervision is not provided on the line side of the
CO, primarily because the loop must be "supervised" at all times to
detect off/on-hook conditions.

If you want answer supervision for correctly tracking call details,
you will need to contact the local telephone company to see about
Direct Out Dial (DOD) service. This service should be provided from
the trunk side of the central office and allow passing of call
supervision states. This will probably require different equipment in
your PBX, at the very least different software options. This service
may also have some limitations on the dialing patterns you can use
because of the limitations of the call registers on the trunk side
versus the line side, usually this has to do with the length of the
digit stream.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: International Discount Telecommunications
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 14:49:23 GMT


You could set this up pretty easily with a PC and a couple of modems.
The only part that's not off the shelf is establishing the conference
call under computer control (unless you want to spring for an IBM clone
and a Watson board: the "PC" above can be a surplus Commodore-64 or
equivalent: your Nintendo certainly has enough CPU power to handle the
job).


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 11:42:04 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Got Cancer by Phone (was I Got Pregnant Through Phone Sex)


I don't know if this is going beyond telecom, but I did hear an item a
while back about health concerns caused by nearby high-tension power
lines.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 11:43:35 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dialed as 800, Billed For 900


I think I made one call to 800-555-5555 from a pay phone.

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 15:21:46 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Radio Links for Rural Telephone


Part 90 does (used to?) authorize licensees on the special emergency
(?)  (class PS, I think) service. These frequencies are usually used
for Medical, SAR, and School buses, but are authorized to connect
remote areas with nearby centers of population. The frequencies around
155.175 MHz on 15 KHz channels are available. Licensees can have one
transmitter in the remote area and one in the center of population. If
anybody really wants it, I'll see if I can get the quote from FCC
90.???


73

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #38
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13681;
          15 Jan 92 3:27 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21713
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 15 Jan 1992 01:46:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31043
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 15 Jan 1992 01:45:56 -0600
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 01:45:56 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #39

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 15 Jan 92 01:45:50 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 39

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Rolf Meier)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Jim Hutchison)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Ron Dippold)
    Re: Multiple Calls on One Access to Sprint 800 877 8000 (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Question - Pause Lengths for Fax/Modem Credit Card Calls? (A Burnstine)
    Re: Question - Pause Lengths for Fax/Modem Credit Card Calls? (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Question - Pause Lengths for Fax/Modem Credit Card Calls? (B. Campbell)
    Re: Who Picked Exchange Names? (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Rolf Meier)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 09:21:37 -0500
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> Bottom line: We have an officially capacity tested (tests observed by
> the major companies in the industry) CDMA system in the field that
> gives a capacity improvement of 10 to 30 times (depending on
> conditions) over an AMPS system, with better voice quality, better
> handoffs, and less dropped calls.

[CDMA sales pitch deleted]

Readers should be made aware that Qualcomm's CDMA proposal is not
likely to become a national digital standard for cellular.  It will be
a TDMA system as outlined in IS-54.

In my personal opinion, Qualcomm's claims are designed more to raise
the price of Qualcomm shares than actual capacity advantages over
TDMA.


Rolf Meier    Mitel Corporation

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Date: 12 Jan 92 22:00:57 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
org (John McHarry) writes:

> Conversion will come cell by cell and system by system, so you will
> still have to speak AMPS for many years to come.

In some of the systems being deployed today, conversion from AMPS to
TDMA will come channel-by-channel within the existing cells.  You'll
still want dual-mode mobiles for a few years, but the digital mode can
be introduced in gradual way, as digital-mode mobiles become gradually
more common among the users.


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] (Jim Hutchison)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Organization: Qualcomm Incorporated
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 21:04:56 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig
Ibbotson) writes:

> TDMA proponents say this will offer a 3.7 time capacity of existing
> analog systems.  Proponents say it will offer a 20X capacity increase.
> The main advantages of digital cellular (regardless of technology) are
> capacity increase and the introduction of data services.

At a CTIA meeting, the presented improvement was 10x under conditions
(noise) in which a regular AMPS call would be unbearable, and 30x
under favorable conditions.  The 10x was "proven" by doing field
experiments and injecting noise at the cell.  All observed by third
parties (I'm not at liberty to list relationships, please contact
Qualcomm if you want "names" of observers).

Has the 3.7x number for TDMA been proven in the field with third party
observers?  If so, what noise conditions?  Speed tests?

> It is going to be very interesting to see what happens in the digital
> cellular market.  TDMA was the initial technology of choice, picked
> over FDMA after lengthy trials here in the US.  After TDMA was chosen,
> however, a company called Qualcomm met with some of the larger
> cellular vendors and convinced them that CDMA could greatly increase
> their capacity and provide some additional features.  Both
> technologies are in market trials now, and the initial indications are
> that both work.

Lengthy trials?  Uh, field capacity tests?  I heard that TDMA had gone
through "lock down" where vendor equipment is tested against a
standard, but nothing about lengthy field tests.  I'm speaking in
terms of something like the New Jersey/Chicago tests that were done
with AMPS.

> TDMA is the basis for GSM, which is in commercial service in Europe,
> so it is a proven player.

A thing, which is a basis for another thing, is not proven merely
because it's progeny is proven.


Jim Hutchison    {dcdwest,ucbvax}!ucsd!qualcomm!hutch or [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  I am not an official spokesman for Qualcomm

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 23:48:12 GMT


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> it was written:

>> Even better, we use active power control (something we can do because
>> it's digital).  The mobile and cell channel elements transmit with
>> only as much power they need.  If you're close to the cell, you don't
>> need much power.  As you get farther away, it slowly boosts power.

> Just the way AMPS works today.

Not exactly.  I've worked enough with AMPS to be familiar with the
AMPS power control methods. There are significant differences in the
way it happens in AMPS and in CDMA which significantly affect the
overall power consumption, voice quality, and reaction to areas with
bad coverage.  I wish I could go into this further without giving the
lawyers a heart attack.

>> In addition, we can divide the channel between different data sources,
>> so you could send voice and data (from a modem, perhaps) on the same
>> channel.  What we can do is limited only by the messages we can think
>> up to send back and forth.

> What advantage is this going to be to the individual subscriber?
> Answer: the same advantage that individual subscribers get from ISDN:
> nothing!  The carriers will undoubtedly price the data services at

Yep, that's up to the carriers.  The possibilities are there, however.
If they price it too outrageously, you can always switch the phone to
AMPS and use your trusty CellBlazer.

> A user with a 2400 baud dialup or 9600 baud fax need will have to pay
> whatever rate the carrier sets for these services, as they will not
> operate properly over the voice channel.  And the user has to pay for
> more-expensive equipment to do this, at least initially.

Hey, it's a status symbol!  Only a half-smiley on that.  What we need
is a way to make it obvious from the outside of the car that you've
got one of these ...

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 19:32:06 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multiple Calls on One Access to Sprint 800 877 8000
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> On my latest Sprint bill, they charged me an access charge for every
> call I made during a single connect to their 800 number.  I could
> swear that it used to be billed such that only one access charge was
> charged per call to the 800, when one used the # sign to start a new
> call.

> Did their billing method change?

To the best of my knowledge, all of the three major carriers have
billed this way always.  The advantage they tout is that if the hotel
you are in charges for calling card calls, that the hotel will charge
you only once.  As a practical matter, it is because they have no way
of doing otherwise.  I'm sure it's not out of the goodness of their
hearts!  (Maybe they should just charge the calling card surcharge in
multiples of how many times the # key is hit! :-) )

> Still waiting for my Metromedia/ITT calling card ...

I got mine last week.  Pretty normal, except there's one thing I
noticed: The ka-bong prompt for your calling card number is only a
decaying dialtone sound -- there's no 50ms of the # tone.  At first I
wondered how many people this would affect that have tone-to-pulse
converters on their lines that require the # to shut off.  Then, I
realized that the ka-bong sounds only after you key in the desired
called number after a different prompt tone.  Then I got to thinking:
This is the same procedure that Sprint uses for their FON-cards: the
first thing you hear is a non-standard tone to prompt you for the
called number.  It's probably not much of an issue these days, but I'd
imagine that it was a problem with Sprint five or six years ago when
stuff like tone-to-pulse was still around somewhat.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 14:10 GMT
From: Alan Burnstine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Question - Pause Lengths for Fax/Modem Credit Card Calls?


> I sometimes need to bill fax or modem calls to a credit card.  The
> pause length between the phone number and the tone requesting your
> credit card number seems to vary a lot.  Sometimes the call goes
> through okay, other times I can hear an operator's voice through my
> fax or PC speaker.  How many seconds are you supposed to have your
> machines wait before you enter the credit card number?  Any help you
> can be will probably please a lot of phone operators (as I don't even
> hear them half the time if I have a radio on or if I'm talking to
> someone in the room).

I don't know about other company calling cards, but on the MCI card,
the tone/pause between the dialed number and the calling card number
is a courtesy.  I never wait for the tone, I simply dial my called-to
number and my calling card number together.

The only exception is on international calls where I insert a "#" between the
dialed number and the card number.

Note: the "0" that the card instructions say to use before the area
code on your dialed number is also a courtesy to make the card work
like other company cards.  It is not required, although 01 is
required for international calling.

Note 2: The pause between the Access number and the dialed number is
critical, I find five seconds is about right. (Seven when calling from
the PBX at work.)

I have not tested the pause times on the "NEW" MCI card yet, although
I do have one already.


Alan Burnstine   MCI Telecommunications    MCI-Mail 374-9269
"Standard Disclaimers Apply"

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Question - Pause Lengths for Fax/Modem Credit Card Calls?
Date: 13 Jan 92 22:28:05 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, disk![e-mail]
(tony) writes:

> I sometimes need to bill fax or modem calls to a credit card.  The
> pause length between the phone number and the tone requesting your
> credit card number seems to vary a lot.  Sometimes the call goes
> through okay, other times I can hear an operator's voice through my
> fax or PC speaker.  How many seconds are you supposed to have your
> machines wait before you enter the credit card number?  Any help you
> can be will probably please a lot of phone operators (as I don't even
> hear them half the time if I have a radio on or if I'm talking to
> someone in the room).

The amount of time after you dial until you get the credit card prompt
(bong) tone, and the amount of time between the bong tone and when the
operator comes on the line, is variable; you can't assume a fixed
duration.

The "@" (Wait for Quiet Answer) dial modifier in Hayes modems will
usually "trigger" on a bong tone.  You insert it between the phone
number and your credit card number; it listens for the tone, followed
by five seconds of silence, then proceeds with the rest of the dial
string (dialing your card number).

Two problems can occur: the modem can't recognize the bong tone, or,
more likely, the operator comes on sooner than five seconds.  For
these eventualities, I have a script that turns on the modem speaker,
and waits for an <enter> on the keyboard between dialing the phone
number and the card number.  You COULD try to figure out, by trial and
error, how many commas to insert between the phone number and card
number, but that's a pain in the neck.

Hayes has defined a new dial modifier, "$", which will specifically
wait for the BONG tone and continue dialing immediately afterwards
(rather than waiting for five seconds of silence), but I don't think
this is implemented in any current products (it's coming, though!)


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] (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: Question - Pause Lengths for Fax/Modem Credit Card Calls?
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 16:45:25 GMT


In <[e-mail]> disk![e-mail] (tony) writes:

> I sometimes need to bill fax or modem calls to a credit card.  The
> pause length between the phone number and the tone requesting your
> credit card number seems to vary a lot.  Sometimes the call goes
> through okay, other times I can hear an operator's voice through my
> fax or PC speaker.  How many seconds are you supposed to have your
> machines wait before you enter the credit card number?  Any help you
> can be will probably please a lot of phone operators (as I don't even
> hear them half the time if I have a radio on or if I'm talking to
> someone in the room).

I usually use six commas between the phone number and the credit card
number and it works ok.

    ATDT1028805551212,,,,,,99999999999999

This dialing sequence also gets me to AT&T so that my modem will work
properly :-).


Bill
INTERNET:  [e-mail]   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 12:06:32 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Picked Exchange Names?


Perhaps the question about letters on the dial and why there were
exchange names could be made into an FAQ.

It was in 1966, not 1975, that Wilmington (Delaware) and vicinity
stopped using 2L + 7D in its telephone directory.  Apparently the
Moderator's note refers only to Chicago?  Exchange names don't always
refer to place names; for example, there was Wilmington x-xxxx (before
direct-dial?) becoming OLympia x-xxxx, eventually 65x-xxxx, in area
code 302.

As you probably know, many recent advertisements make use of the
letters, which are still on the dial, to make their telephone numbers
easier to remember.

Other reasons for the change to 7D (from 2L+5D) were to:

Make more prefixes available (some of which are difficult or
impossible to get exchange names for.)

Eliminate the confusion between 0 and O (you will still notice some
intercept recordings using "oh" where zero is intended) and between 1
and I.

Speed up directory assistance (I recall it got changed from
"information" but don't recall when), so those operators don't have to
spell out unfamiliar exchange names.


[Moderator's Note: I can only speak with some authority about Chicago.
We began seeing 7-D in the book in the early sixties; but the mixture
continued until sometime in the early/middle seventies.  The number
recitations here (both directory and in intercept messages) use 'oh'
instead of 'zero' with the exception that two trailing zeros are
pronounced 'hundred' and three trailing zeros are pronounced 'thousand'.
In the few instances of someone with a number like xxx-0000 however
the nice lady says 'oh! oh! oh! oh!' like she is all excited about
something going on.  :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #39
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06881;
          16 Jan 92 3:16 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25158
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 16 Jan 1992 01:15:56 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26584
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 16 Jan 1992 01:15:37 -0600
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 01:15:37 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #40

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Jan 92 01:14:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 40

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Country Code 809? (Dan Proskauer)
    Re: Country Code 809? (David Leibold)
    Re: Canadian Caller-ID Specs (Marcus Leech)
    Re: Caller-ID Rejected in Indiana (John Goggan)
    Re: Caller ID Now Operational in Northern Illinois (John McHarry)
    Re: Caller ID Now Operational in Northern Illinois (David Lesher)
    Caller*ID/Fax/Modem/Answering Machine (Dave Levenson)
    800 and 900 ANI (Jerry Leichter)
    CID/ANI Blocking (David Ptasnik)
    Re: International ANI is Here? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: AT&T Calling-Card Advertisement (Phydeaux)
    Re: Panasonic Answering Machine (Where Has My Cuckoo Flown Away) (J. Hritz)
    Re: MCI Card With Voice Features (Bill Huttig)
    Re: MCI Card With Voice Features (Sean E. Williams)
    Re: MCI Card With Voice Features (Charles McGuinness)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dan Proskauer)
Subject: Re: Country Code 809?
Date: 13 Jan 92 19:33:06 GMT
Organization: Teradyne Inc., ICD, Boston MA


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

> I just noticed that my local (Ann Arbor, Mi) phone book lists the
> country code for "Caribbean Islands" in the international section as
> 809.  I think they're confused.

> For Cuba, it says, "see Guantanamo Bay."

The area code for the "Caribbean Islands" is 809.  As one who
frequently calls there, I know that 1-809-xxx-xxxx works just fine
from the U.S. (probably Canada and Mexico too, but I don't know).  I
have no idea what would happen if you tried 011-809- ... I've never
seen a three digit country code and have no idea what one would use
for a city code, perhaps 011-80-9-xxx-xxxx actually works.  It's not
worth it to me to find out for sure.


Dan Proskauer -- MS: H71 | Internet:  [e-mail]
Teradyne Inc.            |
321 Harrison Ave.        | Voice:     [phone]
Boston, Ma. 02118        | Fax:       [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 23:56:20 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Country Code 809?


In cruising through various phone books around the world, there does
seem to be plenty of confusion regarding what codes to use for the
Caribbean ... 809 is listed as a country code in many places even
though it is more correctly +1 809. Even within North America, 809 can
get listed as a country code rather than an NPA in some sources.

There are no known country codes beginning with 80, however, so it is
conceivable that there are a few countries using 809 as a hack code to
mean +1 809.

Switzerland had some bizarre codes used to reach Caribbean countries,
though. They seem to require +500 809 to have the same effect as +1
809 even though +500 is used for Falkland Islands already.

There are also noises about a separate country code soon to be in
effect for Trinidad and Tobago (+296) though no official word on if or
when that will take effect.


[e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Jan 92 11:56:00 EST
From: Marcus (M.D.) Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Canadian Caller-ID Specs


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

> I have been following the progress of the Caller-ID feature, and
> recently I bought a demodulator device (from Rochelle) and started
> writing a program to process the Caller-ID data.  I compared a hex
> dump of the data to the spec published in the Bellcore documents and
> posted to this group recently.  The message formats are quite
> different, with the only the preamble (hex 55) and checksum appearing
> to be the same.  I am now assuming that there is a different standard
> in Canada for the Caller-ID message format.

> Does anyone have documentation, or know where to get it, for the
> Canadian spec?

Some parts of the U.S. use "single-message" format, others use the
"multiple-message" format.  Bell Canada uses the the "multiple-message"
format.  Many of the units sold in the USA only understand the
"single-message" format.

Both formats are described in the Bellcore pubs (TR-TSY-0003{0,1}, I
think).


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

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

Organization: Central Michigan University
Date: Monday, 13 Jan 1992 19:56:06 EST
From: John Goggan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Rejected in Indiana


Why is it that Caller-ID was rejected in Indiana, yet various portions
of it do have "last caller call-back" features -- which ARE (according
to the "confused sounding" operator I spoke with) NOT blockable.
Anyone with the service can instantly call the last number back --
granted, it's not really the SAME as Caller-ID (because your number
isn't given to them), but they can still call you right back -- which
is sometimes not a good thing, especially since I make a lot of calls
from work or friends house and I don't want them calling me back.  I
just don't see how that is "ok" but Caller-ID is not ...


John Goggan  [[e-mail].]


[Moderator's Note: The difference is just a matter of degree, I guess.
With Caller-ID you are saying 'I want to specifically know the number
of the phone used to call me' while with Call-Back you are saying only
that you wish to complete the connection the other party attempted to
establish (and presumably he wants to talk to you also, or he would
not have called.)  I guess it is just how they choose to interpret the
purpose of the one versus the official purpose of the other.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John McHarry)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Now Operational in Northern Illinois
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: 14 Jan 92 13:10:25 GMT


PAT noted that caller ID in Northern Illinois works across both
Illinois Bell and Centel territories within the LATA.  How are they
passing the information?  Do they share an SS7 network, or have a
gateway, or use some other means?  Any idea what the billing
arrangements are?


John McHarry ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: There is a gateway through the central office known
as 'Chicago-Newcastle'. There is both an Illinois Bell 'Newcastle CO'
and a Centel 'Newcastle CO'. In case you are not already confused, the
Chicago-Newcastle office has both 312 exchanges and 708 exchanges
wired from it. IBT/Newcastle <--> Centel/Newcastle is a local, untimed
call. I think they just absorb each other's local traffic coming and going,
and I suppose that includes the peripheral features. I'm not sure what
they do about calls from Centel which go to other IBT points outside
the Newcastle office and vice-versa.   PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Now Operational in Northern Illinois
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 0:12:28 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


> Our system uses the standard *67 + number for blocking on a call by
> call basis as desired. In addition, the subscriber to caller-ID can
> turn off reception of numbers if desired with *85, and turn on the
> reception with *65, although I cannot imagine why the person paying to
> receive the information would want to turn off delivery.

Why? Because IBT is charging you PER CALL, for getting CNID. This is
in addition to the monthly charges.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: This is true, but since you have no way of telling
who will ring your phone next, do you want to risk having delivery
turned off on the very call where it might really matter?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Caller*ID/Fax/Modem/Answering Machine
Date: 16 Jan 92 00:19:39 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


A product called Dallas Fax caught my eye in Computer Shopper for
January 1992.  On page 548, they show an 8-bit PC-compatible card
which includes, for an advertised price of $149, all of:

    Caller*ID
    9600bps fax
    2400bps modem with V.42bis compression/error-correction
    Answering machine/voice mail.

I have no connection with these folks; and I have not bought the
product.  I thought it might interest a few of the readers of this
Digest.


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

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 09:39:44 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 and 900 ANI


In the interest of careful reasoning:

1.  Does a 900 provider extend you credit?  Well, sort of -- but
there's an intermediary in the telco, which acts as billing agent.
The argument that the 900 provider has the right to know who its
callers are in order to do billing is only legitimate when it actually
DOES billing.  That is, all this argument requires is that when the
telco flags a call as uncollectible, it pass along to the 900 provider
the identifying information it has.  If the call was collected by
the telco, the 900 provider has no inherent need or right to know who
the caller was.

2.  It may be true that it's easier to run up large 800 costs than to
run up huge costs with business reply envelopes and such, but the
difference, in this age of cheap copiers, isn't THAT great.  It's
probably illegal to mail duplicates of business reply envelopes -- but
then again it's illegal to harass a business by repeated abusive
calling of its 800 number.

Let me propose a general moral principle to keep in mind when thinking
about such issues: A law or regulation should not unduly inconvenience
the good because some might be bad.  This principle has to give way
when the bad become TOO abusive, but one must always strive to
minimize the inconvenience to the good.  Just because some people are
shoplifters doesn't mean we should all accept a search at the door;
but since there ARE many shoplifters, we should be willing to accept
the various fairly non-intrusive "check tag" mechanisms.


Jerry

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: CID/ANI Blocking
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 14:28:42 PDT


Andy Dunn posted:

> I agree with our esteemed Moderator.  Consider the fact that the 800
> number exists to answer your call whenever you call it, and that the
> company owning it pays a time-measured rate for the call.

> Remember the case reported here in the Digest (I think) last week
> where somebody tried to get revenge on a company by faxing them long
> faxes and tying up their phones?  What if they really were anonymous.

I want to be able to block ANI from my phone.  Let the person
receiving the call have the option of refusing a call from any blocked
number, or of blocking calls from my number.  The person receiving the
calls does not need to know my number in either case.

> [Moderator's Note: However Andy, I would refer you to John Higdon's
> message in this issue. 900 operators *do* pay for the call in the
> sense they are extending credit to you, the caller until you pay your
> phone bill and telco in turn remits to them. As someone who provides
> an extension of credit, they are also entitled to know who you are.  PAT]

They should have the option of refusing the call if you chose not to
identify yourself.  They might want to take the call, and give the
caller the option of billing to a credit card, but they could know in
advance whether the ANI was being blocked from the calling party.


Dave    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: International ANI is Here?
Date: 12 Jan 92 22:11:49 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Peter Clitherow) writes:

> When a customer calls the company, he lets the phone ring once and
> hangs up.  The black box is programmed to call back the customer's

> This implies that ANI can be delievered internationally, does it not?
> I never heard anything announced about this.  Are there CCITT specs
> for this?

No.  The company uses DID and assigns a different number to each
subscriber.  It identifies the calling subscriber by knowing which
number the subscriber dialed.  It then dials back the number of the
subscriber who 'owns' the number which was rung.  If the single ring
came from somewhere else, somebody wastes a trans-Atlantic call back.


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

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 08:58:25 PST
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: Re: AT&T Calling-Card Advertisement


> I just saw this posted above an AT&T coin phone:

> No charge for AT&T calling card, and you don't need a home phone or
> credit card to have one.  Call 800-551-3131 ext. 968.

> Sample credit card displayed; the only comment I have is that I see a
> non-areacode where the cards from the Baby Bells have had home phone

I've had one of these for years.  First three digits are 677.


reb
-- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:828 South May Street  Chicago,  IL 60607  312-733-3090
w:reb Ingres 10255 West Higgins Road Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500

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

From: [e-mail] (John I. Hritz)
Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machine (Where Has My Cuckoo Flown Away To?)
Date: 13 Jan 92 21:21:39 GMT
Organization: OTA Limited Partnership, Ann Arbor MI 48104 USA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Nigel Roberts 10-Jan-1992 1020) writes:

> There's an undocumented command (prog #22) which enable two-way
> recording without the tell-tale beep. I've been using this for some
> time. There's another undocumented command (prog #11 /prog #12) which

    I have a Panasonic answering machine, but am unsure of what
(prog #22) means.  Could you elaborate.

> Finally, the synthesised voice and cuckoo quit working recently. It's
> probably a hardware failure of the voice synthesiser chip, but just in
> case, before I take the machine in for repair, does any one know how
> to do a reset of the microprocessor? (I tried powering the machine off

    The voice stamp and cuckoo are not enabled when the clock
needs to be set.  It generally takes a long power failure for the CMOS to
lose its memory.  Try setting your personal ID code and the date/time.
That should clear up the problem.


John Hritz, [e-mail]
O.T.A. Limited Partnership
101 N. Main, Suite 410
Ann Arbor, MI 48103  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] ( Bill Huttig)
Subject: Re: MCI Card With Voice Features
Date: 13 Jan 92 19:14:25 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

> Reuters reports that MCI has a new calling card which also allows for
> access to various recorded message features (weather, news, voice

It is not really a new card ... It is the Teleconnect/TELECOM*USA card
with the MCI logo on it.


Bill

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

From: [e-mail] (S.E. Williams )
Subject: Re: MCI Card With Voice Features
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 03:32:43 GMT


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

> Reuters reports that MCI has a new calling card which also allows for
> access to various recorded message features (weather, news, voice
> mail).  This is accessed via a toll-free number then a security code.

Earlier today I stupidly caused myself to be put under the suspicion
of MCI's Fraud Department, and they disconnected my card.  When I
called to have my card reactivated, they said I was too late -- a new
card was already placed in the mail.

The rep went on to describe the features of the new card to me.  I'll
will report when I receive it.


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


[Moderator's Note: What did you do to get them itchy? Were you hacking
at something?  :)     PAT]

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

From: Charles McGuinness <jyacc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Card With Voice Features
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 17:31:05 EST


In Vol 12 Issue 30, [e-mail] comments:

> Reuters reports that MCI has a new calling card which also allows for
> access to various recorded message features (weather, news, voice mail).

This would probably be from their take-over of Telecom*USA, which has
had these features for a while.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #40
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08033;
          16 Jan 92 3:58 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02482
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 16 Jan 1992 02:03:35 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17253
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 16 Jan 1992 02:03:13 -0600
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 02:03:13 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #41

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Jan 92 02:03:06 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 41

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Joe Talbot)
    Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Phone Number Verification (Andrew White)
    Re: Phone Number Verification (Alec D. Isaacson)
    Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (John Pasik)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Gabe M. Wiener)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Stephanie da Silva)
    Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain (Eric W. Douglas)
    Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Joe Talbot)
Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered
Date: 13 Jan 92 20:17:35 GMT
Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Malcolm
Dunnett) writes:

> Are there any PBXs which can do this? Is the problem in our equipment?
> The central office? Our lines? (I believe we just have a number of
> analog trunks, would a digital trunk help?) or should I just resign
> myself to the fact that an "educated guess" is the best we'll ever do.

The PBX isn't the problem here. In North America "modern" CO switches
don't pass answer supervision back to the subscriber. (On older
switches <step by step/panel> it was sent back to the sub in the form
of reversed polarity). This would solve lots of problems with COCOTS,
long distance companies, modems, voice forwarding systems and even
teleslime automatic calling machines, but alas ...

If you would consider directly connecting with a long distance
carrier, various signalling arrangements could pass the supervision to
you, E&M is probably the easiest way. One of my clients has T-1 access
and use of E&M would be a possibility for them, and would cause the
SMDR to be correct, allow trunk to trunk transfers, forwarding and
even make the timer on the display phones accurate.

In Japan, reverse polarity supervision is universal (even on the
newest switches) and is used extensively by pay phones and even key
systems (that show you the rate charged for the call in real time!).


[e-mail]
Slow mail: P.O. box 1750, Helendale California 92342
Phone: [phone]     Fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 01:06:38 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Malcolm Dunnett <dunnett@
mala.bc.ca> writes:

> Are there any PBXs which can do this? Is the problem in our equipment?
> The central office? Our lines? (I believe we just have a number of
> analog trunks, would a digital trunk help?) or should I just resign
> myself to the fact that an "educated guess" is the best we'll ever do.

The problem is NOT your choice of PBX, in fact for this application
there are probably none better!  The problem is either that you are
not receiving answer supervision signals from your telephone company
or that your PBX is not expecting them.  If you have analog (ground or
loop start) CO lines than you are not receiving answer supervision
signals from the CO.  Only a few LEC's in the U.S. are currently
providing answer supervision on analog facilities, and only if you
order and pay for it.  If you have digital lines (T-1) however the
signaling should be there.  You are in lucky to be dealing with BC-Tel
instead of Bell Canada as I am. T-1 access is quite common in BC where
as there is NO T-1 access in Bell Canada-land!  If you do have T-1
your PBX may not be configured to expect answer supervision.  Changing
the route type from "CO" to "TIE" will change the way CDR processing
handles this.

Northern Telecom SL-1 PBX's do handle answer supervision signaling
with respect to Call Detail Recording.  I work for a CDR vendor and
have done this on many switches and seen it work reliably.


Vance Shipley
[e-mail]   [e-mail]   ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew White)
Subject: Re: Phone Number Verification
Date: 13 Jan 92 22:41:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Steven A Rubin) writes:

> A while ago someone posted the possible numbers to call that would
> connect you to a computer generated voice that would read back the
> phone number from which you are calling.

Try 410-xxx-xxxx where xxx-xxxx is any valid phone number.  (eg,
222-2222).  This works in both the 314 (St.Louis, MO) and 215
(Philadelphia, PA) area.


Andrew White    [e-mail]

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

Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service
Date: Wednesday, 15 Jan 1992 23:03:02 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Number Verification


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Steven A Rubin) says:

> A while ago someone posted the possible numbers to call that would
> connect you to a computer generated voice that would read back the
> phone number from which you are calling.

Here in good ol' Oxford, Ohio (25 mi north of Cincinnati) GTE (a sorry
excuse for a dial tone provider, in my opinion) is our local TELCO and
if you dial 311 you get a voice readout of the extension you are
calling from.


Alec D. Isaacson    AI4CPHYW @ miamiu.acs.muohio.edu
isaacson @ rogue.acs.muohio.edu (NeXt Mail)
Miami University, Oxford, OH

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low
Date: 13 Jan 92 21:05:46 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


PAT asks:

> [Moderator's Note: Is the United States Telephone Association the same
> as (or what used to be called) the United States Independent Telephone
> Association?  (Sometimes known as USITA).        ^^^^^^^^^^^    PAT]

Yes, they are.

When divestiture came, the former-AT&T subsidiaries were essentially
independent, so they asked to join USITA, so USITA became USTA.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.


[Moderator's Note: Isn't that the pits! USITA was founded many years
ago to defend and protect the independent telcos from Ted Vail's AT&T.
Now they seem to be best of friends with AT&T, fighting the new common
enemy of them all spelled C-A-B-L-E.  What a change!  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low
Date: 14 Jan 92 23:03:50 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(david niebuhr) writes:

> The sponsors were the RBOCs and the United States Telephone
> Association, representing over 1,100 local telcos.  I have no idea as
> to whether or not USTA and USITA are the same.  Anyone have ideas?

USITA chaged its name to USTA at the time of the AT&T Divestiture.  At
that point, all of the telephone companies were considered
'independent' and the newly-liberated 'Baby Bells' were invided to
join the organization.


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] (John Pasik)
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 00:44:26 GMT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> Larry Rachman <[e-mail]> writes:

>> "Thank you for calling the Casio Referral Hotline. If you are calling
>> from a touchtone telephone, press one now. If you are calling from a
>> rotary dial telephone, please call back on a touchtone telephone.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> And if you don't have one, tough luck! (I guess).

> I am surprised that it has taken this long. Tone signaling is SO
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> superior to rotary that it is nothing short of amazing that it has
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> taken nearly twenty years to become the dominant dialing method.
> Consider that the CD has been around for about eight years and has all
> but decimated the LP, which was king for the previous thirty-five
> years.

Yes, it is superior. For both the user *and* the phone service
provider.  I refuse to pay Ma Bell extra per month for a "feature"
that is now standard on all CO switches (which speeds call routing,
simplifies call processing, and reduces un-billable call set-up time).
These are benefits to the phone company as well as I.  Why should I
pay to make *their* life easier?  I'll continue to use dial-pulse
until ILL BELL rescinds the DTMF surcharge.


John Pasik-  Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group
             1501 Shure Dr. Arlington Hts. Ill

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

From: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 05:41:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roy
Smith) writes:

> And, before you protest that my Panasonic is a quality
> instrument and not a piece of junk, ask youself it if meets the true
> tests of telephone quality.  If you knock it off the table, does the
> floor sustain more damage than the telephone?  Will it still be in
> essentially good working condition when your grandchildren are grown
> up?  Does it ring, or does it make some pathetic chirp/warble/feeping
> noise?

Speaking of such, does anyone still manufacture real telephones
anymore?  "Real telephones" are defined as what the 2500 set used to
be (as opposed to the current piece of junk that AT&T calls the 2500
set ... with a horrible electronic ringer, touch-tones that don't
sustain, and construction that would break if you breathed on it).
Does anyone still make a good, well-built 2500 set with a proper
handset, a real keypad, and a good, loud *MECHANICAL* ringer?

I have some 2500 sets that are 15+ years old and they still work as
well today as they did 15 years ago (well, I admit to cleaning the
contacts on the DTMF pad every few years).  Does anyone still produce
this venerable phone in an unadulterated form?

I sure liked it when AT&T rented phones and also sold the same models.
They built 'em like tanks so they wouldn't ever have to fix 'em.


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.    [e-mail]
N2GPZ in ham radio circles      72355,1226 on CI$


[Moderator's Note: AT&T still leases phones. I have a two-line turn
button set from them on lease.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephanie da Silva)
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 08:49:42 GMT


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

> I cannot imagine that I would want to talk to anyone using a rotary
> phone ... in fact, are there any areas left that do not have DTMF
> telephone service available?

A few days ago I was talking to my father-in-law who recently moved to
Honolulu.  He was quite enamored over the fact that the number for the
condo that he's renting is xxx-0001 (the first number in the
exchange).  So I started telling him why the phone company always
gives out numbers to residences that have 0s and 1s in them and told
him if he looked at the buttons on the phone, he'd be able to see that
all the numbers except for 0 and 1 have letters on them.  He then told
me there were no letters at all on the *dial*.

That's when I remembered the phones they used in those condos.  When
we were visiting Honolulu (and staying in the same condominiums) the
only phones in the rooms were these ancient black monstrosities.  On
top of that, there was no touch tone service available, either.  I
remember being very frustrated trying to call some BBSs back in
Houston with a laptop a friend of ours had lent us (I admit it, I'm a
BBS junkie).

We couldn't use our Sprint card because it required a touch tone
phone.  So what we ended up doing was buying a cheap $10 phone that
had a switch that let one use either pulse or touch tone, calling out
with pulse, and switching over to tone before connecting with Sprint.
It was an incredible hassle and I'm still not sure if it was worth the
effort.


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

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 09:48:08 PST
From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


You only need two conductors, but inside wiring is traditionally
four-wire to allow for second lines.  Also, when Trimline and Princess
phones were powered from transformers, those were sometimes run from
the basement on the second pair.

A techie like you should consider wiring three pair to each drop.  You
might also consider wiring the house with another three pair for
eventual data, or even with a four pair for 10-Base-T ethernet. :-)

Seriously, if I were wiring a house, I'd wire two four pair circuits
to each room, down to a central point.  I'd terminate them all with
RJ-45's on both ends.  You can run RJ-11 phone circuits on them just
fine, but can also run RS-232 data, and other twisted pair wiring
schemes.  Your house will (hopefully) stand for 100 years.  Wanna bet
what they'll be using for appliances then?


Ed Greenberg         | Home: [phone] | [e-mail]
P. O. Box 28618        | Work: [phone] | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95159    | Fax:  [phone] | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 09:54:54 PST
From: [e-mail] (Eric W. Douglas)
Subject: Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain


[e-mail] (Andrew Klossner) writes:

> I'm building a new house and it's time for me to plan my signal
> wiring.  I'm served by GTE Northwest in Tigard Oregon, exchange
> 503-620.  I called them and was sent their booklet "Customer Installed
> Premises Wiring Guide."  There's a picture of how to wire the
> "customer provided wire junction," where the four conductors in my
> internal wiring attach to four screws.  I'm no expert on telecom
> wiring and I thought, once and for all, to find out why I'm supposed
> to run four wires when the telco puts only two into my house.

> [Moderator's Note: All four are brought there because some
> subscribers might want to have two lines from the beginning.
> eg 2 X 2 = 4.  PAT]

A while back, when AT&T was wiring houses with three conductor wiring,
they used to have the hard wiring set using the third conductor for
the ring line.  Why, I don't know, maybe it was easier for them to
spot trouble with inside wiring this way. Today, we *all* use four
conductor wiring to insure that we're future expandable. If I were
building a new house, I'd run three or four pair wiring to each jack.
(Buts that's me, and I'm big on computers and LAN's, and hey, ISDN is
coming) If you wired your house with single pair (two conductor)
wiring, 1) I doubt the telco would hook you up, and 2) As a
prospective buyer for your house a few years down the road, I'd be
awfully upset at having to break out my fishtape and coveralls to
rewire for a few more lines.

At 0.06 for two-conductor 22 AWG wiring, and ~0.09 for four-conductor
24 AWG wiring, it makes a lot of sense just to do it right the first
time.


Eric W. Douglas             Technojock               [phone]
I'net: [e-mail]      [e-mail]
AppleLink: STUDIO.D      Compuserve: 76170,1472       AOL: EWDOUGLAS

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 15:29:08 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain


Not only is two-wire useful for running a second pair (as I have
done), some equipment still is equipped with the Exclusion Key
arrangement (I don't remember the exact name). When that equipment
comes off hook, it shorts out Yellow to Black. Other equipment is
supposed to recognize this and not allow itself to go offline. Both my
modem and my answering machine support this protocol: if my modem is
off-hook (i.e., on-line) my answering machine will not come off-hook!
Very useful!

Of course, when I wired up another line on my Yellow/Black, I had to
snip the outside pair going to the answering machine or else everytime
I picked up the phone on the answering machine (integral unit) it
would short out the modem's line ;^(


73

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #41
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23557;
          17 Jan 92 2:35 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14561
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 17 Jan 1992 00:12:46 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05380
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 17 Jan 1992 00:12:27 -0600
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 00:12:27 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #42

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 Jan 92 00:12:17 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 42

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: Radio Shack Two Line Box With Conference Wanted (Michael Rosen)
    Re: Footers on Intercept Recordings (Tom Gray)
    Re: Footers on Intercept Recordings (Carl Moore)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Jim Hutchison)
    Re: SWBell vs. Squirrels (Anthony E. Siegman)
    Re: SWBell vs. Squirrels (S. Spencer Sun)
    Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Cellular Prices Go Up (Steve Forrette)
    Re: PC Based PBX (Rich Greenberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 00:08:48 GMT


As most readers of TELECOM Digest know by now, TPC has been placing
ads to try to convince the public that they should be able to provide
additional services etc.

Today, the worm has turned.  In today's (1/14/92) {LA Times} on the
back page of section 1 is an ad that refutes the Bell's claims.  The
top half is a drawing of a crowd looking at a wall with a sign
showing:

                   [bell logo]

                     MONOPOLY
                        IS
                    COMPETITION

The headline of the text part is "BIG BROTHER IS ALIVE AND WELL",
followed by alternating paragraphs labeled "Double Speak:" giving the
Bell version and "Plain Speak:" giving the "true" version as the
sponsors of the ad see it.

The sponsors are:  American Newspaper Publishers Assn.
                   Consumer Federation of America
                   Electronic Publishing Group
                   Graphic Communications International Union
                   Io Publishing
                   National Cable Television Assn.
                   National Newspaper Assn.
                   Toward Utility Rate Normalization (a consumer group)
                   Weatherline inc.

They give an number for furthur information:  800-547-7482.


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] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Two Line Box With Conference Wanted
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 05:48:24 GMT


Well, I guess I can kill two birds with one stone here ...

J&R Music World (1-800-221-8180) has a few devices on page 63 of their
current catalog, under Telephone Accessories.

The first is the Recoton T-73 Two-Line Console: "Allows a single line
phone to work as a two-line phone.  Switch back & forth between lines.
Hold with red & green LED's $19.95."  I don't know if it does
conference or not, it is not mentioned.

Now, for our friend with the line tap problem:

Spy Shop 5060 Phone Guard: "Telephone Tap detector.  Checks line when
receiver is lifted.  If detected the privacy light goes out and the
phone is muted.  Mode 2 scans for wireless microphones.  Mode 3
actually turns off Taps & Tape recorders (ss 5060) $149.95."

TT Systems PD1 Privacy Device: "Lets you know if conversation is being
overheard on an extension phone.  Features LED indicator (TT PD1)
$14.95."

I can't find my 47th St. Photo catalog right now, so I don't know if
they sell similar devices for better prices or not ...


Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Gray)
Subject: Re: Footers on Intercept Recordings
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 07:38:33 -0500
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jon Cereghino) writes:

> Many of the intercept recordings that I reach have footers that
> include an area code and some other digits.  For example:

> The number you have dialed cannot be reached from your calling area
> 408 2T Your call cannot be completed as dialed.  Please check the
> number and dial again or call your attendant to help you. 213 2C M

These footers or identifiers identify the office in which the call was
terminated and the type of intercept recording received.

408 2T- San Jose 4wire tandem - T recording
213 2C (2132 was Los Angles No.2)  M intercpt

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 10:45:19 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Footers on Intercept Recordings


I don't know what the letters and numbers after the area code mean.
On long distance calls which cannot be completed as dialed, I get
intercepted with a message from 215 if I am calling from Delaware and
703 when calling from a public phone in Maryland.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Hutchison)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Organization: Qualcomm Incorporated
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 21:04:56 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig
Ibbotson) writes:

> [...] TDMA proponents say this will offer a 3.7 time capacity of
> existing analog systems.

> [...]  Proponents say it will offer a 20X capacity increase.  The
> main advantages of digital cellular (regardless of technology) are
> capacity increase and the introduction of data services.

At a CTIA meeting, the presented improvement was 10x under conditions
(noise) in which a regular AMPS call would be unbearable, and 30x
under favorable conditions.  The 10x was "proven" by doing field
experiments and injecting noise at the cell.  All observed by third
parties (I'm not at liberty to list relationships, please contact
Qualcomm if you want "names" of observers).

Has the 3.7x number for TDMA been proven in the field with third party
observers?  If so, what noise conditions?  Speed tests?

> It is going to be very interesting to see what happens in the digital
> cellular market.  TDMA was the initial technology of choice, picked
> over FDMA after lengthy trials here in the US.  After TDMA was chosen,
> however, a company called Qualcomm met with some of the larger
> cellular vendors and convinced them that CDMA could greatly increase
> their capacity and provide some additional features.  Both
> technologies are in market trials now, and the initial indications are
> that both work.

Lengthy trials?  Uh, field capacity tests?  I heard that TDMA had gone
through "lock down" where vendor equipment is tested against a
standard, but nothing about lengthy field tests.  I'm speaking in
terms of something like the New Jersey/Chicago tests that were done
with AMPS.

> [...] TDMA is the basis for GSM, which is in commercial service in
> Europe, so it is a proven player.

A thing, which is a basis for another thing, is not proven merely
because it's progeny is proven.


Jim Hutchison    {dcdwest,ucbvax}!ucsd!qualcomm!hutch or [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  I am not an official spokesman for Qualcomm

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

From: [e-mail] (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: SWBell vs. Squirrels
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 01:47:09 GMT


> I salvaged the old cable sections -- that stuff is *tough*. I
> couldn't cut it with tinsnips except half-way at a time, and then
> flexing it to break the reinforcing wire.

   My brother, a Pac Tel lineman, a few years ago gave me some
sections of the fiber optic cable he had been installing to build up
the "Ring of Fire" fiber loop around the central section of San
Francisco.  The cable was maybe a cm in diameter, flat ribbons each
containing 8 (?)  parallel fibers in the center, embedded in a
rubber-cement-like insulation (as I remember) and a plastic outer
casing with very reinforcing wires imbedded in it all around the
perimeter.  I wanted to show it to my EE class in lasers, as an
example of optical communications in the real world.

   Those wires were similarly the toughest wires I've ever encountered.
I totally ruined the cutting edges of two good pairs of nippers, and a
couple of hacksaw blades, trying to cut a 30 cm section to pass around
in class.

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: SWBell vs. Squirrels
Organization: Princeton Class of '94
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 19:45:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Will Martin) writes:

> [interesting story about phone troubles and squirrels chewing cables]
> I salvaged the old cable sections -- that stuff is *tough*. I couldn't
> cut it with tinsnips except half-way at a time, and then flexing it to
> break the reinforcing wire. I expect the squirrels had good sharp
> teeth after working them on that stuff for a while. I wonder if it
> happened to ring while one was gnawing away and gave him a mouthful of
> 90 Volts...? :-)

If so, I wonder if the squirrel is going to post to c.d.t. and gripe
about how the cables are unsafe and should be modified so they don't
shock when you bite them. :-)


S. Spencer Sun - WWIVnet #1 @6913 - 609-258-8647 - USR DS v.32bis

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival?
Date: 13 Jan 92 21:28:44 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael Gersten) writes...

> I have a question on ISDN.
> Now, I also understand that ATM ISDN is based on 48 byte packets plus
> five byte headers (53 bytes total). And that ATM is the way of the
> future, i.e., all the telephone company equipment is working ATM, and
> your STM calls turn into ATM on the way.

Here's the error.  ATM is coming, but it won't necessarily replace
STM.  The STM networks are likely to stay around, up to 2 Mbps or so
(T1/E1), for the foreseeable future.  If you want a 64 kbps (eg.,
telephone) call, it'll probably go STM.

> My question is: Why does the phone company only offer STM to the home,
> which forces a line to be used (and payment made, hmm ... I think I
> answered this one) even when nothing is being sent? Why not have the
> home line just be a 192K ATM feed, and put a rate limiter of 64K on
> it?

ATM is aimed at really high speeds.  To send voice via ATM, you need
to take 48 PCM samples and fill a cell, _then_ send the cell. (This
gets worse with ADPCM.)  That takes six ms.  Then figure out the time
to transmit the cell, which at narrowband speeds would add more ms.
Delay is impairment in voice, so it's not a superior service to STM.
Besides, ATM is likely to cost more, at least for a while.

Where ATM shines is for high-speed applications like data and
television.  If you need a 50 Mbps connection, ATM is likely to be the
way to go.  That's the growth area.  But it won't replace STM, at
least not for a long time.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 19:17:01 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Prices Go Up
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

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

>> Now let me get this straight: A "lifeline" rate for cellular?  Now
>> I've heard everything!

> Hey, if it was available here, I'd get it for both my wife's and my
> cellular phones.  We have them only for "emergency" use -- in case we
> break down on the highway, or need to let the babysitter know we're
> going to be delayed (and don't want to stop and use a payphone).  At
> most, I use 5-10 minutes of airtime per month on my phone, and most
> months she has NONE on hers.  We're paying about $22 per month for
> that (which is on Hayes' corporate discount; it _had_ ben $36), plus
> $0.36 per minute.  I'd gladly pay $0.60 or more per minute, in
> exchange for only having to pay $10 per month.

The concept of a "low volume" user is something I'd definately agree
with.  In fact, I think it would be in the cellular companies' best
interest to provide this.  Since maintaining the account in the
computer costs virtually nothing to provide, even a $5 or $10 a month
charge is almost all profit.  And I think they would get a lot of
people to sign up for this if they offered it.

But we all know that cellular carriers don't always behave in ways
that make sense.  Look at what they've done in the past: most used to
charge several dollars a month for custom calling features, which then
cost extra to use per minute!  The effect was that they were denying
occasional users from paying the extra airtime because they didn't
want to pay the monthly.  Most have finally figured out that it's
better for the carrier to give away the custom calling features'
availability, and just charge by the minute.

My disagreement comes from providing the low monthly rate as a
"Lifeline" service.  The term "Lifeline" implies that the service is
being provided at a price less than the cost to provide, at government
mandate, and paid for (read "subsidized") by a special tax on the
regular customers.  This I totally disagree with.  I do not believe
that cellular is such a necessity of life that people below the
poverty line and on government assistance (more or less the
eligibility requirements in most area for receiving landline Lifeline
telephone service) should be provided this at a very reduced cost
because it is deemed a basic right as a member of society.  Doesn't
landline Lifeline also provide the first basic instrument as well in
many areas?  Should the regular cellular ratepayers also buy the
cellphones for the cellular Lifeline customers?

If people are so bad off that they qualify for government assistance,
do they really need to be driving on remote country roads?  Do they
need to have the luxury of a car if they need assistance for basic
things like food and rent?  I think not.  Will we have a Lifeline rate
for cable TV next?

Taxes are already at outrageous on cellular service as it is.  Looking
at my Cellular One bill, I see that I am taxed at 18.5% (eightteen
point five!)!  Now you want to add yet another tax on this?
Considering that I've already paid almost 50% tax on the income that
I'm using to pay the cellular 18.5% tax, I'm already "taxed out," as
they say.

Now if the original poster was using the LifeLine term just to refer
to a low-monthly, high-airtime class-of-service that the cellular
provides as a profit-making product, then I'm all for it.

This reminds me of something else: I think someone posted a year or
two back that there was some semi-rural carrier that offered a
$9.95/month account.  Anyone in the U.S. could sign up for this
service, and then just roam in their home area for those "emergency"
calls.  And since true emergency calls to 911 are generally free
anyway, this could provide a very inexpensive service to those who
need one for safety.  And I'm sure you wouldn't mind paying the $2
daily fee and $.75/minute or so to call AAA if your car broke down,
either.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail], I do not speak for my employer.

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: PC Based PBX
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 01:11:47 GMT


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

> Trunk line support currently for loop start only; specs indicate
> ground start in the future.

This has nothing to do with the original topic, Jeff's post just
reminded me of something I have been wondering about ...

Would someone more knowledgeable than I on the subject please give us
a brief description of what loop start and ground start are?  I have
seen the terms before but don't know the meaning.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #42
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26658;
          17 Jan 92 4:20 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14692
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 17 Jan 1992 01:24:19 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30230
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 17 Jan 1992 01:23:57 -0600
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 01:23:57 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #43

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 Jan 92 01:23:55 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 43

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Repeat Dialing Question (S. Spencer Sun)
    Re: America's Future (Jack Decker)
    Re: PC Based PBX (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Panasonic Answering Machine (Andrew Morely)
    Re: Mu-law, A-law (Clifton Koch)
    Re: Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago (Gabe M. Wiener)
    Re: PICs From RBOC Payphones (Eric Florack)
    Re: PICs From RBOC Payphones (Stephen Tihor)
    Re: Need Phone Service (Nigel Allen)
    Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (John Higdon)
    Re: Bell Canada Tests New Forwarding, Voice Caller ID Options (P. da Silva)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Dave Pascoe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Repeat Dialing Question
Organization: Princeton Class of '94
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 19:34:01 GMT


On a more or less unrelated subject, I have been told by someone who
generally knows what he's talking about that when you are auto-dialing
a number, you are required (by law? telco policy? I have no idea) to
wait 30 seconds between attempts, ostensibly because if everyone did
this it would cause great wear and tear.

The reason sounds plausible (if he's pulling my leg, it's only working
because I usually trust him and I don't know much about the actual
technology of phones) although I can't see how they would enforce
it ...


S. Spencer Sun - WWIVnet #1 @6913 - 609-258-8647 - USR DS v.32bis
Clockwork Orange (Princeton Ultimate)


[Moderator's Note: If such a rule were to be enforced, it would be
quite easy to simply deny dial tone to the caller for thirty seconds
at a time. That would solve the problem, no?   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 16:26:01 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: America's Future

In a message dated 9 Jan 92 16:16:08 GMT, [e-mail]
(John R. Levine) writes:

> In yesterday's {Boston Globe} there is a full page back of the section
> ad in the same disinformation campaign.  This one shows a sick baby in
> a house in a remote area, and tells lies about how remote diagnosis
> would be possible except the congress wants to make it illegal.

> It looks like it's time to make the RBOCs divest their telephone
> business; they're clearly not fit to run it themselves.

I wonder if an official complaint to the federal Department of Justice
regarding false and misleading advertising would be helpful.  For
various reasons, I would think the feds might be interested in
outright lies in ads designed to influence public opinion.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: PC Based PBX
Date: 14 Jan 92 22:52:36 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter da
Silva) writes:

> Not directly telecom related, but doing my part to fight low-quality
> hardware. Besides, you might want to interact with some other card to
> provide an interface they never thought of.

Like maybe a UNIX driver and API?


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] (Morley A.B.)
Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machine (Where Has My Cuckoo Flown Away To?)
Date: 14 Jan 92 15:28:04 GMT
Organization: University of Southampton, England


> I've a couple of questions about my Panasonic answering machine
> (KX-2445BE).

> There's an undocumented command ... (prog #11 /prog #12)

Yes, I've noticed this and wondered but I've also noticed:

PROG-HASH-5 then any digits and PROG-HASH-7 (the code for setting
number of rings) accepts 5, 6 or 7 as parameters as well as the
documented values 0 to 4.  I can tell the machine accepts them as it
bleeps (which it doesn't do if I key 8 or 9) but what they do I can't
tell.


Andrew Morley - Flossie | [e-mail] ... [e-mail]
                        | University Of Southampton, UK.

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

From: [e-mail] (Clifton Koch)
Subject: Re: Mu-law, A-law
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 15:25:56 GMT


[e-mail] (C.A.) writes:

> Several queries about aspects of mu-law and A-law coding have come in
> recent issues of the Digest, so I thought I'd throw in some general
> information:

> As has been pointed out, mu-law coding is used in Japan and the USA,
> A-law in Europe (don't ask me how this distribution came about; I have
> heard the claim that mu-law was foisted on Japan after WWII, but I
> frankly doubt that digital coding schemes were on anyone's list of
> reforms for Japan in 1945 :) ).

> Why have mu/A - law at all?

  Good explanation, but you didn't quite answer a question a lot of
people probably have.  Why have compression at all?

  The digital format used by Telco's is 8 bit PCM at 8 Khz.  In linear
format, this doesn't yield a good enough S/N ratio (48 dB max on a
really good, with really poor low signal level performance due to
quantization error).  So the A/D conversion on a linear scale is a 13
bit number (12 bits plus sign).  This will fairly easily yield > 60 dB
S/N, which is acceptable.  But the transmission medium is still only 8
bits, which is where the Mu/A-law compression comes in.

  Mu-law is found primarily on T1 systems (24 channel), and A-law on
E1 systems (30 channel).  I don't know of any exceptions off the top
of my head.  I've never heard a good explanation of why there are two
different systems in use.


Cliff Koch     Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Division
          [uunet | mcdchg | gatech]!motcid!koch

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

From: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Western Union's Time Was Up Years Ago
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 05:31:30 GMT


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

> Between the clocks, the public telegraph offices and their many other
> services, Western Union was a grand part of the American heritage for
> over a century ... their slow death in the past few years has been a
> real pity to all of us who remember their heyday.

Pat, does there exist an authoritative book on the history of WU?  If
not, have you ever considered doing one?


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.    [e-mail]
N2GPZ in ham radio circles      72355,1226 on CI$


[Moderator's Note: I've thought about it, but I'm still trying to
write another book 'Crime and Punishment in 21st Century America' and
getting very little accomplished. Unfortunatly, feeding myself and my
family has become critical. Writing books and editing Digests will be
taking a back seat before long if the recession gets worse.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 0837:22 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: PICs From RBOC Payphones


With all due respect, Pat:

> So my question is: Exactly how does this violate Equal Access and/or
> the MFJ, and where can I get the text so that it can be quoted in my
> letters to the FCC, FTC, and the aforementioned RBOCs? Such letter
> will also point out that it would be unwise to let the RBOCs provide
> information services given their track record, citing this situation
> as a specific example.

> [Moderator's Note: It does NOT violate Equal Access. The catch is your
> 1+ dialing ... at this time the only companies with the ability to
> collect or refund coins deposited in the phone are the local telco and
> AT&T. *All* long distance calls from payphones requiring coin deposit
> are sent to AT&T. Now had you zero-plussed your call, implying you
> would need operator assistance (credit card, collect, third number
> type call) then your 10xxx instructions would have been observed, even
> if it did result in some OCCs responding with re-order or intercept to
> your attempt to call their (non-existent) operator service. That is
> provided of course the 10xxx you chose was providing service to the
> exchange you were calling from. Not every 10xxx serves every place.
> So save your letter writing. The RBOC is doing nothing wrong.  PAT]<<

I beg to differ. While you are correct, tha they are obeying the
/letter/ of the law, they aer certainly not following the iNTENT of
the law. The whole idea of equal access was to allow you to go through
whatever LD company you choose.  /REGARDLESS OF THE POINT OF ORIGIN/.

While AT&T can be accessed from ANY local's phone, by law, that same
law does not provide for any LD company being acessed from every
phone. (Before you start tuning up about 950-xxxx access, allow me to
remind you that the biggest part of the public does not know about
950-xxxx access, and thinks the only way to cross-link to another
network is 1-0-xxx-0-.)

It is very strong, say I, that none may abide the odor thereof.

And by the way; I feel it unwise to allow RBOC's or ANY carrier, for
that matter, to provide Information services; their purvue should be
limited to the role of carrier, and should never enter the role of
provider.

(My opinions are my own. Nobody else is crazy enough to voice them in
public ... most politicaly INcorrect ... you see.)

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 01:50 EST
From: Stephen Tihor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PIC's From RBOC Payphones


I am afriad PAt that you are flat our wrong about what the phone
comapny should be doing with a 10XXX code fmero a pay station for a
carrier which can not support the service required.

In the situation described the local switch SEEMS to be rerouting the
call to ATT since only they offer coin service.  The alternative and I
believe the correct one would be to route to an intercept recording of
the form: SIT the carrier you have requested does not offer that
service.

If they are feeling nice perhaps they could even list the XXX codes
that do support it: 10288.

Would you like to see the local monopoly selectively overriding you
specified choice of carrier to their choice when your carrier can;t
provide the service?

Example: you have MCI as your DIAL 1 carrier (or just happen to be
dialing them 10XXX to take advantage of a special We're All Friends
Deal that gives 2 minutes free all over the earth.  The LEC notices
that you are call Outer Belize via MCI and knows that they do not
offer that service so they choose to slam this single call to AT&T or
even the Outer Belize Connection, Inc. at $2000 per minute.

By your logic, despite the LEC ignoring your dialing instructions you
are still liable for the $4000 bill that you expect to cost $0.

The logical possiblities are (a) a badly programmed switch (b) an old
switch which is hard to program right and easy to get to ignore 10XXX
or (c) the long distance companies in question ALL chose the splash
the calls via AT&T.

Option C seems unlikely for a revenue call but for special numbers
like 700 and 800 is just barely possible.


[Moderator's Note: Whatever ... all the rules thus far say pay phones
should route long distance calls to AT&T which require coins to be
deposited. Your examples are a little bit silly since 'a call you
expected to cost $0' would still cost $0 since you would probably just
hang up the receiver rather than deposit the $4000.  Private phones do
follow the 10xxx instructions given by the caller ... and so do
genuine telco payphones *except for calls requiring coins*. Eventually
that will be dealt with also, I suppose.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 04:20:18 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Re: Need Phone Service
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto


In <telecom12.20.6.eecs.nwu.edu>, [e-mail] (Michael
J.  Logsdon) said a building manager is being denied service by Ohio
Bell because a former roommate didn't pay his phone bill.

A call or letter to the Ohio Public Utilities Commission would
probably be a good idea. I do not think that Ohio Bell is acting
legally.

In general, telephone companies do not have the right to hold a third
party liable for a subscriber's phone bill. In this case, the contract
for service was between Ohio Bell and the former roommate, and
presumably the building manager did not guarantee or co-sign the
application for service.

A telephone company, as a common carrier, does not have the right to
pick and choose its customers. It cannot refuse to provide service to
an apartment simply because a former occupant of the apartment didn't
pay his bill.  (Whether a phone company has the right to require a
deposit from residents of "risky" areas is a question I won't try to
answer.)

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications (CRTC) dealt
specifically with a similar matter several years ago when the British
Columbia Telephone Company tried to collect a phone bill from the
subscriber's roommate. The CRTC issued a written decision (as formal
as a decision dealing with a rate case) ordering B.C. Tel to stop.

I suspect that telephone company credit and collection practices are
more of a barrier to telephone service for the poor than monthly
rates.


Nigel Allen   [e-mail]
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 00:17 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person?


[e-mail] (Bill Berbenich) writes:

> No matter when you call, you must go through this time-consuming
> (about five minutes, usually) process.  Calling schedules don't work
> in this application, I have found, because the phone is sometimes busy
> at the rig.

Having rarely used Person-to-Person, I have a question. Just how long
will an operator wait for the requested party to come to the phone?
Five minutes? Ten minutes? A couple of hours?

What is the record for having an operator wait for the call recipient
to finally pick up the phone?


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


[Moderator's Note: The rule a few years ago was the operator was to
not wait longer than three minutes, and could deny the connection or
disconnect at any time prior to that if it became apparent a message
had been passed or an attempt to pass a message without payment was in
progress.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Tests New Forwarding, Voice Caller ID Options
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 13:46:49 GMT


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

> * Caller Announce: a voice caller ID service; when a call is answered,
> the central office will send along a voice callout of the number
> calling. This is a Caller ID service without the need for add-on
> displays.

This is cute, but it'll add an extra delay in answering the phone (and
increase the chance that the guy at the other end will hang up). Since
they save the last number anyway for call-blocking, why can't they
make something like this for after the fact (i.e., you dial *something
and it tells you who last called).

I wouldn't mind paying a per-call charge for *that*, either. It's not
like the charge for C-ID delivery, since you have to ask for the
number each time.


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Pascoe)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Date: 15 Jan 92 17:41:02 GMT
Organization: GTE/SCSD


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Rolf Meier) writes:

> Readers should be made aware that Qualcomm's CDMA proposal is not
> likely to become a national digital standard for cellular.  It will be
> a TDMA system as outlined in IS-54.

Ah, but Qualcomm may very well be able to make CDMA a *second*
standard.  And that's what I understand is in the works.


Dave Pascoe    [e-mail]
GTE Gov't. Systems/SCSD   [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #43
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28731;
          17 Jan 92 5:23 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29189
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 17 Jan 1992 02:07:35 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23111
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 17 Jan 1992 02:07:12 -0600
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 02:07:12 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #44

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 Jan 92 02:06:54 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 44

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    EFF Opens Washington Office (Gerard Van der Leun)
    Customer Account Security (John Higdon)
    *67 Doesn't Work (Kevin A. Mitchell)
    Reporter Seeks Information on 800 Billed as 900 (Rob Boudrie)
    ISDN Question (Keith A. Schauer)
    What Did the Operators Know? (Will Martin)
    Help with Job Descriptions Please (Lewis M. Dreblow)
    Progress? (John Higdon)
    Continuously Variable Slope Delta Modulation (Lee C. Erickson)
    Non-PacBell Intra-Lata Calls (Curtis Galloway)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 15:05:30 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Gerard Van der Leun)
Subject: EFF Opens Washington Office


BERMAN TO HEAD NEW EFF WASHINGTON OFFICE

The Electronic Frontier Foundation today announced the opening of a
permanent office in Washington D.C. and named Jerry Berman, former
head of the ACLU Information Technology Project, to direct its
operations.

In announcing the move, EFF President Mitchell Kapor said, " The
creation of the Washington office and the appointment of Jerry Berman
demonstrates our commitment to build a national organization.  It will
give the EFF the ability to effectively advocate policies that will
reflect the public's interest in the creation of new computer and
communications technologies."  Jerry Berman, incoming Director of the
EFF Washington Office, stated that, "Our goal is to be the public's
voice in Washington on these issues, and to help create policies that
will maximize both civil liberties and competitiveness in the new
social environments created by digital media."

"The EFF," Berman continued, " is hard at work developing initiatives
that will ensure that all present and future 'electronic highways',
from the telephone network to the National Research and Education
Network, enhance First and Fourth Amendment rights, encourage new
entrepreneurial activity, and are open and accessible to all segments
of society."

Jerry Berman was until December 1991 director of the ACLU Information
Technology Project. Previously he was the ACLU's Chief Legislative
Counsel in Washington, D.C.

During his career, Mr. Berman has played a major role in the drafting
and enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
(warrants for national security wiretapping); the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (warrant requirements for new
voice, data, video electronic communications); and the Video Privacy
Protection Act of 1988.  Over the last two years, he has spearheaded
efforts to establish public access rights to electronic public
information.

For more information contact:

Jerry Berman, Director                   Gerard Van der Leun
Electronic Frontier Foundation                           EFF
666 Pennsylvania Avenue,Suite 303          155 Second Street
Washington, DC 20003                     Cambridge, MA 02141
Telephone: [phone]               Phone:[phone]
FAX: [phone]                      FAX: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]                    Email: [e-mail]

              Update on EFF Activities

The EFF, through its headquarters in Cambridge and its newly opened
office in Washington, is currently advocating that:

     *Congress establish an "open telecommunications platform"
      featuring "Personal ISDN";

     *the open platform be created with legislative safeguards
      that ensure a level playing field for all those competing
      in the information services market;

     *the NREN serve as a "testbed" for new voice, data, and video
      services that will eventually be offered over our National
      Public Network;

     *electronic bulletin boards be afforded the same First
      Amendment protections enjoyed by other media;

     *citizens who use computers for communications purposes be
      afforded the full protection of the Fourth Amendment;

     *an Electronic Freedom of Information Act be passed that will
      grant citizens access to the electronic version of public
      information consistent with the public's right to know; and
      that

     *technical means be mandated to insure the privacy of
      personal communications carried over cellular and other
      radio-based communications systems.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is also a co-sponsor (along with
the Consumer Federation of American and the ACLU) and the principal
coordinator of the Communications Policy Forum, which is designed to
explore the means for achieving the communications goals of consumer
organizations. Over 28 consumer groups, from the OMB Watch to the
NAACP participate in forum activities.  The Communications Policy
Forum is funded by foundations as well as a diverse group of computer
and communications firms.

               The Electronic Frontier Foundation

     The Electronic Frontier Foundation, with offices in Cambridge and
Washington, was established a year and a half ago by Mitchell Kapor,
who started the Lotus Development Corporation, and John Perry Barlow.
In addition to funding from Kapor, EFF has been heavily supported by
Steve Wozniak and other pioneers of the computer community. EFF board
members include, in addition to Kapor, Barlow, and Berman, Steve
Wozniak, John Gilmore, Steward Brand, Ester Dyson, and Dave Farber.


               Jerry Berman

Prior to joining the American Civil Liberties Union, Mr. Berman was
Associate General Counsel for the Center for Community Change in
Washington, D.C., and Associate Counsel at the law firm of Covington
and Burling.

Mr. Berman received his BA, MA, and LLB at the University of
California, Berkeley. He graduated with honors, was elected to Phi
Beta Kappa and served as an editor of the California Law Review at
Boalt Law School.

Mr. Berman has authored two recent policy papers. With Mitchell Kapor,
he has co-authored "Building the Open Road: The NREN as a Test Bed for
the National Public Network, to be published in Building Information
Infrastructure (B. Kahin, Ed. McGraw Hill 1992). He also wrote a
policy paper on "The Right to Know: Public Access to Electronic
Information" in Newberg, Paula ed. New Directions in
Telecommunications Policy Vol.II (Duke University Press 1989).

Mr. Berman has written a number of law review and other articles on
civil liberties for journals such as Harvard Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties Law Review, California Law Review, Detroit Journal of Urban
Law, Software Law Journal, New Republic, Democracy, Nation, and is
co-author with Morton Halperin of The Lawless State: The Abuses of the
Intelligence Agencies (Penguin 1976).

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 20:07 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Customer Account Security


Some time back we brought up the topic of customer account security.
It seems that some (including I) were annoyed at the ease with which
unauthorized people were able to get information and even make changes
on telephone accounts.

That appears to be a thing of the past. I needed the balance on one of
my business accounts and was too lazy to go to the mailbox to get the
bill. (The mailbox is at the post office before you start in on that!)
I called the business office, gave my name and my company name and
asked for the balance on the number in question. "I'll have to call
you back with that information", was the response.

When she called back, she asked for my password. When I gave it to her
she read off my balance.

Good show! The very slight inconvenience was well worth the knowledge
that just anyone cannot just call in and snoop around in my telco
accounts. This is sure a change from procedures just a short time ago.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin A. Mitchell)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 11:18:43 CST
Subject: *67 Doesn't Work


Hmmm. I just tried *67 on my phone, and I got "<SIT> We're sorry, your
call cannot be completed as dialed. Please check your instruction
manual or call the business office."

This is from the 708-452 exchange in the west 'burbs.


Kevin A. Mitchell                [phone]
Datalogics, Inc                  Internet: [e-mail]
441 W. Huron                     UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!kam
Chicago, IL  60610               FAX: [phone]

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

From: Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 11:09:39 EST
Subject: Reporter Seeks Information on 800 Billed as 900


Adam Gaffin, a reporter for the {Middlesex News} (covers suburbs west
of Boston, MA) called me this morning to discuss the 800/900 mixup
with the USA today number, and the incorrect billings sent out by AT&T
(to date, I haven't heard of ANYONE getting an acknlowedgement from
AT&T that this actually happened -- a news story might break their wall
of silence).

Adam would like to hear from persons who were recipients of these
factually incorrect bills.  He is particularly interested in hearing
from persons in the Eastern Massachusetts area, as he is working on a
story on this mixup and wants to give it a "local flavor" by
discussing the multiple local individuals who recieved bills for 900
calls they never made (at least to a 900 number).

Adam's number and address is :  [e-mail]
                                [phone]

[Moderator's Note: Mr. Gaffin is a regular contributor in this group,
and I'm glad to post this request on his behalf.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: ISDN Question
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 16:21:19 GMT


I have only been following USENET for a short time and feel this is
probably the right place to post this.  Please correct me if wrong.

I am responsible for designing a customer-contractor network for data
sharing.  Our customer (government) has indicated that they are
getting a Basic Rate Interface (BRI) in the near future.  I am
assuming this is thru FTS-2000.  This customer would like us to use
this as our WAN transport, instead of MILNET whichhe considers to be
too slow (only 56K vs 2x64).

Questions:

Being a commercial entity, not part of FTS-2000, is this possible?
Can the FTS-2000 BRI interface off network?

I would like to use a bridge technology, if possible (vs protocol
routed).  Whatwould this type of connection look like to me?  What
type of interconnect hardware is available for 802.3 -- ISDN?  Would I
need a BRI to my site, or couldI just get a leased line to my nearest
central office (FTS or otherwise)?

With this type of service, can it be arranged for the computers to
force a call setup & connect vs 'dedicated' access.  How is billing
handled?

Thanks alot for any information you can shed.  Any good sources for me
to start boning up on?


Regards,

Keith Schauer     Texas Instruments    Dallas, TX
The opinions expressed are mine, all mine

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 12:16:16 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Did the Operators Know?


In recent issues of Telecom, there have been several comments similar
to this one:

> From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
> Without ANI, Operators had to ask you for YOUR number before Toll calls
> (even 1+ calls) would complete.

Also, I recall that in our old Centrex system in a previous location,
we had to type in the four digits of our own extension numbers when
making a toll-type call.

I suppose that this is really rare now, with the calling number being
identified to the telco equipment without any need for the caller to
provide that information in any form.

What I'm wondering about is just how much DID the operators know about
the calling number when they asked for it.  Was it possible to lie
about it (or key in the wrong extension) and have that other number be
billed for the call?  Did the operators know only the exchange you
were calling from, so that if you were calling from 765-4321 and they
asked the number and you said "755-8217", they *knew* you were lying?
(Assuming "755" was a valid local exchange, too, of course.) Or didn't
they even know that much about the calling number?

If they could identify the exchange, in the same example as above, if
you said the number you were at was "765-1234" or some other different
set of last four digits in that same exchange (but a valid phone
number in any case), could they tell you were lying about the number?
What if you gave them an unassigned number -- did they have something
to tell them right away, or to check while the call was in progress,
that this was an unbillable-to number?

What did the operators do if they knew, or if they suspected, that you
were telling them a false number? Did they just say "The call cannot
be completed" and hang up on you, or did they have some method to
identify the line for fraud-investigation purposes, or did they tell
you that the number you gave could not be correct, or what?

In the Centrex situation I mentioned, how on earth could the automated
equipment *not* know what extension was dialling the call? What
purpose was served by forcing the user to key in the extension? Was it
just crude software or was the dialing extension really unidentifiable?

It sort of strikes me that we went through a cycle in telephone-line
identifiability over the history of the telephone. Early installations
had cord boards and a separate jack for each line, and there was no
question about which phone you were calling from -- as soon as you
picked up the phone, the light on the board came on and the telco
operator KNEW who you were. Then, as mechanical automated equipment
came in, there was a period where they had to trust the caller to
identify themselves.

Now, with more sophisticated electronic equipment, the equipment knows
just what line is doing what and there is no need for "trust"
anymore ... maybe, at some future date, with the concept of a
telephone number following an individual rather than a line, we will
move back to a mode in which the caller is somehow identified but the
line being used is unimportant and not logged?


Regards,

Will


[Moderator's Note: They knew the exchange, but not the last four
digits in most cases.   PAT]

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

From: "Lewis M. Dreblow" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help With Job Descriptions Please
Date: 15 Jan 92 07:20:31 -0600
Organization: Muskingum College


Good morning netters.

We are installing for the first time a new PBX.  Having worked with a
consultant in the RFP process and now in the process of letting the
bids, we are now working on the staff requirements.

Would other netters share a copy of whatever job descriptions they
have in place for both data and telephone management with me.
Experiences that other sites have with staffing requirements would be
most insightful.

Thanks in advance.  I will accept postings or direct Email.


Lewis Dreblow - [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 15:09 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Progress?


Well, it has been five months since my venerable crossbar was
"upgraded" to 5ESS. What do I have to show for it?

1. No CLASS features

2. No ISDN

3. No message center

What I do have is noticably inferior audio quality.

Certainly worth waiting for, wasn't it?


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

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 14:08:22 EST
Organization: InnovaSystems, Inc.
Reply-To: alee![e-mail]
From: alee![e-mail] (Lee C. Erickson)
Subject: Continuously Variable Slope Delta Modulation


Could anyone provide me with detailed information (or references to
it) concerning the filtering used in "Continuously Variable Slope
Delta" (CVSD) modulation?


Lee Erickson    uucp: [e-mail]
        ..!gvlv2!alee!erickson
    WS3J    ..!cbmvax!alee!erickson
        internet: [e-mail]
        usmail: 720 Raynham Rd., Collegeville PA 19426

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

From: Curtis Galloway <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 16:48:12 PST
Subject: Non-PacBell Intra-Lata Calls


Thanks to all those who responded to my earlier query about how to
avoid using Pacific Bell for intra-lata calls.

The easiest solution for me was to use my MCI calling card for calls
during the evening and night/weekend rate periods.  For calls over
about 5 minutes, the lower rates make up for the calling card
surcharge.

The point is about to be moot, though: the dial-up system I'm calling
is about to get an access number that's in my local calling zone.


Curtis Galloway
The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
uunet!sco!curtisg -or- [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #44
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27358;
          20 Jan 92 1:25 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02588
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 23:38:32 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07801
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 23:38:03 -0600
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 23:38:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #45

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 18 Jan 92 20:29:45 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 45

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CCITT Standards and Recommendations (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Eastern Caribbean Cellular (Roy Smith)
    Re: Phone Company Humour (Michael G. Katzmann)
    Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM (John Rice)
    Re: Cellular Phone For Quadriplegic (Warren Tucker)
    Re: Where Can One *Buy* the White Pages? (David Ash)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Ron Dippold)
    Re: Radio Links for Rural Telephone (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Job Opening in Telecom (Julian Macassey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 23:37:34 HST
From: roscom![e-mail] (Monty Solomon)
Subject: Re: CCITT Standards and Recommendations


[e-mail] (Will Wong) wrote:

> I would like to get ahold of the CCITT standards and recommendations
> (either through purchasing the books, borrowing, begging, etc.)  Does
> anyone have any idea where I can go?

They are available online via anonymous FTP from bruno.cs.colorado.edu
and by E-Mail from [e-mail].


Monty    roscom![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Eastern Caribbean Cellular
Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 14:14:00 GMT


John R. Levine <[e-mail]> writes:

> They are the A and B system in St. Maarten/St. Martin.  Other "boatphone"
> locations are the A system in Antigua, Grenada, St. Kitts, St. Lucia, St.
> Thomas, and Tortola

    Odd.  We chartered a boat last year (March 1991) that happened
to have a boatphone on it.  After I got over my general revulsion (we
be on vacation, mon, we no *want* de telephone!) I decided to play
with it just to see what would happen.  The directions basically said
to dial 0 to register for service.  All I ever got was a "no cell"
message.  This was in St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and
Grenada.  Was the phone (and/or the antenna) just broken?

    Actually, it's a good thing it didn't work; one of our party
was a lawyer who kept threatening to check in with her office.  She
never bothered to do so at the various times we were on land, so maybe
she was just joking.  At least I hope she was just joking.

    I used to think the real test of if you've been on vacation
long enough was that you could no longer remember what day of the week
it is.  Now I realize it's when you stop missing usenet and start
wondering just what was so wonderful about it in the first place.  How
long is it going to be before I charter a boat that not only has a
cell phone on it, but a modem and terminal too?  I hope never!


[e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA

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

From: vk2bea![e-mail] (Michael G. Katzmann)
Subject: Re: Phone Company Humour
Date: 15 Jan 92 18:23:33 GMT
Reply-To: vk2bea![e-mail] (Michael G. Katzmann)
Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland.


In article <[e-mail]> Giles D Malet <shrdlu![e-mail]> writes:

> While living in London (UK) a few years ago, I noticed an entry in the
> 'phone book for a certain "Zaphod Beeblebrox", complete with number
> and residential address. He lives!

He also has a listing in the Sydney (Australia) White Pages, as does
his mate Ford Prefect.


Michael Katzmann     Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~     Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A
Amteur Radio Stations:
NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV     opel!vk2bea![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 19:09:21 GMT


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

> This is known as an ALIT (Automatic Line Insulation Test), performed
> by the phone company in the wee hours of the morning to detect faults
> in the twisted pair serving your home.  ALIT involves placing a DC
> voltage of about 100v across the pair and measuring the leakage
> current.  This subject has been discussed in this Digest extensively
> in the past.

Actually ALIT is an old system, not much used these days. Current
automated Line test systems typically do the testing at 10V or so.


John Rice    K9IJ    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 14:36 EST
From: [e-mail] (Warren Tucker)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone For Quadriplegic
Organization: Tuckerware/Amateur Radio Station N4HGF


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

> My girl friend is a quadriplegic. She has very limited use of her
> hands, and needs a wheelchair to get around. Despite all of this, she
> is able to drive in an adapted van.

I am also a quad and used to drive until chronic sudden blood pressure
problems talked me out of it.  What level of injury has she? I am a
C6/C7 (no hand motor control but good biceps and wrists and mediocre
triceps).

> We went to a few local cellular phone stores, and didn't get very
> encouraging information.  All the phones have push buttons that take a
> bit of effort to push, which is impossible for her to do.

Does she use "typing sticks" (straps over the hand with a
rubber-tipped dowel attached)?  If so, perhaps you might velcro one to
the phone to use to press buttons.  I use my typing sticks for typing,
but also for many other tasks.  They make it possible to use the
strength of my biceps and wrist muscles to press more resistent
buttons.  If she is a C5 (no wrist motor control), this may not be as
satisfactory.

> If possible, it would be ideal if a portable phone could be hooked up
> to her motorized wheelchair.  If that is possible, would the phone
> still be able to operate from within an enclosed vehicle? (I would
> attach the aerial somewhere on her wheelchair.)

It should be straightforward to use the batteries on her chair
provided the batteries are lead-acid storage batteries, which most
are.  Practical wheelchair power systems are 24VDC with a pair of
series-connected deep-discharge marine storage batteries.  The power
system is completely isolated from the frame and other metallic parts
of the chair.  If you find your situation to match that, just connect
the phone power across ONE of the batteries and away you go, but read
on.

I don't have to tell you your girlfriend's wheelchair is a vital and
expensive link to her mobility and safety.  Some serious warnings and
cautions are in order.  I would not hesitate to do what I am
recommending, but I have twenty years of experience in these
disciplines (land mobile radio, power systems and the like).  I would
like to think my experience would assist me in proceeding cautiously.
I cannot assess your situation and urge you to find a thoroughly
stable and experienced individual to help you if you lack complete
confidence.

1.  Prior to installation, make careful voltage checks with a
voltohmmeter for potentials between each battery terminal and the
wheelchair frame.  They SHOULD be completely isolated.

2.  a. Securely ground the radio to the frame.
    b. Place the antenna as far away from the joystick and associated
       control electronics as possible.

My first attempt to use a 7-watt 144-Mhz amateur radio portable from
the wheelchair was a real education.  I had the chair turned on at the
time with the radio in a ripstock bag hanging off one arm of the
chair, the antenna near the cable connecting the joystick to the
electronics box underneath the seat.  When I keyed the transmitter,
the chair went into FULL SPEED FORWARD TRAVEL!!  Surely RF was
travelling through the cable and being rectified by the joystick input
circuitry.

Fortunately nothing but a scare came from the experience.  Reorienting
the radio solved that problem, but I still fear being near some
automobile with a hundred watt land mobile radio and having a repeat
performance one day.  Perhaps the 2-watt 800 MHz phone will not cause
the same problem, but who knows?  It's a good idea to switch off the
chair before using a radio/phone.  The phone transmits bursts of RF
automatically when receiving an incoming call, so you can never know
when an event might arise.  Also note that you cannot be sure power is
removed from all chair circuitry when the chair is switched off.  The
switch on the joystick may for instance merely break the connection
between the joystick and the control.

While you are around to help, try transmitting in varying proximity to
different sizes of metal objects.

3.  Provide a switch to completely remove primary power from the
radio.  Surely the phone's control head power switch does not remove
full power from all parts of the phone.  You don't want the radio on
when starting or stopping the chair's battery charger.  If the lady
uses home health care attendents, you probably need to overly stress
the importance of this to them.  While many "nursing assistants" are
quite capable, my experience is most of them are semi-trainable and
forgetful.

> And finally, if anyone can think of a way for us to get her insurance
> to pay for the phone, we'd both be very grateful. Luckily, she had
> extended disability insurance at the time of her auto accident several
> years ago. They generally will pay for things needed for medical
> purposes, though I admit getting a car phone is pushing it (we already
> asked, but haven't pushed the issue yet).

Good luck ;-), but perhaps her doctor would be willing to "prescribe"
one (for safety).  It was my experience that insurance companies are
more willing to grant unusual requests at the beginning of the
disability but Much Less So as time passes.  Don't count on it now.
What about the deals some vendors offer for reduced rate or free
phones in return for a year's service or so.  Others in this group are
much more likely to be able to advised you on this.

Good luck.  Even though each case and each individual is different I
know almost exactly where you are.  I am a data communications
engineer (programmer) also with experience in telephone and radio up
to the early 80's level.  I have been in this frustrating condition
for about five years and have made several applications of technology.
If I can help in any way, please contact me.


Warren Tucker, TuckerWare   gatech!n4hgf!wht or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Ash)
Subject: Re: Where Can One *Buy* the White Pages?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 19:50:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gil
Kloepfer Jr.) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: You might mention to her that Compuserve offers an
> on line national white pages directory which allows cross-reference
> and wild-card searching. It carries a surcharge.  GO PHONES on CIS. I
> suppose that would be adequate for some users, maybe in her case also,
> depending on the volume of usage anticipated.   PAT]

My experience having played with this file a bit is that it contains
entries only if both of the following conditions are met:

1. It is a *residential*, not a *business*, phone.

2. The person has a listed phone number *including*address*.  Obviously
CompuServe is right not to list folks with unlisted phone numbers, but
people who choose to list their phone numbers but not their addresses
in the white pages are deleted from the CompuServe file.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 20:53:33 GMT


[e-mail] (Rolf Meier) writes:

> In my personal opinion, Qualcomm's claims are designed more to raise
> the price of Qualcomm shares than actual capacity advantages over
> TDMA.

Please, we invited all the major carriers and phone companies and some
manufacturers here to observe our formal system tests in November and
went through large-scale capacity testing with actual CDMA mobiles in
cars and vans in the field and multiple CDMA cells.  An actual working
CDMA system.  The results were presented to the CTIA.  If you'd like
to raise doubts with our capacity tests, you're going to have to do
far better than that.

What you'll have to do if you want to dispute CDMA's capacity over
TDMA is let us know the results of all the similar formal capacity
tests with actual mobiles and cells which have no doubt been performed
for TDMA.

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Radio Links for Rural Telephone
Date: 15 Jan 92 19:14:46 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Proctor & Associates) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 31, Message 3 of 13

> The new product is the model RT8 Rural Telephone System.  It consists
> of two boxes.

> What I can't figure out is, would this be legal in the USA, and how
> would it be licensed?

> But would it really be legal to provide telephone service in a rural
> area using conventional Land Mobile or Public Safety radio channels
> and these devices?

> I called the manufacturer (Connect Systems Inc, #113, 2064 Eastman
> Ave, Ventura, CA 93003 - 800-545-1349/805-642-7184) and they didn't
> seem to know anything about regulatory requirements. Someone there
> suggested that this was being made for third world markets.

    Yes, in the third world, such arrangements are actually
installed by the government monopoly telcos.

    When I was in Pakistan last year I amused myself by listening
to these devices. They are found randomly on the VHF bands there.
Some of these are in the middle of the Amateur Two-Meter band.  The US
Govt (Embassy and Consulate) use 4 freqs in the 160 Mhz range in
Pakistan. These are simplex base, mobile, walki-talkie units.  In
Peshawar two of these freqs are unusable because there are a couple of
rural telco links on them.

    If you want to know where the local CO is, look for a
veritable forest of Yagi Antennas (VHF High Band) pointing to every
direction of the compass. You are then looking at the roof of the
Central Office.

    The audio quality of some of these units leaves much to be
desired. But if it is a choice between some phone and no phone -- it is
worth choosing.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Job Opening in Telecom
Date: 15 Jan 92 18:47:18 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]-state.
edu writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 16, Message 13 of 13

> Job opening: Director, International Center for Telecommunications
> Management

> ICTM at the University of Nebraska at Omaha has begun a national
> search for a new director.

> Position requires a doctorate for tenure track
> faculty appointment in one of the departments of the College of
> Business Administration.

    I couldn't think of a better candidate than John Higdon. But
then reading that he is supposed to have a doctorate (In telecom??), I
suppose these people would find him unqualified. They are probably
looking for the sort of person who writes the usual content free
drivel in mags like "Telephony".

    A great pity. Someone like Higdon could have a positive effect
on the industry from such a position. But I guess from the job
description they are looking for a toady -- something John has never
been guilty of.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #45
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27540;
          20 Jan 92 1:28 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08964
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 23:40:38 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03020
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 23:40:17 -0600
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 23:40:17 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #46

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 18 Jan 92 22:05:03 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 46

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit? (Nelson Bolyard)
    Re: Motorola Cellular Phone Test Mode Commands (Steve Forrette)
    Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (John R. Levine)
    Re: State of Ohio Feature Group B and D (Jack Decker)
    Re: History of the Telephone Show on TV (William J. Carpenter)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Dave Strieter)
    Re: Phone Number Verification (Linc Madison)
    Re: Cellular Prices Go Up  (Maxime Taksar)
    Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
    Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Mark Terribile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 21:36:18 GMT


Our esteemed Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Yes there is. By 1995 (maybe 1994) new area codes
> will look like prefixes used to look; that is, they will NOT have zero
> or one as the second digit.   PAT]

As has been mentioned in previous Digests, there are parts of the
country where the leading "1" digit is still used to mean "long
distance" or "toll call", rather than "ten digit number follows" as it
means in parts of California (e.g. in the 415 area code, but not 408).

Seems to me that when area codes and exchange numbers cannot be
distinguished by value (e.g. N0X vs NXX), then the switch must have
some way of distinguishing them.  The only two ways that come to mind
are the "1 means area code follows" scheme now widely in use, and the
"timeout after seven digits are dialed" method, which seems fraught
with peril.  I doubt if the timeout method is likely to be adopted.

So, I conclude that if what PAT wrote is true, then it follows that
the whole nation must be converted to the "1 means area code follows"
scheme by "1995 (maybe 1994)".

Does anyone know if indeed there exists a plan for such a conversion?
Will 408 (where leading 1 is never required) and 517 (where leading 1
means toll call -- last time I checked) soon be converting?


Nelson Bolyard      [e-mail]      {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson
Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer.

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 13:40:24 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Motorola Cellular Phone Test Mode Commands
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> A particularly useful command would be a command to display the
> contents of various RAM locations.  That command, coupled with
> knowledge of which RAM location is assigned to the "Received System
> ID" would be most useful when trying to figure out what system you
> have just roamed into.

> Obviously, if you know the system IDs of all systems in the area you
> can guess which one you are currently in by setting the phone to
> "Preferred System ID" mode and trying each possible system ID -- but
> if you enter an unfamiliar area it would be nice to be able to find
> out the system ID without trying all the possibilities.

It would be nice if the cellular carriers would set up some special
number you could call at no charge, standardized in North America,
that would tell you the system you're on, the roamer port number, and
the roaming charges.  A simple non-interactive recording would do.

Also, I must praise my recently-aquired Oki 900 portable.  It's one of
the smallest units on the market, and has enough bells and whistles to
keep the most involved TELECOM Digest reader happy!  One of these is
RCL # #, which displayes the current System ID you're on.  It is very
clear - the display reads SystemID: xxxxxx.  It has all sorts of stuff
like this that are available in regular user mode, with no "Test mode"
passwords, etc., and are clearly documented in the user manual.  I
bought it based on a review that appeared here about a year ago - it
had more detail than I'm giving here.  I wish all of them were made
like this: The phone obviously knows what the current system id is,
and it would cost nothing to add the feature to display it.  But as
with many "consumer" products, they are made for the least common
denominator of consumers.  Why can't the people who don't want to know
what the system id is just ignore it, so that those who do can have
access to the information?  All in all, highly recommended.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 15 Jan 92 14:16:07 EST (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


There are apparently two ways to call someone who is on a ship at sea,
the old manual VLF system and the spiffy new satellite system.  VLF
calls are all person-to-person through the operator, while satellite
calls are direct dial.

Despite the hefty operator surcharge, for most people it's cheaper to
call person-to-person via VLF because you don't start to pay until the
person you want to talk to comes to the phone.  On a large ship, it
could easily take ten minutes to find someone, and with the satellite
system, that could be $20 or $30 of talk time.  I suppose you could
call, say who you wanted, hang up, and call back in 15 minutes, but
this is a perfect example of what person-to-person calling was
intended for in the first place.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 16:22:14 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: State of Ohio Feature Group B and D


In message <[e-mail]> dated 10 Jan 92 18:08:13 GMT,
[e-mail] writes:

> Speaking of Feature Group D access (10OHI) to carriers, here at the
> State of Ohio we are considering providing free dialing to many State
> Agencies throughout the State using Feature Group D.

> To contact a state agency someone would dial: 10OHI <five digit
> extension number>.  (644 is our carrier code.)  One of the exchanges
> we have is 466, and our extension numbers are last five digits of the
> number, so numbers could be 10OHIOVAXS# or 10OHIOPUCO# if an agency
> desired.  These calls would not cost the caller anything; the
> receiving agency would pay for the call.

> The biggest difficulty might be getting the general (non telecom)
> public to use such a "weird" phone number.  If enough agencies sign on
> to such a system we might be able to publicize this as a "Call Ohio"
> numbering scheme or something.

> It might be best for a user interface reasons to require the caller to
> enter the full long distance number including area code (even though
> we would ignore it.)

Yes, that would be better because some people might mistake your
access code for that of a regular long distance carrier.  I would
suggest using the normal number OR perhaps better yet (and perhaps
more technically feasible), use 1-700-seven digit number.  The reason
I suggest using 1-700 is because in this way, the local phone
companies will not get confused and present you with billing
information based on where it thinks the call went, or (worse yet)
pick off an intra-LATA call and handle it themselves (they probably
shouldn't do this anyway, but you never know what an independent telco
might do).

1-700 is reserved for use by the long distance carrier as they see
fit; the only "reserved" number is 1-700-555-4141 which should return
a voice recoding identifying the carrier (in your case, you could say
something like "You have reached the Ohio State Government.  Please
dial your call using 1-700- plus the seven telephone number to reach
the Ohio Government Agency of your choice."  Whatever you do, don't
tell the general public to dial "OH" or "OHIO"; you'll surely have
people dialing "04" (ZERO-H) or "0410" (ZERO-H-ONE-ZERO)!  You'll just
have to make sure that Ohio government agencies aren't assigned the
same exchange prefix in two different area codes (otherwise you might
have conflicting numbers in the system).

The other advantage to doing this is that you leave yourself open for
the possibility of acting as your own long distance carrier for state
agencies. State agencies could be presubscribed to 10OHI as their LD
carrier, and any long distance calls they make would go to your
switch.  You could then have a pretty sophisticated least-cost routing
setup, that would use your own lines for calls within Ohio and hand
interstate calls off to an interstate LD carrier (I'll bet MCI or
Sprint would fight for that business!).

Of course, you'd be responsible for billing back LD usage to the
individual government agencies, but remember, you don't have to do
this for all agencies right away, until you're comfortable with the
idea.  Your switch would have to be programmed to process 1-700 calls
from all callers, but restrict 1+NPA calls (calls to any area code
OTHER THAN 700) only from pre-authorized state phones (any decent
switch should be capable of maintaining such a database ... after all,
many of the smaller LD carriers won't let you place a 10XXX call over
their system unless you've been pre-authorized).

I have a question for you.  Does Ohio prohibit mandatory measured
service, allow it, or has no decision been made yet?  I know some
states (e.g. Maine and Oregon) have banned it completely, but I'm
wondering if any states closer to home have.


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

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 23:22:18 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: History of the Telephone Show on TV
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> I just saw a little blurb that a show about the history of
> the telephone will be on The Discovery Channel on Tuesday,
> 9:30 pm EST.

> [Moderator's Note: I am sorry this message arrived to late to be
> included at least a day earlier. Perhaps people who see the show
> will be so kind to send reviews.  PAT]

This was one episode of a British series called "The Secret Life of
Machines".  Each 30 minute episode describes for laymen how some
common machine works.  They also cover the technological evolution of
the thing in question.

For the telephone episode, they showed several old telegraph machines
and discussed how that worked.  They segued to Bell experimenting with
telegraph stuff when he decided to try transmitting voice.  Lots of
ancient phones briefly featured.  Some discussion of various
microphone and speaker technologies, including a pretty good practical
demo using carbon granules in a jar lid.  They spent a reasonable
amount of time showing and describing stepper relays and mentioned the
enormous maintainance.  Finished, naturally, with lots of humming
electronics.

The material is very accessible, but if you're already sort of tuned
in to telephony, you probably didn't miss any new material.  After
all, it is only a half-hour show.  FYI, other shows in this series
that I've seen include the vacuum cleaner and the car (the impression
I got was that there were 2-3 shows covering cars).  If you missed it,
wait to see if it comes around again.  I saw them last year some time.


Bill                      [e-mail]        or
[phone]            attmail!bill   or   att!pegasus!billc
AT&T Bell Labs / AT&T EasyLink Services               LZ 1E-207

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Strieter)
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 21:42:06 GMT


Several Digest readers have commented that it is cheaper for the telco
to provide DTMF than rotary pulse dialing, but I fail to understand
how they come to that conclusion.  I can't speak for the 5ESS or
DMS-100, but on the GTD-5 dial pulses are counted by software which
monitors the output of an opto-coupler device connected to each line,
whereas DTMF tones must be decoded by a more-expensive circuit which
feeds the decoded digits to the software.  How does "more expensive" =
"costs less"?


Dave Strieter,  AG Communication Systems,  POB 52179,  Phoenix AZ 85072-2179
*** These are not my employer's opinions.  They're my opinions, not my advice.
UUCP:..!{ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!samsung!romed!asuvax | att}!gtephx!strieterd
Internet: gtephx![e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 03:18:09 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Phone Number Verification
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


Andrew White ([e-mail]) in <[e-mail]>:

[ regarding numbers to have voice ANI read-back ]

> Try 410-xxx-xxxx where xxx-xxxx is any valid phone number.  (eg,
> 222-2222).  This works in both the 314 (St.Louis, MO) and 215
> (Philadelphia, PA) area.

No, it doesn't.  It now will connect you either to an intercept
recording or to a very confused person in northern/eastern Maryland.
The 410 area code is now in use for Baltimore and about half the state
of Maryland.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 05:12:55 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Maxime Taksar)
Subject: Re: Cellular Prices Go Up


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> Dave Leibold writes:

>> Bell Canada and Cantel will be raising their cellular rates soon.
>> Bell has a "Lifeline" rate of
>> $9.95 which will not be changed (though this might involve higher
>> connect time charges).

> Now let me get this straight: A "lifeline" rate for cellular?  Now
> I've heard everything!

And why not?  I have seen quite a few disabled people who carry a
cellular phone with them.  When one is bound to a wheelchair, this
method of communication is, I'm sure, very much a "lifeline".


Maxime Taksar             KC6ZPS            [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
Subject: Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 13:20:24 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg) says:

> Seriously, if I were wiring a house, I'd wire two four pair circuits
> to each room, down to a central point.  I'd terminate them all with
> RJ-45's on both ends.  You can run RJ-11 phone circuits on them just
> fine, but can also run RS-232 data, and other twisted pair wiring
> schemes.  Your house will (hopefully) stand for 100 years.  Wanna bet
> what they'll be using for appliances then?

I don't know if Ed Greenberg is prescient, or if "great minds think
alike."  Of course, compared with what I'm about to describe, Ed does
engage in a little "overkill."  Not that it's a bad idea.  Wire is
cheap to put in at installation, but terrible (in labor costs) once
the walls are up!

(Hmm, on second thought, I'm about to say that US West is a "great
mind"!)

Anyway, a couple of months ago I received one of those glossy,
four-color inserts with my phone bill.  One of the nice-things-to-know
it told me was that the standard for new residential construction here
in US West (Omaha) territory is exactly what Mr. Greeberg suggested:
eight wires (four-pair) from each location back to a central point.

At the time I didn't feel like seeing who establishes what standards
really apply, and I guess I still don't care that much.  IMHO, give me
dial tone at the demarc and let me worry about what comes next.  But I
remarked to myself at the time that The Phone Company must be seeing
more and more multiple line installations and/or residential PBXes if
they were heading off future problems with an eight-wire requirement.


          <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]        |  Nebraska Inns of Court
[e-mail]        |  [phone] (Data/Fax)
Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet          |  V.32/V.42bis   /   G3 Fax

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 01:15:30 -0500
From: mole-end![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony


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

> Bottom line: We have an officially capacity tested (tests observed by
> the major companies in the industry) CDMA system in the field that
> gives a capacity improvement of 10 to 30 times (depending on
> conditions) over an AMPS system, with better voice quality, better
> handoffs, and less dropped calls.

Would someone like to explain how CDMA works?  I understand that it
spreads the signal across a huge bandwidth in a way that allows the
receiver to select 1 of N signals ... but how?  A CDMA primer, anyone?


 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end                Mark Terribile

 uunet!mole-end, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #46
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27567;
          20 Jan 92 1:30 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08796
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 23:43:00 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09920
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 23:42:32 -0600
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 23:42:32 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #47

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Jan 92 00:30:07 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 47

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CID/ANI Blocking (Derek Andrew)
    Re: CID/ANI Blocking (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Caller ID Now Operational in Northern Illinois (David G. Lewis)
    CLID - Split the Debate (Derek Andrew)
    Re: Caller ID Now Operational in Northern Illinois (John R. Hall)
    Re: Caller-ID Rejected in Indiana (Arthur L. Rubin)
    Caller-ID Area Code in Toronto (Bob Miller)
    CLID on a PBX (Randall C. Gellens)
    Automatic Number Callback (Bruce Albrecht)
    Re: Panasonic Answering Machine (Nigel Roberts)
    Re: Addition to SWBT 411 Service (Paul Hutmacher)
    Re: Less Service From the BOC (Keith McNeill)
    Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Malcolm Dunnett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Derek Andrew)
Subject: Re: CID/ANI Blocking
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 01:27:26 -0700


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

> Andy Dunn posted:

>> I agree with our esteemed Moderator.  Consider the fact that the 800
>> number exists to answer your call whenever you call it, and that the
>> company owning it pays a time-measured rate for the call.

>> Remember the case reported here in the Digest (I think) last week
>> where somebody tried to get revenge on a company by faxing them long
>> faxes and tying up their phones?  What if they really were anonymous.

> I want to be able to block ANI from my phone.  Let the person
> receiving the call have the option of refusing a call from any blocked
> number, or of blocking calls from my number.  The person receiving the
> calls does not need to know my number in either case.

>> [Moderator's Note: However Andy, I would refer you to John Higdon's
>> message in this issue. 900 operators *do* pay for the call in the
>> sense they are extending credit to you, the caller until you pay your
>> phone bill and telco in turn remits to them. As someone who provides
>> an extension of credit, they are also entitled to know who you are.  PAT]

> They should have the option of refusing the call if you chose not to
> identify yourself.  They might want to take the call, and give the
> caller the option of billing to a credit card, but they could know in
> advance whether the ANI was being blocked from the calling party.

The do have the option of accepting your call if you do not want to be
identified. If you go to a pay phone, your call will be rejected!  If
they want to accept your call anyway, they could provide an 800
number. The funny thing here is if you are going to provide a credit
card number, then you are identifying yourself all over again.

It is not the act of providing your telephone number which causes you
to lose your privacy, but as soon as they know your name (who you are)
then your privacy is forfeit.


Derek Andrew, Manager of Computer Network & Technical Services
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskachewan, Canada, S7N 0W0
[e-mail], [phone],  52 11 23N 106 48 48W

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: CID/ANI Blocking
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 14:52:18 GMT


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

> I want to be able to block ANI from my phone.  Let the person
> receiving the call have the option of refusing a call from any blocked
> number, or of blocking calls from my number.  The person receiving the
> calls does not need to know my number in either case.

Correction: You want to be able to block delivery of billing number to
the called party from your phone.  A service that would enable you to
block ANI would probably be in contravention of half a hundred FCC
regulations, PSC regulations, and telco tariffs.

Plus, of course, if you block delivery of BN to the 800 called party,
the 800 called party will never have your BN to refuse reception of
calls from that BN ...


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

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Now Operational in Northern Illinois
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 14:41:37 GMT


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

> PAT noted that caller ID in Northern Illinois works across both
> Illinois Bell and Centel territories within the LATA.  How are they
> passing the information?  Do they share an SS7 network, or have a
> gateway, or use some other means?  Any idea what the billing
> arrangements are?

> [Moderator's Note: There is a gateway through the central office
> known as 'Chicago-Newcastle'.  There is both an Illinois Bell
> 'Newcastle CO' and a Centel 'Newcastle CO'.

I'm still confused.  IBT and Centel presumably share the Newcastle
building.  How is traffic, particularly signaling traffic, gatewayed
in this building?  Do Centel and IBT share a switch, and all
IBT-Centel traffic is tandemed through this switch, with this switch
being a signaling point on both IBT's and Centel's SS7 networks?
(Sounds incredibly inefficient, btw.)

Is there a gateway STP or gateway STP pair?  Is there a shared STP or
STP pair?  Help?


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


[Moderator's Note: Well actually no, they don't share the same
building. Centel's "Newcastle CO" is on Minor Street in Des Plaines,
IL, while IBT's CO of the same name is in Chicago ... but they have
some neat ways of wiring things. I'm not certain how they handle it.
Since the 312/708 and Centel/IBT boundary line (within Chicago) is
ragged at best in some places (like in the middle of a block and
running down the alley between houses) I know there is a lot of Centel
stuff wired through the IBT Newcastle office. Very bizarre.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Derek Andrew)
Subject: CLID - Split the Debate
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 01:21:20 -0700


Calling line ID is a double edged sword. I have heard arguments
supporting it as enhancing privacy and control of the telephone, and
arguments condemning it as an invasion of privacy.  I propose we
separate the issues of residential versus commercial CLID.

I suggest that CLID on a residential line is good because it gives the
owner of the line control and enhances privacy by identifying the
source of the call. I can first try to identify the source of
obnoxious calls without involving the authorities.  I would like to
hear of any cases where anyone would disagree that I should know who
is calling me at home.

The problem of invasion of privacy occurs when businesses supposedly
collect information about me when I call them. The anonymity of the
telephone in dealing with businesses is lost, and this is what seems
to upset everyone. The fact that this could have been accomplished on
800 numbers for years is irrelevant to this discussion.

If CLID was tarrifed such that it could only be offered to residences,
would the benefits of CLID outweigh the remaining concerns?


Derek Andrew, Manager of Computer Network & Technical Services
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskachewan, Canada, S7N 0W0
[e-mail], [phone],  52 11 23N 106 48 48W


[Moderator's Note: Please continue this debate in any event in the
Telecom-Priv area ([e-mail]).  Thanks.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 13:03:29 EST
From: [e-mail] (John R Hall)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Now Operational in Northern Illinois
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


The first 300 numbers delivered per month are included in the
$6.50/month fee.  Each additional number delivered costs two cents.


John

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

From: "[e-mail]"@BIIVAX.DP.BECKMAN.COM
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Rejected in Indiana
Message-ID: <a_rubin.695578240@dn66>
Date: 16 Jan 92 16:10:40 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.


In <[e-mail]> the Moderator comments:

> [Moderator's Note: The difference is just a matter of degree, I guess.
> With Caller-ID you are saying 'I want to specifically know the number
> of the phone used to call me' while with Call-Back you are saying only
> that you wish to complete the connection the other party attempted to
> establish (and presumably he wants to talk to you also, or he would
> not have called.)  I guess it is just how they choose to interpret the
> purpose of the one versus the official purpose of the other.   PAT]

But, doesn't the number called appear on your bill (if it isn't
local)?


Arthur L. Rubin
[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] (personal)
[e-mail] (work)    Beckman Instruments/Brea
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.


[Moderator's Note: Yes it does.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 08:55:59 PST
From: Bob Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID Area Code in Toronto


I noticed a change to how Caller-ID is displayed in Toronto 416.787
exchange.  Since the introduction of the service only local calls were
displayed and did not give an area code, long distance calls displayed
"LONG DISTANCE".  I noticed a call last night that included the area
code '416-xxx-xxxx'.  I have yet to receive a long distance call to
see how it is displayed.


Bob Miller / Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd.

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 92 07:54 GMT
From: Randall C Gellens <[e-mail]>
Subject: CLID on a PBX


As I understand it, ANI has been around for some time, and delivers
the calling (or billing) number to inter-exchange carriers for all
calls, and end users for 911, 800, and 900 numbers, through
out-of-band signalling, I think.

Calling-Line ID (CLID), on the other hand, delivers the calling number
to end subscribers between the first and second rings.

So, my question is: can PBX systems get CLID, or ANI on normal
(non-911, 800, 900) calls?


Many thanks,

Randy

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 12:31:51 CST
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Albrecht)
Subject: Automatic Number Callback


I don't have it, and I suspect that I couldn't get it anyway, since my
exchange "Can't provide call waiting disable because the equipment
can't provide it", but it would have been useful yesterday.  Some girl
left a message on my answering machine to the effect of "You left your
underwear here last night."  I think it would have been rather amusing
to freak her out by calling back and telling her I'd be over in a few
minutes to pick it up!


[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 05:43:57 PST
From: Nigel Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machine


[e-mail] (John I. Hritz) wrote:

> I have a Panasonic answering machine, but am unsure of what
> (prog #22) means.  Could you elaborate.

Press the PROGRAM button and hold it until the light comes on. Now
type #22 on the keypad. Press the MEMORY button to store and the
machine should beep once. This procedure (for the documented command
PROG #21) can be found in the manual.

> The voice stamp and cuckoo are not enabled when the clock needs to
> be set.  It generally takes a long power failure for the CMOS to lose
> its memory.  Try setting your personal ID code and the date/time.
> That should clear up the problem.

I'll try this. Thanks.


Nigel Roberts  [phone] / [phone]   FAX [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Hutmacher)
Subject: Re: Addition to SWBT 411 Service
Organization: Greater Montrose UFO Appreciation Society & Data Haven
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 12:48:16 GMT


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

> Now hear this recording after getting the phone number:

> "This number can be automatically dialed for an additional charge of
> 30 cents."

Furthermore, you'd better listen sharp to the number the first time
since they no longer repeat it.  I had to call back and ask for the
number again and insist upon a credit for the first call.  As usual
SWB offered credit without a stir.


Paul Hutmacher    -/-    [e-mail]    -/-   Houston, Texas

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

From: eplrx7![e-mail] (Keith McNeill)
Subject: Re: Less Service From the BOC
Organization: DuPont Engineering Physics Laboratory
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 15:05:06 GMT


>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Doctor Math):

> Effective December 31st, 1991, my BOC closed their downtown Payment
> Center, claming it was part of an effort to "make paying your bill
> more convenient". Apparently a survey has shown that "the majority" of
> customers would rather pay their bills at their local area bank, so
> the telco now has arrangements with four banks here in the area so
> that bills may be paid through these banks.

> But there's a catch: If you don't bank with any of these four banks,
> you will be required to pay a "transaction fee" of $0.50. Not to
> mention that a record of the payment may take days to be entered into
> the BOC billing system. Somehow I don't think that having to go

It may not take days.  A friend's phone service was disconnected
because he didn't pay his phone bill for awhile.  He went to a local
bank and paid the balance of the bill.  His phone service was back on
by the time he got home (1/2 hour).  The phone company is Diamond
State Telephone of Delaware.


Keith McNeill                 |    Du Pont Company
[e-mail]  |    Engineering Physics Laboratory
[phone]/7395           |    P.O. Box 80357
                              |    Wilmington, Delaware 19880-0357

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 10:14:42 EST
Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe
Talbot) wrote:

> The PBX isn't the problem here. In North America "modern" CO switches
> don't pass answer supervision back to the subscriber. (On older
> switches <step by step/panel> it was sent back to the sub in the form
> of reversed polarity). This would solve lots of problems with COCOTS,
> long distance companies, modems, voice forwarding systems and even
> teleslime automatic calling machines, but alas ...

Wouldn't reverse polarity make it impossible for me to talk to my home
answering machine and office voice mail from a line-powered phone?  As
I recall, DTMF generators don't work under reverse polarity ...


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Malcolm Dunnett)
Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered
Date: 16 Jan 92 08:36:05 -0800
Organization: Malaspina College


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joe
Talbot) writes:

> In Japan, reverse polarity supervision is universal (even on the
> newest switches) and is used extensively by pay phones and even key
> systems (that show you the rate charged for the call in real time!).

   I did a little digging into the SL/1 doc set after I posted the
original question, and I noticed that they mentioned a different
software package for the CDR called the "Japan" software. This variant
made specific reference to answer supervision. I guess the above
response explains why.

   As a followup question: Answer supervision seems like a valuable
feature for a number of reasons. The impression I'm getting is that it
has been "designed out" of modern CO equipment. Is there a good reason
for this?


Malcolm Dunnett       <[e-mail]>
Malaspina College
900 Fifth Street
Nanaimo, B.C. CANADA  Tel: [phone]
V9R 5S5

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #47
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27640;
          20 Jan 92 1:34 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23898
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 23:45:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01302
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 23:44:51 -0600
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 23:44:51 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #48

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Jan 92 04:03:23 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 48

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Prices Go Up (William Moss)
    Re: NT Vantage System Question (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (Kurt Guntheroth)
    Re: AT&T Calling-Card Advertisement (John Perkins)
    Re: T1 on Fiber Revisited (Bud Couch)
    Re: Mu-law, A-law (Bud Couch)
    Re: Phone Number Verification (Carl Moore)
    Re: Phone Number Verification (Ramona Skinner)
    Re: Reporter Seeks Information on 800 Billed as 900 (Bob Frankston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (William Moss)
Subject: Re: Cellular Prices Go Up
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 23:35:51 -0500
Organization: Bell-Northern Research


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

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

>> Bell Canada and Cantel will be raising their cellular rates soon.
>> Bell has a "Lifeline" rate of
>> $9.95 which will not be changed (though this might involve higher
>> connect time charges).

> Now let me get this straight: A "lifeline" rate for cellular?  Now
> I've heard everything!

 From what I understand from having spoken wuth some Bell Cellular
reps, the 'lifeline' rate provides you with a cellular number and
unlimited access to free cellular calls ('*' calls, such as 911, *CAA
(for towing, etc)), but high per minute charges for all billable
calls. (In other words, whatever you do, don't answer the phone,
because it will cost you -- somewhere near 95 cents a minute)

The idea is to provide security on the road for commuters and others
who may not want to leave their car in case of an on-road emergency.

I have no connection with the marketing aspects of BCE's mobile radio
interests, and offer this information based on a conversation I had
recently with a sales rep.


William G. Moss                      disclaimer: not the views of BNR or NT
Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa  [phone] [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: NT Vantage System Question
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 16:20:06 GMT


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

> I've played around with a Vantage key-type PBX system a bit. They have
> a port for SMDR, but it doesn't seem to be able to send data in a
> reliable stream. That is, it will tend to shut off and go into
> something of a command mode. Only flipping a couple of DIP switches
> simultaneously will get the SMDR rolling again with call data.

> Any ideas on how to keep the SMDR rolling merrily along, or is this
> tendency going to remain a built-in feature? Keeping a constant SMDR
> would be helpful in call accounting applications.

You should disconnect the transmit data wire that would send
characters INTO the Vantage.  Any character received will put the
system into command mode.  Try using a cable that uses only pins 3 +
7.  Short 4 to 5 at the Vantage end, also 6 to 20.  This will remove
any control signal problems.


Vance Shipley
[e-mail]   [e-mail]   ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

From: [e-mail] (Kurt Guntheroth)
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kurt Guntheroth)
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 16:50:23 GMT


Many thanks to all the knowledgeable respondents on this question.
(Alan L Varney, Joe Konstan, Jon Baker, Lars Poulsen, Ronald T.
Crocker, Samuel W. Ho, david.g.lewis) Here is a concise summary of the
responses.

1.  What is Caller ID?

Caller ID is a tariffed service from the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)
which delivers the "calling number" in-band on the audio path between
the first two rings using FSK (bell 202 modem) encoding.  The number
provided is defined to be the directory number of the station
originating the call.  (Lars Poulsen)

Information is sent between the first and second power ringing bursts
for normal analog loops.  The behavior is slightly different for ISDN.
(Ronald T. Crocker)

Bellcore TR-TSY-000030 & 000031 describe the basic technique for
signaling over individual T/R pairs between ring cycles.  (Alan L Varney)

The capability to deliver calling numbers to the called subscriber
requires FSK modulators on the subscriber line cards; such hardware is
unlikely to be installed in switches more than two years old, unless
and until the LEC is ready to start selling C-ID service.  (Lars
Poulsen)

1a. More on Caller ID

Caller ID relies on an underlying service called CND (calling
number delivery).

CND requires an end-to-end SS7 connection.  SS7 is transmitted
out-of-band, not over trunks but over distinct (geographically or
logically) digital signalling links.  The SS7 data is sent from the
originating CO to a STP (signalling transfer point).  The STP network
quickly determines if the call can be completed, and if so, sends
messages to all intervening CO's to build the path.  Also, the
originating dialed number is sent to the terminating CO.  This
information is ALWAYS sent for EVERY call sent over SS7 trunks,
regardless of the presence of call-blocking or any other feature.
(Jon Baker)

Currently, all the IEC networks are SS7-connected.  Many LEC networks
are also SS7-connected.  However, the IEC-LEC interface for SS7 is
still being worked on.  As a result, the current connection uses EAMF
[Equal Access MF "touch tone" in-band signalling] and passes the
billing number to the IEC, and nothing except the destination number
to the terminating LEC.  (Samuel W. Ho) [This is why only intra-LATA
calls have currently got caller ID]

2.  What is ANI?

ANI, as used in this context, refers to the delivery of the billing
number associated with a call passed from an LEC to an InterExchange
Carrier (IEC or "Long Distance Carrier"). This number is sometimes
provided in-band using MF ("touch tone") signalling, but usually [see
below] is passed out-of-band on the common carrier signalling system
(SS6 or SS7).  (Lars Poulsen)

Currently, all LEC-IEC signaling uses Equal Access MF (EAMF)
signaling.  SS7 Network Interconnect is only in trials.  The big three
IECs all use SS7; I think the only place CCIS6 is used is as a backup
signaling network in AT&T. (david.g.lewis)

For most residential service, the directory number and the billing
number will be the same. Even when they are not, it is common for the
Central Office switch (CO) to be misconfigured to deliver the
directory number instead of the billing number.

ANI, being transmitted in-band over trunks, is not available to
residential customers.  (Jon Baker)

Some IECs have tariffed on-line delivery of this service to the
receiving customer by various means for those large customers that
have private ("bypass") access facilities to the IEC.  (Lars Poulsen)

The LEC is obligated to provide the billing number to the IEC;
otherwise the IEC would be unable to get paid for the call. Since
there has not in the past been any regulation prohibiting the delivery
of this information to bypass customers, they have started selling it.
(Lars Poulsen)

2a  More on ANI

In an SS7 network, Billing Number and Calling number are both passed
to the terminating office, along with a few other bits, such as the
Presentation Restricted bit.  In a non-SS7 network, the Billing number
is passed as far as whatever toll switch rates the call.

Subscribers to IEC 800 service can request that the billing number be
forwarded to them.  All the major carriers can do this by sending
additional data over an ISDN PRI.  Some carriers (not AT&T) can also
do so by sending in-band data over a T1 trunk.

Billing number delivery is available from any Equal Access area,
regardless of SS7 implementation, as pre-SS7 systems still need the
billing number for billing, obviously.  The only exceptions would be
certain rural areas that still use operator number identification and
party lines of more than two parties.  (Samuel W. Ho)

3.  What determines whether a properly equipped receiver can get my calling
phone number?

If your area (entire local phone company area) doesn't provide
caller-ID then nobody will get caller ID from your phone.  If your
local switch is not running SS7 then nobody will get caller ID from
your phone.  The only time you can prevent ANI is if you are on a
service without direct distance dialing (i.e., all long distance calls
must be made by going through operators) and I don't think we have to
worry about that.  Caller ID blocking never affects ANI, 911 service,
etc.  (Joe Konstan)

If the call uses an InterLATA Carrier, they can get the Billing
Number; if the call uses SS7-all-the-way, the terminating Switch
(and any intermediate carrier) gets the Calling Number.  (Alan L Varney)

A "network" service (e.g. 800), probably will be able to get ANI
delivery. You have no control over this as a caller.  (Ronald T.  Crocker)

4.  Interesting Note on pending FCC action

Blocking is currently only supported on intra-LATA calls because
Caller ID is currently only supported on intra-LATA calls.

The FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding a
proposed regulation that per-call blocking must be supported for all
interstate calls.  This would imply that all LECs would have to
recognize *67 and pass the CPN Presentation Restricted indicator to
the IECs (one SS7 Network Interconnect is deployed), that all IECs
would have to honor the Presentation Restricted indicator (not deliver
CPN to directly connected egress customers, carry the indicator
through the IEC network, and deliver it to the terminating LEC), and
that all LECs would have to honor the Presentation Restricted
indicator, at least for interstate traffic.  (david.g.lewis)

Thank you all for making me wise.

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

From: [e-mail] (John Perkins)
Subject: Re: AT&T Calling-Card Advertisement
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 17:44:36 GMT


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

>> I just saw this posted above an AT&T coin phone:

>> No charge for AT&T calling card, and you don't need a home phone or
>> credit card to have one.  Call 800-551-3131 ext. 968.

>> Sample credit card displayed; the only comment I have is that I see a
>> non-areacode where the cards from the Baby Bells have had home phone

> I've had one of these for years.  First three digits are 677.

I had one in 1968.  First three digits were 114.  They referred to it
as an "unkeyed" credit card.

They appeared reluctant to give it to me at first, but finally did
after requiring a $150 deposit, which was eventually refunded with 6%
interest.

I used it for calling the U.S. from all over Europe, which was much
cheaper than using the local post offices.


John

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber Revisited
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 19:40:12 GMT


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

> Putting a single T1 on fiber is a very costly venture.  Usually, fiber

It all depends on future expansion in the geographic area. If there
are plans to extend T3 into the area in the near future, the cost of
laying the fiber is really not an issue. It then becomes a matter of
the electronics cost.

For about $3500 (list price [and who pays list? :-)]) a pair of ADC
Fiber-to-T1 converters can be installed on either end. When it is time
to upgrade, they are replaced by the FT3 and are availible for re-use
at another installation. For a telco, this may be an economical
solution to a specific problem.

$3500 may sound like a lot of money, but compared to the installation
of new cable and repeater housings, and considering future expansion,
it can be significantly cheaper. Re-use allows this cost to amortized
over several applications as well.

> In any case, the break even cost for such configuration will require a
> large number of voice circuit subscribers to switch at the same time.

You seem to imply that the "voice circuit subscribers" have to make a
conscious choice on this. Nay, nay, my friend. When the telco decides
to move your circuit from 17 kft of H88 loaded pair to a SLC-96, no
one ever asks for your approval.


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

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: Mu-law, A-law
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 20:19:41 GMT


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

> mu-law is defined as:

> F(x) = x ((ln(1 + mu(|x|)) / ln(1 + mu) ), -1 =< x =< 1

> Unreadable ASCII equations aside, this means that A-law is actually

> In implementation, both are done by piece-wise approximations.  For
> mu-law (the only one I'm familiar with), the coding range is broken
> into 16 distinguishable segments (with those on each side of 0 being
> the same, so there are only 15 different segments). The usual way of
> coding an eight-bit value is one sign bit, three bits for the segment,
> and four bits for the 'step' within the segment.

Which brings to mind an interesting story which is probably not public
knowlege, but I think that it was long enough ago that the "statute of
limitations" has passed anyway. ;-)

In 1970, when I joined Lenkurt Electric, later GTE Lenkurt, now
defunct, the company was working on an end-to-end compatible system
for the then new WECO D2 channel bank. This was the 9002A channel
bank. I was working on the channel cards for the system, so I can't
give any real technical specifics, but the only information available
on Mu-law encoding was your "unreadable ASCII equations", so the codec
was designed on that basis.

9002A to 9002A testing worked fine, but 9002A to D2 revealed some
problems with the implementation. Much midnight oil later, it was
discovered that the D2 used a piece-wise approximation, whereas the
9002A actually conformed to the equation!

Needless to say, a crash program was instituted to design a piece-wise
codec, but in the meantime, some deliberate "degradation" was
introduced to assure end-to-end compatiblity.


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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 10:26:22 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Number Verification


> Try 410-xxx-xxxx where xxx-xxxx is any valid phone number.  (eg,
> 222-2222).  This works in both the 314 (St.Louis, MO) and 215
> (Philadelphia, PA) area.

Apparently both 215 and 314 have required 1+ for long distance calls,
but 215 is now changing 1+7D to 7D for long distance calls within it,
in preparation for N0X/N1X prefixes.  410, by the way, is the new area
code in eastern Maryland.  There was a note in this digest a little
while ago about someone using 410 + something out in area 619 in
California, and he was wondering what happens now that "410 +
something" reaches Maryland.

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

From: [e-mail] (Skinner Ramona)
Subject: Re: Phone Number Verification
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 19:04:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Steven A Rubin) writes:

> Try 410-xxx-xxxx where xxx-xxxx is any valid phone number.  (eg,
> 222-2222).  This works in both the 314 (St.Louis, MO) and 215
> (Philadelphia, PA) area.

FYI.  410 is a newly assigned area code for regions in Maryland.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Reporter Seeks Information on 800 Billed as 900
Date: Fri 17 Jan 1992 11:27 -0500


Nak.

It's also worth finding out who did NOT get charged.  I'm in Eastern
Mass and have not seen such charges and my default carrier is ATT.
(Yes, I did try the 800 number).

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #48
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23439;
          19 Jan 92 23:02 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17581
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 21:11:10 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19428
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 21:10:43 -0600
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 21:10:43 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #49

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Jan 92 21:10:34 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 49

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (Bob Clements)
    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (John Macdonald)
    Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (John Higdon)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Peter da Silva)
    Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (Alan M. Gallatin)
    Re: Zip + 6? (Marc Veeneman)
    Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Michael Bender)
    Re: US West Blows It (Sort Of) (John Hall)
    Re: Phone Number Verification (Charlie Mingo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 17:33:09 EST
From: [e-mail]


Responding to the comments about the LD carriers providing your phone
number to the recipient of a call to an 800/900 number (but omitting
most of the quotations to save space):

John Higdon summarizes:

> I agree with Pat on this one: if you have some reason that you do not
> want someone at the other end of an 800 or 900 number call to know
> your number -- don't call. It is the customer of the 800 service (or
> even 900 service) that is paying for the call and he has a right to
> know who is running up his bill.

It's hard to disagree with this.  But at the same time, it would be a
lot more honest if the 800/900 providers of the world would _tell_ the
public that calling them would result in giving away the caller's
phone number.  Have you ever seen that stated in the fine print of any
800 or 900 number advertisement?  I sure haven't.

Maybe we need a regulation that requires disclosure of a POTS number,
with CLID blocking honored, along with every 800 number that is
advertised.  That way the caller could make the choice.  But at least
there should be honest disclosure of the way things work.

It's not clear how to implement that idea in the 900 case, but I never
call 900 numbers so that doesn't bother me as much.


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

From: eci386![e-mail] (John Macdonald)
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 17:14:16 -0500


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

> I agree with Pat on this one: if you have some reason that you do not
> want someone at the other end of an 800 or 900 number call to know
> your number -- don't call. It is the customer of the 800 service (or
> even 900 service) that is paying for the call and he has a right to
> know who is running up his bill.

I on the other hand disagree.  The customer who is paying for the call
should have the right to specify whether he cares who is calling.  If
they are willing to accept and pay for anonymous calls, then such
calls should be permitted.

If the called party is not willing to accept anonymous calls, then
someone attempting to call them using a service that specifies
blocking should simply be informed that their call cannot be completed
as dialed and why.  Then they can choose to either call again turning
off the blocking or to not call depending upon how they rate the
relative importance of completing the call and protecting their
anonymity.

There is not likely to be many places willing to accept and pay for
anonymous calls, but there are certainly some.  Possibly there are too
few to justify the cost of providing intercepts in such cases.
However, there are many 800 service providers who do not get to see
caller information until their monthly billing -- all they find out
from the current scheme is who they have already wasted money on,
accepting anonymous calls is not much worse unless you get a malicious
attacker as in the Honda case discussed here recently.

Certainly, this open mechanism of letting the market decide -- caller
can choose whether or not to block, callee can choose whether or not
to accept blocked calls -- would be far better than having the telco
legal tariffs specify for everyone the subset of alternatives that
they must live with.  (This applies both to the 800/900 ANI discussion
as well as to the similar ongoing arguments about Caller ID - it is
especially applicable for the Caller ID debates.)  The only objection
is that if people are not forced to provide their ID, it makes it much
harder for telcos to sell CID and ANI to business customers.


John Macdonald    jmm@eci386

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 15:31 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI


On Jan 16 at 17:33, apple!BBN.COM!clements writes:

> Maybe we need a regulation that requires disclosure of a POTS
> number, with CLID blocking honored, along with every 800 number
> that is advertised.  That way the caller could make the choice.

But where is it written that a business or individual MUST provide an
anonymous way to reach it or him? Why can I NOT decide that the only
way to reach me is via a method that reveals the caller's number? The
caller still has a choice: he can call, or he can not call. No one has
a god-given right to call me anonymously. That the limitations of
technology has made this traditionally possible is irrelavent.

> But at least there should be honest disclosure of the way things
> work.

I have no problem with disclosure, but this falls squarely in the
domain of users' responsibility. So the numbers of people who call my
number are made known to me. Would you require that I answer the phone
with, "I know your number now"? By then it is too late. Would you
require a warning with the advertisement? I don't advertise it. Would
you require the DA operator to warn you when you get the number there?
My number is not listed.

Over time the public will become aware of the capabilities of 800
service. If some gung-ho "public protection" groups would care to
mount a campain to educate the public, I will applaud. But the burden
of educating the public is not and should not be on the shoulders of
those paying good money for the services.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!
Date: 17 Jan 92 02:41:28 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Gabe M Wiener) writes:

> Speaking of such, does anyone still manufacture real telephones
> anymore?  "Real telephones" are defined as what the 2500 set used to
> be (as opposed to the current piece of junk that AT&T calls the 2500
> set ... with a horrible electronic ringer, touch-tones that don't
> sustain, and construction that would break if you breathed on it).
> Does anyone still make a good, well-built 2500 set with a proper
> handset, a real keypad, and a good, loud *MECHANICAL* ringer?

    Yes, several companies still make real 2500 and 500 sets. A
couple of U.S. manufacturers are ITT (Alcatel) and Comdial (Stromberg
Carlson). Northern Telecom may still be making them. There is also a
Korean clone (Cheezy quality) that appears under various names such as
Premier and Vodavi.

    These phones are 100% compatable with old AT&T (Western
Electric) phones and parts are completely intechangeable.

    By the way, these phones can often be picked up at swap meets
and garage sales for $1-3. Buy even the broken ones and you can
canabalise for repairs. You can also buy all the parts seperatly from
telco distributors. The telco distributors also sell these phones for
$25 to $30 each. And yes, you can buy the parts to convert old non
modular sets to fully modular.

    Long live the 2500, nothing tougher, nothing sounds better,
nothing else works on all loops.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home!
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 03:48:12 GMT


I'm sure you can still get 2500-quality sets from some military
contractor.  You need a left handed blivet wrench to install them,
they use industrial style din-5 connectors, and cost $10,000 (plus
$500 for navy grey instead of olive drab). :->


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

From: [e-mail] (Alan M. Gallatin)
Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person?
Date: 16 Jan 92 22:42:50 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.


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

> That's why _I_ use person-to-person.  It works out to be cheaper.
> Once in a while, if it looks like the conversation will be any length
> of time at all, one of us will hang up and call the other right back
> at direct dialed rates.  That's often a pain in the neck to do,
> though.

It's also a waste of time!!  Although person-to-person rates are
considerably higher than direct station rates, the entire premium is
in the form of a surcharge and/or increased first minute charge.  In
*EVERY* case I've tried, additional minutes are the same whether you
dial direct or use the most expensive operator assisted services.  So,
once you've begun the paid part of a person-to-person conversation,
the best thing to do is just keep talking until you're done.

Of course, the other solution is to never accept the p-to-p call and
simply use it as a cue to call right back (making the call p-to-p
*AND* collect is a good way to ensure you never have to pay for the
call!!!)


ALAN M. GALLATIN             Internet:  [e-mail]
Duke University School of Law           [e-mail]
Home: [phone]                   GEnie:  A. GALLATIN

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

From: marcal![e-mail] (Marc Veeneman)
Subject: Re: Zip + 6?
Organization: Marcal Systems Corporation
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 22:22:12 GMT


[e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun) writes:

> In a {USA Today} study, in which 1000 letters were sent, ZIP + 4
> letters actually took LONGER to arrive (the percentage of five-digit
> coded letters arriving on time was larger than the percentage of
> nine-digit coded letters arriving on time, where "on time" means the
> number of days promised by USPS -- one day locally, two days within
> 600 miles, three days outside of 600 miles in the continental US.)

> I think 75% arrived on time, 20% one day late and the rest more than
> that.  (Some got lost) ... the study included purposely misaddressed
> letters, house numbers that were off by one, ZIP codes that were off
> by one, etc.

We had a similar experience.  Our first ZIP + 4 Address Block Barcode
mailing backfired.  Mail which has been successfully delivered for
many years was returned from all over the US.  Our client then gave us
instructions: They WILL be LAST to use ZIP + 4 and barcoding, and then
only under threat from the US Government or its agencies.


   Marc Veeneman  Marcal Systems Corporation  Cary, Illinois U.S.A.


[Moderator's Note: I've successfully received letters addressed to me
with the only notation on the front of the envelope being '60690-1570'.
No name, no box number ... nothing but the nine-digit zip. And yet,
that took a couple days longer than it should. The above zip is unique
to my box ... it couldn't have been any easier.    PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 17:38:11 PST
From: [e-mail] (W7EGX)
Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered


In article <[e-mail]> Malcolm Dunnett <dunnett@
mala.bc.ca> writes:

>> Are there any PBXs which can do this?

> The problem is NOT your choice of PBX, in fact for this application
> there are probably none better!  The problem is either that you are
> not receiving answer supervision signals from your telephone company
> or that your PBX is not expecting them.  If you have analog (ground or
> loop start) CO lines than you are not receiving answer supervision
> signals from the CO.  Only a few LEC's in the U.S. are currently
> providing answer supervision on analog facilities, and only if you
> order and pay for it.

I'm in Pac*Bell land (415-863) and I seem to get answer supervision in
the form of battery reversal on my regular POTS lines for many but not
all calls.  I haven't done enough investigation to determine what type
of calls give me answer supervision and what type don't.  Why would
this be?  I'm told that I'm served by a 5ESS.  I don't think that
there is a technical reason that I can't get supervision on every
call, and I don't understand why I would have to be charged extra for
what probably amounts to changing a configuration parameter in the
software on the switch.


mike bender     415-336-6353    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Hall)
Subject: Re: US West Blows It (Sort Of)
Organization: Applied Microsystems, Redmond, WA
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 21:19:05 GMT


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

> Dialing either 7D or 1 + 7D now gets one routed to the same recording:
> "<SIT> I'm sorry ... if you are making a Long Distance or Operator
> Assisted call, you must first dial a 1 or 0, plus the area code and
> then the number.  Please try your call again."

> But this is not the end of the weirdness.  Before one gets connected
> to the recorded message, one hears a ringing tone (usually for two or
> three rings).  The first time I got the recording, I definitely heard
> a radio or TV in the background before the recording "answered" the
> call.  The next time, I heard the click of a receiver being picked up
> (even though the ringing continued).  So I said "Hello?!?", and a
> surprised voice answered through the ringing "Hello?".  At that point
> the recording came on, the background noise went away, and I was
> unable to speak to the other party anymore.

You'll really love this.  I've been getting calls from the recording!
I came home last night and I had about thirty calls on my answering
machine.  Each one was the message above!  Most of them cut off early,
I assume as the caller hung up.

I guess when someone makes a call which should result in the
recording, the call actually was getting placed to someone who is
rung, may or may not answer, then both parties get the priviledge of
hearing the message.

I hope they get the bugs fixed, or I may call their service dept and
play the tape for them ... the whole tape!


John Hall    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 16 Jan 92  17:04:04
Subject: Re: Phone Number Verification


[e-mail] (Andrew White) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Steven A Rubin) writes:

>> A while ago someone posted the possible numbers to call that would
>> connect you to a computer generated voice that would read back the
>> phone number from which you are calling.

> Try 410-xxx-xxxx where xxx-xxxx is any valid phone number.  (eg,
> 222-2222).  This works in both the 314 (St.Louis, MO) and 215
> (Philadelphia, PA) area.

    410 is a perfectly valid area code for Eastern Maryland. I tried
410/222-2222 as you suggested, and heard:

   You have reached a non-working number for the Anne Arundel County
   Government. For assistance, please dial 222-7000.

Anne Arundel County is Southeast of the Washington Metro area, along
the Chesapeake.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #49
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24880;
          19 Jan 92 23:56 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23366
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 22:13:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28703
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 22:12:38 -0600
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 22:12:38 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #50

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Jan 92 22:12:16 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 50

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phone Number Verification (Stan Brown)
    Re: Zip + 6? (Jack Decker)
    Re: America's Future (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Dave Levenson)
    Re: PC Based PBX (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low (Tom Streeter)
    Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low (John Higdon)
    Re: Cellular Prices Go Up (Bob Frankston)
    Re: Radio Shack Two Line Box With Conference Wanted (Dave Cantor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 17:33:38 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: Phone Number Verification
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Andrew White) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Steven A Rubin) writes:

>> A while ago someone posted the possible numbers to call that would
>> connect you to a computer generated voice that would read back the
>> phone number from which you are calling.

> Try 410-xxx-xxxx where xxx-xxxx is any valid phone number.  (eg,
> 222-2222).  This works in both the 314 (St.Louis, MO) and 215
> (Philadelphia, PA) area.

How can this be? I asked myself.  410 is a valid area code (Eastern
Maryland).  Sure enough, when I tried this (calling from 216 371-xxxx
to 410 371-xxxx) I got the three-tone intercept with "You must first
dial a 1 when calling this number."


Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems,  Cleveland, Ohio, USA  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 16:33:58 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Zip + 6?


In message <[e-mail]> dated 10 Jan 92 14:41:00
GMT, [e-mail] writes:

> As addresses creep up to 11 digits, has the Post Office heard about
> checksums or other techniques to reduce errors?

And Pat (the Moderator) comments:

> [Moderator's Note: Have you really heard something saying the present
> zip code (five digits plus four optional) is being increased by two
> more optional digits?  PAT]

YES! Contact the National Address Information Center, United States
Postal Service, 6060 Primacy Pky Ste 101, Memphis TN 38188-0001,
telephone [phone] and ask for a copy of "Bar Code Update"
(which includes the "Barcoding Update Addendum" from Postal Bulletin
21788 dated 5-2-91).  The 11 digit bar code is called the "Advanced
Bar Code" (ABC).  The update has this to say about the ABC:

"In general, for residence addresses, it is implemented by appending
the ZIP + 4 code with the two least significant digits (last two
digits) of the house number which is referred to as the delivery
point.  The resultant code is the "C PRIME" or "C' Field" comprised of
eleven digits plus the correction character and framing bars to make
up the 62-Bar Field.  In the case of single digit house numbers, the
proper ABC add-on is produced by adding a zero in front of the house
number..."  The update gives additional examples, exceptions, etc.

BTW, if any programmers would like a BASIC (Microsoft IBM
QBASIC/QuickBASIC) routine to print bar codes (actually, to calculate
the sequence of long/short bars to be printed for any postal code --
the codes to print the actual long and short bars must be placed in
string variables, since they vary from printer to printer), I have one
here.  I realize that this may not be of much use to the 'C'
programmers out there, but I think some mailing list programs are
still being written in BASIC!  :-)

(Sorry this isn't more telecom-related, but I'm just replying to Pat's
question, and I DID give an 800 number up there somewhere!  Just to
make this a little more on topic, I'll wonder aloud if the increasing
use of FAX machines is putting any serious dent into the post office's
business).


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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 02:34:08 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: America's Future
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jack
Decker) writes:

> In a message dated 9 Jan 92 16:16:08 GMT, [e-mail]
> (John R. Levine) writes:

>> In yesterday's {Boston Globe} there is a full page back of the section
>> ad in the same disinformation campaign.  This one shows a sick baby in
>> a house in a remote area, and tells lies about how remote diagnosis
>> would be possible except the congress wants to make it illegal.

>> It looks like it's time to make the RBOCs divest their telephone
>> business; they're clearly not fit to run it themselves.

> I wonder if an official complaint to the federal Department of Justice
> regarding false and misleading advertising would be helpful.  For
> various reasons, I would think the feds might be interested in
> outright lies in ads designed to influence public opinion.

   This is not advertising. They are not soliciting business for a
product/service offering. This is politics and they are exercising
their freedom of speech in a way they are well able to afford off our
rate backs. If we start making deception in politics into a crime, we
are going to need a hell of a lot more jails, judges, and juries ...

   The only legal issue that would seem to be here is whether the ads
are being paid for out of the operating expense rate-base or out of
corporate profits (thus affecting only stockholders) and that would be
a matter for the PUC's, not the Justice Dept or even the FTC. I don't
think the FCC has much jurisdiction in these areas over the RBOC's.

    It's just some of that 'read my tips (and rings)' good-old
American political propogandizing.


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered
Date: 17 Jan 92 12:35:06 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joe
Talbot) writes:

[regarding far-end supervision]

> The PBX isn't the problem here. In North America "modern" CO switches
> don't pass answer supervision back to the subscriber. (On older

In most 'modern' CO switches in use in North America, answer
supervision is available as an extra-cost tariffed service.  Most PBX
owners don't buy it.


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] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: PC Based PBX
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 14:30:37 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter da
> Silva) writes:

>> Not directly telecom related, but doing my part to fight low-quality
>> hardware. Besides, you might want to interact with some other card to
>> provide an interface they never thought of.

> Like maybe a UNIX driver and API?

Maybe. The thought *had* crossed my mind.

Or, for an application like this where you want real-time response,
how about a QNX, OS/9000, etc ... interface?


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]|1032 2400/n/8/1.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Streeter)
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 17:06:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich
Greenberg) writes:

[description of ad decrying phone company involvement in other info
services deleted]

> The sponsors are:  American Newspaper Publishers Assn.
>                    Consumer Federation of America
>                    Electronic Publishing Group
>                    Graphic Communications International Union
>                    Io Publishing
>                    National Cable Television Assn.
>                    National Newspaper Assn.
>                    Toward Utility Rate Normalization (a consumer group)
>                    Weatherline inc.
>
> They give an number for further information:  800-547-7482.

I'm teaching a media economics class, and I thought it might be
interesting to have some information sent (I've never outgrown
show-and-tell after all this time).  I wasn't prepared for what I
heard, but I would encourage you to call just to hear the pitch (and
the way it's delivered).  I'd not encountered anything quite this
sophisticated, and I'd be interested in knowing how common this is.

The call is answered electronically.  There was little detectable
noise (just a bit of hiss -- not much), and a very pleasant female
voice thanks you for calling "1-800-54-PRIVACY" (sic). She then
launches into a spiel about how the phone companies are essentially
evil, and we, as right-thinking citizens, should do everything
possible to stop this (non-specific) evil.  I should note, for the
record, that the word 'evil' is not used -- just my editorial comment.

There comes a point that 'she' asks to mail me an 'action kit.'  This
is the part that interested me so much.  It asks for your name, but
gives no sort of cue to signal you to speak.  It obviously detects a
period of silence, because it then goes on to ask for your mailing
address, affiliation, and such things.  I found the lack of cues a
little bit odd, be cause I *knew* I was talking to a machine, and I'm
used to having those machines 'act' a certain way.

The pitch ended with a homily on how they really didn't *have* to ask
me all those questions because the evil phone company had ways to
access all sorts of information, but they (identified by nothing more
than 1 - 800-54-PRIVACY), being pure, wouldn't want to do such a
thing.  In illustrating how *much* info could be collected, the
machine assured me that the phone comapny could collect more
information on me than the IRS.  The it asked me if I opposed these
actions of the phone comapny (which actions?  what company?) and
whether or not Congress should put a stop to such things (again,
without being specific).

In retrospect, the pitch was standard interest-group hysteria (written
pretty well, though), and I could see someone coming away from the
presentation disturbed about 'phone comapnies.' On the other hand, I
wonder if someone who wuld be susceptible to such a pitch would be the
type of person who would respond well to the technical sophistication
of the experience.  Now I just called a few minutes ago and haven't
had time to think this all the way out, but it seems that the approach
taken by this group could actually scare people off.  The voice asks a
question and then falls silent waiting for an answer (I didn't try not
answering to see what sort of prompts I'd get).

It seems to me that the sort of person who gets nervous talking to an
answering machine might *really* hate this.  Much of the appeal of the
whole pitch is predicated on fearing technology, yet the pitch itself
might be wrapped up in a scary experience.  I'd be interested in
gettings others' comments on this, and will be happy to summarize if
there's interest.  I'd also be interested in knowing if the system
being employed is common, or whether it's a new wrinkle.  I'm very
familiar with menu-driven systems, but this is the first time I've had
experience with one that integrates voice responses.  That may say
more about me than anything else ...

Thanks.


Tom Streeter                                |   [e-mail]
Dept. of Mass Communication                 |   704-251-6227
University of North Carolina at Asheville   |   Opinions expressed here are
Asheville, NC 28804                         |   mine alone.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 01:38 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low


[e-mail] (Rich Greenberg) writes:

> Today, the worm has turned.  In today's (1/14/92) {LA Times} on the
> back page of section 1 is an ad that refutes the Bell's claims.

The {LA Times} has lashed out before. But in this last Sunday's {San
Francisco Examiner} (what we Chronicle subscribers get on Sunday),
there was a full page article complete with sidebar talking up the
wonders and glories that will come about when the Bells finally crank
up and get their way.

The article described a Pacific Telesis demo tape which sounds as
though it might be a replay of all the futuristic stuff we heard about
in the fifties: video phones, on-line shopping, airline booking, etc.,
etc. The author distainfully referred to the "high visibility campain"
by newspapers, cable companies, and others who would be adversely
affected by the new services to get legislators to "undo the recent
court actions". But, the author explains, the Bells will ultimately
prevail.

The article had the flavor of an advertisement for Pacific Telesis. It
praised the "forward looking approach" of the company and said that
the telephone company arm (Pacific Bell) was perfectly suited to the
"high tech area" that it served because it was so progressive and
advanced [suppressed vomiting]. Among the wonderous services to come
our way: delayed fax, e-mail, and pagers that give weather reports.
"Why some day, Pacific Bell will make it possible for a business man
to have his office e-mail forwarded to a hotel fax machine when he is
out of town."  [Gee, Mr. Wizard, I can already do that with a .forward
in my directory, but it does not sound really impressive to the
masses.]

The only explanation I can come up with for a newspaper to give this
kind of free advertising to the enemy is that a deal is in the works,
or has been concluded. I am speaking of the sort of deal that would
involve the newspaper in actually providing the raw information under
contract to the operating company, who in turn resells it via some
means to the end-users. An arrangement such as this effectively shuts
out all other comers and guarantees the lock of the RBOC on the
industry. For those of you who do not know, the Examiner is a Hearst
publication.

But now, back to the planet Earth. Checking with my sources, the
wonderfully advanced and well-positioned Pacific Bell will be offering
CLASS services MAYBE in May of this year. ISDN? No dates. But little
Susie getting a brain transplant via videophone? Why, that's just
around the corner IF you browbeat your Congressman into "letting it
happen".


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

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Prices Go Up
Date: Fri 17 Jan 1992 11:21 -0500


Perhaps we have it backwards.  Maybe lifeline service should only be
for cellular phones and not wired phones except in areas where there
are sufficient free pairs.  After all, it costs a lot to bring wires
out to a site and to provide sufficient line cards in the CO.  (What
is the cost of a line card (commercial pricing) vs a cellular phone
(consumer pricing?))

Of course, if someone actually uses the phone, then the economics change.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 08:35:20 PST
From: Dave Cantor  17-Jan-1992 1131 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Two Line Box With Conference Wanted


In TELECOM Digest 12:42, Michael Rosen <[e-mail].
unc.edu> writes:

> J&R Music World (1-800-221-8180) has a few devices on page 63 of their
> current catalog, under Telephone Accessories.

> The first is the Recoton T-73 Two-Line Console: "Allows a single line
> phone to work as a two-line phone.  Switch back & forth between lines.
> Hold with red & green LED's $19.95."  I don't know if it does
> conference or not, it is not mentioned.

I called J & R today.  The person who answered the phone found that
item in the catalog, but, alas, it is discontinued, and they don't
have any in stock.


Dave C.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #50
*****************************